case the queen against bethell or porter if a defendant be convict at the  session on a indictment for a misdemeanour and a capias pro fine be issue  against he he shall not have a certiorari to remove the record and if one have  issue the court may grant a procedendo but on conviction where a writ of error  do not lie the court will in general grant a certiorari after verdict and  before judgement S c Sett Rem S c holt S c ld ray S c salk the defendant be  convict upon a indictment before justice of the peace and not be present no  judgement can be give but a capias pro fine be award and then be by a  certiorari remove up the conviction Northey attorneygeneral move for a  procedendo because he say certiorar usual go to remove indictment c before  trial but not to remove conviction for the consequence of that will be  mischievous that this court which have not try the cause can not be true  apprise of its nature shall set the fine which ought by law to bear some  proportion to the quantity of the offence but Brotherick first say that it be  very frequent to remove conviction before judgement and that in this case  there can be no inconvenience in point of set the fine for it be upon car c  the fine be ascertain thereby videlicet a year imprisonment c modern er p holt  chief justice the writ of certiorari go every day to remove conviction on  which a writ of error do not lie for that be the party only remedy and the  reason regular why conviction be remove by certiorari but certiorar have also  go where a writ of error will have lie to remove a conviction as to plead a  pardon or for other special reason see zink v Langton dougl a and he remember  a case in chief justice Scroggs time where a certiorari be send out of this  court to remove a conviction upon a indictment before judge of assize and that  the court give judgement it be for word but see king v baker Carth contra b  and there a writ of error will have lie for wherever a conviction be upon a  indictment a writ of error will lie thereof and he say the course of the crown  office be to remove judgement of attainder c by certiorari and bring a writ of  error in person we and so it be in the case of Mr Hampden and several other  but there be no such special reason in this case let a writ of procedendo go  see king v Nicholls easter term Geo that a certiorari shall not issue to  remove a indictment for a conspiracy from the session after conviction and  before judgement strange see also king v sparrow that the court will not grant  a certiorari to a defendant after he have appeal to the session pen the appeal  term Rep notorious facts dougl c and here the court say that where a statute  take notice of a commonlaw offence and add a further penalty a indictment  thereupon may well be lie to be contra form to cause to stand and that where  the Act give justice power general to determine a matter at the session it  must be accord to law and as a court