case cave against POLEWHEEL a to know facias returnable on a wrong day be a  discontinuance Jones if a writ of error in the exchequerchamber be discontinue  after the record remove the plaintiff can have a writ in person thou to sit  back but there must be a new writ of error error in the exchequerchamber of a  judgement give in the king bench in debt for six hundred pound a to know  facias be award ad to hear wandering returnable the that may James and there  be not any such day of adjournment in the exchequerchamber and therefore it be  hold clear by all the justice and baron to be a discontinuance and then it be  move that the plaintiff shall have allowance of a new writ of error in person  thou resident which be take under seal and certify and it be resolve that it  lie not for they have power to proceed by special statute and they be direct  by the statute that they shall proceed upon a writ of error award to the chief  justice of the king bench to remove the record and to reverse or affirm and  then to remand and they have not any power to award execution but that be to  be do in croak throw the king bench so when the plaintiff be nonsuit or the  writ discontinue they have no more to do with it but it shall be remand  because they have not any record before they and if it shall be permit that  they shall have a writ of error quod in person thou to sit back he may  oftentimes discontinue and afterward have another writ of error and thereby  infinite delay the plaintiff that he never shall have execution and by law he  ought to have but one supersedeas and although a precedent be show in Trinity  term Elizabeth roll giddy v sergeant heal where the writ of error be  discontinue by the non venue of the justice a and a new writ of error in  person thou to sit back bring and discontinue and afterward a second writ of  error bring and the judgement thereupon affirm and another precedent in  Michaelmas term James roll Hadright v Skirden where a writ of error be  discontinue a new writ of error be bring in person thou to sit back and  thereupon error of infancy assign and find and the judgement be reverse and  although it be affirm by Hopnill who be late clerk of the error that there be  many precedent in that kind yet all the justice and baron hold that these  precedent be without debate but for the reason before they will not allow this  writ of error and that it be not Allowable by the statute for it be a new  statute and shall not be extend and a precedent be cite tenant v forest James  where such a writ of error in person thou to sit back be bring but upon debate  disallow and it be say they have not here the record but a transcript thereof  for the record itself always remain in the king bench and forasmuch as they  may not award execution they may not admit a writ of error but accord to the  word of the statute a see car c and car c croak James er p