this a Question that refers to Judgment They Object again that the Sheriff may give an Oath concerning all the Qualifications and he is to look no further I Answer the Statute hath given the Sheriff power to give an Oath in assistance of him but the Statute doth not say that whosoever takes that Oath shall have a Voice Neither does the Stat. 23 Hen. 6. say that the Sheriff shall not be charged with a false Retorn that pursues that way So that although he may use those means for his Direction yet he must consider his own Safety not to make a false Retorn If a Man upon taking such Oath give a special Answer or it should be known to the Sheriff that he swears false the Sheriff must determine according to his own Judgment and not by what is sworn It may be hence concluded that the Sheriff as to the declaring the Majority is a Judge And if so my next Assertion is That there is the same Reason he should be free from Action as any Judge in Westminster-hall or any other Judge Does it not import the Publick that the Sheriff should deal Uprightly and Impartially Ought he not to have Courage and for that end should not the Laws provide him Security Consider his Disadvantages What a Noise and Croud accompany such Elections What Importunity Nay what Violence there is upon him from the contesting Parties We may say no other Judge has more need of Courage and Resolution to manage himself and determine uprightly than he No other Judge determines in a Case of greater Consequence to the Publick or Difficulty than he Expose him to such Actions and in most Elections he must have trouble for commonly each Party is confident of his Strength and his Conduct and his Friends that let the Sheriff return never so uprightly the Party that is rejected will revenge it by a Suit especially if he may Sue at Common Law to have boundless Damages without running any hazard himself but of the loss of his Costs If we Judges that find our selves secure from Actions should not be tender of others that are in the same Circumstances it may be well said Wo unto you for you impose heavy Burthens upon others that will not bear the least of them your selves My second Reason is because it is alieni fori either to examine the right of Election or behaviour of the Sheriff both which are incident and indeed the only Considerations that can guide in the Tryal of such Causes if they be allowed It is admitted that the Parliament is the only proper Judicature to determine the right of Election and to censure the behaviour of the Sheriff How can the Common Law try a Cause that cannot determine of those things without which the Cause cannot be tryed No Action upon the Case will lye for breach of a Trust because the determination of the Principal thing the Trust does not belong to the Common Law but to the Court of Chancery certainly the Reason of the Case at Bar is stronger as the Parliament ought to have more Reverence than the Court of Chancery They Object that it may be tryed after the Parliament hath decided the Election for then that which the Common Law could not try is determined and the Parliament cannot give the Party the Costs he is put unto Then I perceive they would have the determination of the Parliament binding to the Sheriff in the Action which it cannot be for that it is between other Parties to which the Sheriff is not called It is against the course of Law that any Judgment Decree or Proceeding betwixt other Parties should bind the Interest of or any way conclude a Third Person No more ought it to do here It may be easie for Parties combining to represent a Case so to the Parliament that the Right of Election may appear either way as the Parties please Is is fit that the Sheriff who is not admitted to controvert such Determination should be concluded by it in an Action brought against him to make him pay the Reckoning Did the Parliament believe when they determined this Election that they passed Sentence against the Sheriff upon which he must pay 800 l. Sure if they had imagined so they would nay in Justice they ought to have heard his Defence before they determine it And yet that was the measure of this Case the Sheriff was not heard in Parliament indeed he was not blamed there and yet upon the Tryal which concerned him so deeply he was not allowed to defend himself by shewing any Majority or Equality of Voices the Parliament having determined the Election I do not by these Reflections tax the Law of injustice or the Course of Parliament of inconveniency I am an Admirer of the Methods of both it is from the Excellency of them I conclude this proceeding in this new-fangled Action being absurd unjust and unreasonable cannot be Legal To answer the other Branch of this Objection I say it does not follow that because the Parliament cannot give Costs therefore this new devised Action must lye to help the Party to them For then such an Action might lye in all Cases where there is a Wrong to be remedied by course of Law and no Costs are given for it At the Common Law no Costs were given in any Case and many Cases remain at this day where the Statutes have given no Costs as in a Prohibition Scire facias and Quare impedit and divers other Cases and yet no Action will lye to recover those Costs And why should it lye in the Case at Bar In this Case the Parliament have already had it