atkins case woodcraft versus kinaston June where the tenor of a record instead  of the record itself be remove by certiorari out of a inferior court it be  erroneous as no proceed can he have upon it a motion be make at the last seal  to quash or supersede a writ of certiorari which issue out of this court to  remove a plaint of replevin in the mayor court of the city of London the writ  be direct to the mayor and sheriff of London we Willing for certain cause to  be certify upon the tenor and record of the process of a certain plaint what  be before yond in your court without our writ between George woodcraft  gentleman and Andrew kinaston of the good and chattel of the say George unjust  take and detain as it be say do command you that distinct and plain you send  the tenor of the record and process of the say plaint with all thing touch the  same by whatsoever name the party in the say plaint be call under your seal to  we in our chancery from the day of easter in fifteen day next ensue  wheresoever it shall then be and this writ witness ourselves at Westminster  February in the that year of our reign Mr caldecot object t the last seal that  this writ be bad because the tenor of the record be only direct to be remove  and not the record itself Lord chancellor have take time to consider it say  where a replevin be in a court of record you may remove it by certiorari issue  either out of the court of king bench or this court thesau breg f n b to edit  atkins er p as to the exception that it be not to remove the record and  process but the tenor I think the writ be erroneous for this reason there be a  great difference between the record itself and the tenor for this be only a  transcript or copy indeed it must be literal but still it be only a transcript  and as this be a certiorari to remove a record out of a inferior court in  order to be proceed upon in a superior court it ought to be the for record for  otherwise no proceed can he have upon it there be a difference between a  habeas corpus and a certiorari that remove the body cum causan and then you  must begin in the superior court and declare de to make new but on a  certiorari you must proceed on the record as it stand when remove atkins there  be another difference between certioraries themselves this present writ be  frame I believe from certioraries bring for another purpose for the precedent  find in the cursitor book which I look into be such and they be in order only  to use the record as evidence for if nul tiel record be plead the court can  have the record but by certiorari and then the tenor if return be sufficient  as evidence of the record and will countervail the plea of nul tiel record but  when the record be to be proceed upon the record itself must be return f n b  in the note a register b there be no difference when the proceed upon the  record be to be remove whether it be before judgement or after in both case  the record itself must be remove if it be not so this consequence will follow  that by send for the tenor of the record the inferior court will be tie up and  yet the superior court can not proceed salk owner queen versus paroch saint  mary in the devise pasch Ann b r salk on a certiorari to return a order it be  return pron  interrog  indeed tenor sequitar in hc word and it be quash for  this reason dominus king versus north hill W b b salk per holt Ch I it be a  error in the clerk in London that upon a certiorari they return only a  transcript as if the record remain below for in c b though they do not return  the very individual record yet the transcript be return as if it be the record  and so it be in judgement at law from these authority I think this certificate  be erroneous and if I send it to the common plea by mittimus this exception  may be take there and give great delay the question then be whether I ought to  quash or supersede this writ and I be of opinion that I can quash it but must  supersede it for I can quash but on a view of the record itself and so must  wait for the return vide Ogyer v Heywood Amb weaver company v Haywood post vol  this come in question in the great case of sir Joseph sharp and the mayor  alderman and commonalty of London in the latter end of queen Ann s time in the  court of king bench a mandamus issue to they by corporate name and before the  return it be move to quash it because misdirect for that it ought to have be  to the mayor and alderman only this be argue and the judge differ in opinion  but Mr justice Eyre take a objection that the court can not quash the writ  because it be not before they as not be return and that it must be a  supersedeas only atkins and the whole court be unanimous of that opinion in  this respect though they disarm in other point let the writ be supersede and a  procedendo award