case the king against foul the cause of excommunication must be particular  specify not only in the significavit but in the writ of excommunicate to take  in hand S c salk S c holt S c fort S c ld ray a writ of excommunicate to take  in hand which do not specify the particular cause for which the party be  excommunicate but only if or subtraction of tithe and other ecclesiastical due  may be quash on a habeas corpus foul be bring up by habeas corpus be take up  upon a excommunicate to take in hand return in this court by which it appear  that the significavit be pro substractione no  sive another the juice of the  purple ecclesiasticor a see Reg v Belzun Mod beg v ware Const king v limehouse  Foley king v Chichester Foley king v Welsh Const king v Goodcheap term Rep  modern report er p Northey move to have he discharge for that the cause which  ought to appear certain in the significavit be altogether uncertain by the  sive another c a holt chief justice the writ of excommunication need not  specify the cause but be well general pro stubbornness b but the significavit  ought to express the cause but since the statute of Elizabeth c by which the  writ be first to be bring into this court and to be deliver of record to the  sheriff who be to return it hither the cause ought to appear special in the  writ because otherwise the court can know how to follow the direction of the  statute but the doubt be whether the court can quash the writ here for this  uncertainty or whether the party shall not go into chancery where the  significavit which be only recite in the writ be and move there to have the  writ supersede because erronice to flow out and as to that Northey argue that  the statute by direct the capias to be deliver to the officer of record here  and return here do impliedly give the court power over it vide cro cro car  just Jo more holt chief justice I will see precedent since the statute whether  the form of the writ be change since as it be reasonable it shall that the  court may proceed or not accord as it seem to they proper on the face of the  writ and if the writ be have and by the statute make returnable here it be fit  we shall have power over it for when a writ be go out of chancery returnable  in another court that court wherein it be returnable be the judge of the  validity of it and therefore modern report we ought to have the writ itself  here and if it prove not good to quash it because minus sufficient in lege and  then send a supersedeas to the sheriff but this ought not to be upon a habeas  corpus but upon the return of the writ by the sheriff indeed there have be  several discharge upon a habeas corpus for one of the nine case within the  statute but whether that shall be upon plea plead or on motion be a shake  qucestio and at another day precedent be produce pro and con et rot general  same year rot special cause mention et rot James rot Hilary term car rot some  as here other with a aliorumque the juice of the purple ecclesiastical and at  last he say be think they be wrong upon the habeas corpus because it be a good  return to a habeas corpus that he be commit upon a excommunicate to take in  hand without any more and let the writ be quash nisi in a week and supersedeas  nisi and that be the rule note while this matter be under debate the party be  bail