case fazakerly against Baldoe on a return to a habeas corpus ground on a  custom of London the court will first order the return to be file for the  purpose of controvert the custom in a action for a false return a procedendo  may be grant to the mayor court of London after the return to a habeas corpus  bring by a person commit for nonpayment of a penalty under a bylaw of the city  have be file in the superior court although the usual practice be to award the  procedendo without fill the writ S c salk S c holt upon a return of a habeas  corpus from London a bylaw be set forth lie a certain penalty upon any freeman  that shall sell good usual sell by weight not have weigh they by the city beam  see Cuddon v provost ante a ground upon such a custom in London Parker and  Eyre now move to have the return file for that without it be file the  defendant can not bring a action of false return and then there will be no way  to controvert the be of such a custom so they may return what custom they  please false et impune and as to the objection that after the return file  there can not be a procedendo they answer first that true it be a record once  file in that court shall never be send back but that be to be understand in  another term but in the same term it come in it may lev roll Rep b second  though it be true that a record once file here can not be send back the same  term yet this be a return of a habeas corpus which remove not the record nor  any of the proceed below but only certify a history or tenor of the record the  fill thereof can hinder the court from award a procedendo to enable they to  proceed below keb a and if the plaintiff will proceed here above he must begin  de to make new with a new bill against he in custodian mareschalli see Davis v  James term Rep Tidds pract b holt chief justice the practice have always be in  this court to award a procedendo without fill the return but the question be  whether the fill the return will be a hindrance to our grant a procedendo it  be true that by habeas corpus all proceed below be suspend until the court  have determine of the right of the cause of detainer upon the return and if  they have proceed below in modern er p the mean time it will be all void and  coramnon judge so that it will be necessary to award a procedendo to untie  their hand below but why we may not grant a procedendo after the return file I  can see for there be a difference in this respect between a habeas corpus and  a certiorari upon a habeas corpus we have not the record itself here as we  have upon a certiorari and where a record be remove hither and file here it  shall never be send back not even in the same term in any case whatever except  in the case of felony and that by the statute of Henry c whereby if one remove  modern his indictment for felony up hither we may remand he back after it be  file to the county where it be to be try by the judge of gaol delivery there  if we grant a habeas corpus to bring up a prisoner charge criminal from  Newgate and the return be file yet if we adjudge the return good we remand the  prisoner and the jurisdiction of the judge of gaol delivery which be suspend  by the habeas corpus be revive by the remand he back but upon a writ of error  of a fine the very fine be never certify hither but only a transcript of itSee  SC salk c and if the court adjudge it erroneous they send a certiorari to the  chirographer to certify the fine itself and it be actual cancel here and after  they have take time to consider per curian it be file and a procedendo award  but except upon return from the city of London the court will not enter into  the consideration of the validity of a bylaw upon the return to a habeas  corpus Ballard v Bennet burr d