under their Consideration in the Statute 23 Hen. 6. and have appointed what shall be paid by the Sheriff that offends sc 100 l. to the King and Imprisonment The Parliament have Stated what shall be paid for Compensation and what for Punishment and would have provided for Costs it they had thought fit My third Reason is because a double Retorn is a lawfull Means for the Sheriff to perform his Duty in doubtfull Cases If this be so then all Aggravations of falso malitiose scienter will not make the thing Actionable for whatever a Man may do for his Safety cannot be the Ground of an Action There is sometimes Dam ' absque injuria though the thing be done on purpose to bring a loss upon another without any design of benefit to himself As if a New house be erected contiguous to my Ground I may build any thing on purpose to blind the Lights of the New house and no Action will accrue though the Malice were never so great much less will an Action lye where a Man acts for his own Safety If a Jury will find a Special Verdict If a Judge will advise and take time to consider If a Bishop will delay a Patron and impannel a Jury to Enquire of the Right of Patronage you cannot bring an Action for these Delays though you
practice hath been hitherto to receive double Retorns which therefore in some Cases must be Lawfull and in this very Case the double Retorn was accepted and the Sheriff no way punished for it which he ought to have been if he had been blameable If double Retorns are accepted by the Parliament they are allowed and we must say they are Lawfull which is the ground of my third Reason for which I hold this Action not maintainable My Fourth Reason is that there is no legal Damage occasioned by the Sheriff The Damages laid in the Declaration are First Being kept from Sitting in the House Secondly The Pains and Charges he was put unto to get into the House First That of his being kept from Sitting in the House is as much every Man's Damage in the whole County nay in the whole Kingdom and any Man else might as well have an Action for it as the Member chosen To sit in Parliament is a Service in the Member for the benefit of the King and Kingdom and not for the particular profit of the Member It is a Rule in Law that no particular Man may bring an Action for a Nusance to the King's High-way because all Men in England might as well have Actions which would be infinite and therefore such an Offence is punishable only by Indictment except there be a special Loss occasioned by that Nusance For the same Reason the exclusion of a Member from the House being as much Damage to all Men in England as to himself he nor any Man else in England can have an Action for it but is punishable upon the publick Score and no otherwise For this Reason was the Stat. 23 H. 6. wisely considered By that Statute the Action is not given to the Party for his particular Damage but the Action given is a popular Action only the Party grieved hath a preference for Six months but if he do not Sue for that time every Man else is at Liberty to recover the same Sum. The other point of Damage is the Pains and Charges he was put unto and that is not occasioned by the Sheriff but by the deliberation of the House Why should the Sheriff pay for that It may be if the Parliament had sent for the Sheriff the first day and blamed the double Retorn he would have ventured to determine the matter speedily and there should have been no cause of Complaint for delay But the Parliament saw so much Cause of doubt that they think it not fit to put the Sheriff to determine but resolve to examine the matter and give him directions that may guide him in amending his Retorn thereupon they give day to the Parties on both sides and finding the matter of long Examination and Difficult they deliberate upon it It seems very unreasonable the Sheriff should be made pay for this which he did not occasion but was a course taken by the Parliament for their own Satisfaction who found no fault in the Sheriff for putting them to all that trouble Suppose Sir Samuel Barnardiston had been retorned alone and the Lord Huntingtowr had petitioned against that Retorn there had been the same Charge to have defended the Retorn So it was the contest of the opposite Party that occasioned the Charge the deliberation of the Parliament that occasioned the Delay but neither of them can be imputed to the Sheriff I cannot difference this Case from the Case of bringing an Action against a Jury for malitiously and knowingly and on purpose to put the Party to Charges finding a matter Specially whereby great Delay and great Expences were before the Party could obtain Judgment and yet I think no Man will affirm that an Action will lye in that Case In this Case the Damages are found entire So that if both parts sc the not Sitting in the House and the Pains and Charges are not Actionable causes of Damage it will be intended the Jury gave for both and so the Judgment is for that Cause erronious I suppose the Wages of Parliament will not be mentioned for Damage for in most places they are only Imaginary being not demanded but if there were to be any Consideration of them it will not alter this Case for upon this Retorn they are due as from the first day and so no Damage can be pretended upon that score My Fifth Reason is drawn from the Stat. 23 H. 