burrow king vers Fonseca b wed that Nov recognizance to remove a indictment  from a court of oyer and terminer be a recognizance at commonlaw not within W  and m c S and may be discharge without cost Mr Norton on behalf of the  prosecutor show cause against discharge the defendant recognizance this be a  recognizance enter into by the defendant and two other person upon his remove  this indictment which be for a assault with intent to ravish from hicks hall  where it be original find the defendant have be try convict and fine in this  court and have pay his fine after which Mr Morton have move to discharge the  defendant recognizance it be a recognizance at commonlaw and all the term of  it have be comply with for he insist saint that it be not within the statute  of W m c be from the court of oyer and terminer not from the session and this  statute relate only to indictment find at the session dly that the principal  be here bind as well as the security therefore also it be not within the say  Act which require only two manucaptors without the principal dly the sum be  also different for it be not a recognizance in but in himself and each  security therefore for this reason too it be not within the say Act in proof  of which he cite salk queen v ewer where a to know facias be bring on a  recognizance take before a judge upon grant a certiorari to remove a  indictment from the session of the peace in the sum of whereas the sum  prescribe by the statute be and Lord Ch I holt hold this recognizance to be  good at commonlaw but not to be a recognizance accord to this statute m g b r  king v Sidney SC strange I be also cite and rely upon by he as in point to the  present case in answer to which Mr Norton urge first that the court at hicks  hall be both a court of oyer and terminer and also a court of quarter session  and as to the burrow d and d objection the defendant have avail himself of  this recognizance and have upon it remove the record and therefore he ought to  be bind by it as by a proper recognizance and Sidney case be he say upon  different circumstance here he be not to depart the court without leave  therefore the court will first a see durn durn b see Sayers law of cost Edward  burrow er p oblige he to do we justice and pay the cost in the same manner as  if the recognizance have be regular take under this Act N B the session at  hicks hall sit in both capacity videlicet of session of the peace and also of  oyer and terminer and they draw up their order with the one title or with the  other accord to the degree of the offence videlicet common assault and offence  of a low nature under the title of the court of session and assault with  intent to ravish riot c and offence of a high nature under the title of a  court of oyer and terminer and the certiorar be direct accord and the present  certiorari be direct to they as a court of oyer and terminer the court look  upon the case of king v Sidney to be in point a and accord Mr Norton rule for  discharge the defendant recognizance be make absolute vide post p king v lion