case reeves vers trindle alias trundle where the court quash all proceed on a  writ of appeal for murder the appellant may be admit to prosecute his appeal  by bill against appellee in guard mark I Str S c vin Abr title appeal oh pl  hawk p c skin Inst Ro Abr burr Bl Rep S c a appeal of murder be bring by the  plaintiff as brother and heir of Gerard reeves by writ against William trundle  returnable in the king bench a die pasch in quind die and test of Mars and on  the first day of the term the plaintiff be a infant be admit by his guardian  and because the sheriff of Sussex do not return his writ nor have the body of  the appellee in court a rule be grant against he to make a return of his writ  and on the next day videlicet the second day of the term a habeas corpus be  grant by rule of court to have the prisoner cum causan captain detention  returnable die of Mars prox post month pasch and upon the day of the return of  the habeas corpus the prisoner be bring into court and the writ of appeal and  habeas corpus with the return to they be deliver into court by the sheriff and  read and because the return to the writ of appeal be a preparation to have  which refer to the first day of the term when the writ be returnable though  the prisoner be bring into court upon the habeas corpus die mar post month  pasch the court direct that the prisoner shall be bring to the bar again by  rule two day after and in the mean time the court will consider whether it  will comens er p not be proper to return on the writ of appeal faint in prison  and to have a habeas corpus although faint returnable on a day appoint by  comens rule of court to bring the prisoner to the bar again but on  consideration it be think proper that on the writ of appeal the return shall  be a preparation to have c for the whole term be but one day in law and  therefore when the prisoner be bring into court by the sheriff that have  relation to the day of the return and though a habeas corpus be grant upon  which he be bring into court yet that be not any regular process in the action  upon which the appellee be bring into court for when he appear he appear on  the writ of appeal and a precedent be citedAnnee when holt be chief justice  where the proceed be in the same manner videlicet the writ be returnable the  first day of the term and the prisoner not be then bring into court a habeas  corpus be grant for a day subsequent and out the return of that the prisoner  come into court and the sheriff return to the writ of appeal parat to have as  here and then the prisoner be arraign and the same manner of proceed be now  approve of by the court and the prisoner be bring to the bar be arraign in  French on the writ of appeal the defendant by his counsel demand oyer of the  writ and the return and have time give he by the agreement of the party to  consider of his plea till the last day of the term on the last day of the term  the prisoner be at the bar and the appellant and his guardian be call to  appear in court the prisoner plead in abatement of the writ that his addition  of degree or mystery wasIn the report of this case in strange it be say that  the defendant plead in abatement that he be not a labourer accord to the  addition of the writ but a barber chirurgeon I Str omit and have also demand  oyer of the habeas corpus and the return demurrer to the count and plead over  to the felony but this seem to be improper for the habeas corpus be not any  process in the action neither have the appellant make any count for the  defendant be only arraign but because there be that misprision in the writ of  appeal in which the appellee be name William Trindel alias Trundel de f in  come ken without any addition for his state degree comens or mystery it be  pray that the writ and proceed thereon may be quash and that the defendant who  be before commit to the Marshalsea may be now charge by bill as in guard mark  b r for by the statute I h c in writ original appeal and indictment there must  be give to the name of the defendant the addition of his state degree or  mystery and the town or place and county where resident and if any be outlaw  when such addition be omit the outlawry shall be void and the process before  outlawry shall be abate on the exception of the party and therefore where such  omission appear to the court and the party take exception for want of such  addition the court may ex duty quash and abate the process where such omission  S and here the court quash all proceed on the writ of appeal by rule and  afterward the appellant be admit by guardian to prosecute his appeal by bill  against the appellee in guard mark and the appellee be arraign in French per  bill and the defendant have time allow he to consider of his plea till the d  day of the next term tune pro nunc for there can be no imparlanceBut neither  side bring it on for near three year the defendant now move to be bail and the  appellant say he do not oppose it say per curian we can do it he be convict of  murder and therefore we can bail he unless the appellant will actual consent  which he refuse to do the defendant be remand Str and this proceed seem to be  warrant by former case for a appeal may be pursue by writ or by bill in the  king bench Stamf pl   b Inst stat saint Henry c a h and therefore if it be  commence by writ but the proceed on the writ be annul within a year and the  party be in the custody of the marshal of the king bench the appellant may  afterward proceed against he by bill and so be the case between Watts and  brain where the appeal be by writ direct to the warden of the cinque port  returnable in the king bench against the appellee for a murder commit in the  cinque port and therefore it be direct to the warden and not to the sheriff  the writ be quash and theAppellant prosecute the appellee by bill as in the  custody of the marshal upon which bill he be try and hang cro Elizabeth Yelv    Ent so where a appellee comens be arraign upon bill before the justice of  gaoldelivery and remove here the same proceed be irregular be quash and the  prisoner be arraign de to make new by bill in guard mark pasch annae b r ld  raym holt Mod a smith versus bow vide salk Kel holt skin Carth comb Mod b  Armstrong comens er p versus Lisle salk and though it be deny when there be a  declaration against the appellee before the justice of gaoldelivery yet then  it be agree it may have be so if they have not declare so in roll Abr c  holland case cro Elizabeth where it be deny it be chief insist on as the  reason for that the appellee be not in the custody of the marshal and if there  be not a declaration by bill against he it can be