case carry against bacchus case by the bailiff of a liberty who have the  execution and return of writ against one for enter his liberty and execute a  become facias without show by what right he claim the liberty be good SC comb  Writ of error in the exchequer Chamber upon a judgement in the king bench in a  action on the case caryi declare that the franchise and liberty of return and  execute all writ bill and precept out of the court of the king and his  progenitor within the liberty of Westminster be a ancient franchise and  liberty that the plaintiff such a day be and yet be seize of the office of  bailiff of the liberty a Henry c shower KB er p aforesaid and as bailiff of  that liberty of right have and ought to have the execution and return of all  writ issue out of the king bench direct to the sheriff of Middlesex and to be  execute within that liberty except a place call the sanctuary a and the fee  and profit of such execution and return that the defendant praemissor non  ignorant without the licence and against the will of the plaintiff do break  and enter and the good of one John Easton to the value of fortynine pound by  virtue of a become facias out of the king bench returnable tali die in  execution for debt damage and cost in the writ certify to be recover do take  whereby shower KB the plaintiff lose the execution and the return of the writ  and the fee therefore due demurrer and cause show that non that this only is  apparent quo modus the plaintiff be seize of the office nor what right or  title he have thereto c judgement for the plaintiff inquiry of damage to  fortynine pound c the general error assign I argue for the plaintiff that this  declaration be ill because it do not set forth his title nor that it be a  ancient office accord to the case of Symonds v Seebourne cro car where it be  hold necessary to allege it a ancient house and ancient light and that time  out of mind the light be there a prescription be necessary to the house though  not to the person earl of Rutland v bowler palmer a prescription to the thing  but that which I insist on chief be this that a subject can be seize of the  execution and return of writ of common right without grant or prescription day  a mail can prescribe to have a return of writ because they issue out of a  court of record and no prescription can be of it for that a usage can neither  create nor support it accord to the abbot of Strata marcellam case   this be a  right not triable per pais but must commence by grant now of common right the  execution and return of all writ belong to the sheriff as in Mittons case Danv  and of this you take notice and therefore to divest that right they ought to  show how they come to it and suppose they have a grant or may prescribe yet  they ought to show their title by one or other for that prima fancy the right  be with the sheriff and none of the case that yet have be adjudge do come up  to this for in case of watercourse and light they all be find upon a  particular reason which fail in this case videlicet that the defendant act be  a stranger be tortuous and then to say to have et to have to withhold or de  jure to become used be good enough because possession be enough against a  stranger and sand v Trefuse cro car go upon this very reason of a tort b but  here of common right this belong to the sheriff and it appear by their own  show that what the defendant do be by authority from the sheriff all the  possessory action that be in this manner be against stranger who act must be  wrongful whosoever have the right and I know of do one case in the law where  this sort of declaration be ever make against he that have the common right in  the case of stranger the thing be reasonable in itself and here against we it  be as reasonable that they shall show their particular right how they come by  it pollexfen chief justice your distinction shower KB be between he that have  right and a stranger but suppose two grantee of two fair adjoin and the first  bring all action against the second c will not this declaration serve it be a  good way in all case and upon a trial the right must be prove and so it must  have be in your case if you have take issue there be no inconvenience in this  form of declare and the judgement be affirm note that the declaration in  Vidians entry upon the seven hundred in Gloucester which be sir Robert atkins  case be the foundation of this judgement a but see will c the Geo c and the  Geo c by which this place and all other of the like kind in which debtor be  privilege from arrest be abolish b villers v bell ante page and palmer v  Keblethwaite post stock v booth term Rep but see rider v smith term Rep shower  KB er p shower KB trinity term the first of William and mary in the king bench  sir John holt Knt chief justice sir William dolben Knt sir William Gregory Knt  sir Giles eyres Knt justice sir George Treby Knt attorney general sir John  summer Knt solicitor general