6. which has been so often mentioned that Statute is a great Evidence to me that no Action lay by the Common Law against a Sheriff for a false Retorn of a Writ of Election to the Parliament and this Evidence is much strengthened by the Observation that hath been made that never any Action was brought otherwise than upon that Statute I must admit that if an Action lay by the Common Law this Statute doth not take it away for there are no negative Words in the Statute but it is not likely that the Parliament would have made that Law if there had been any Remedy for the Party before The Statute observes that some Laws had been made before for preventing false Retorns but there was not convenient Remedy provided for the Party grieved and therefore gives him an Action for 100 l. If the Courts of Justice had by the Common Laws Jurisdiction to examine Misdemeanors concerning the Retorns of Sheriffs to the Parliament what needed the Parliament to be so elaborate to provide Law after Law to give them Power therein and at last to give the Party grieved an Action can any Man imagaine but that the Parliament took the Law to be that the Party was without Remedy I know preambles of Acts of Parliament are not always Gospel but it becomes us I am sure to have respect to them and not to impute any falsity or failing to them especially where constant usage speaks for them It has been Objected that in these times it was reckoned a Damage to be Retorned to serve in Parliament which is the reason that no Man then did bring his Action against the Sheriff for Retorning another in his stead This cannot be true for the Statute calls him the Party grieved and is carefull to provide convenient Remedy for him and we see by the many Statutes about those Times that it was a mischief very frequent and there wanted not occasion for those Actions which doth extreamly strengthen the Argument of the Non user of this pretended Common Law. An Action upon the Case where it may be brought is a Plaister that fits it self for all Times and for all Sores and if such an Action might then have been brought there was no need for the Parliament to provide a convenient Remedy By Littletons Rule often mentioned by my Brothers we may conclude this Action will not lye for if such an Action had lain it would have been brought before this Time. In the Case of Buckley against Rice Thomas in Plowdens Commentaries 118. which appears to have been elaborately Argued at Bar and
Bench if this Common Law had been thought upon they might have prevented the Question Whether the Sheriffs of Wales were bound by the Statute of 23 H. 6. It seems plain to me that the Makers of the 23 H. 6. were ignorant of this Common Law and yet as my Brother Thurland Observes the Judges in those Times usually assisted in the Pening of the Laws The Judges and Councel in the time of Buckleyes Case were ignorant of this Common Law else it would have been mentioned in the Argument of that Case This Common Law was never revealed that I find untill a Time that there were divers other new lights I mean those Times when Nevill brought an Action for a false Retorn against Stroud during the late troubles but in these Times it could never obtain Judgment I have heard that the Court of Common Pleas sent the Record to the Parliament as a Case too difficult for the Courts of Common Law to determine This Statute of 23 H. 6. is not only Evidence that no such Action lay at the Common Law but in my Opinion is not consistent with any Remedy at the Common Law unless it be allowed that the Party shall be doubly punished If the Party grieved has brought his Action upon the Statute and recovered it was admitted by the Councel that no Action can be brought at the Common Law nor e contra can he recover by the Statute after he has recovered by the Common Law because Nemo bis punitur pro eodem delicto So far it stands well but suppose the Party grieved has let slip his Time for Three Months and then a third Person brings a popular Action and recovers 100 l. upon the Statute there is nothing can bar the Party grieved from his Action at the Common Law for his sitting still will not conclude him No Statute of Limittations extending to this Case and if it be so then the Party must besides his Fine and Imprisonment be doubly punished by this Statute which was made as the Letter of it imports because there wanted convenient Remedy And now I am Discoursing of this Statute I must observe the great Wisdom of the course of Parliament in these Cases which hath in great measure prevented the bringing of Actions against the Sheriffs even upon this Statute Where the Sheriff mistakes the Person in his Retorn he incurs the Penalty of 23 H. 6. though it be without any Malice and it may happen that where there are 21 Electors of one side and 20 of the other and the Sheriff Retorns him that hath 21 and the Parliament by adjudging an incapacity in two of the 21 may determine that he that had the 20 voices was duly chosen In such Case the Sheriff has made a false Retorn within the Penalty of the Statute 23 H. 6. and no Evidence shall be given against the Determination of the Parliament This were a very hard Case for the Sheriff and if he were liable to such Mischief many a past Sheriff might be awakened that takes himself to be Secure But the Course of Parliament prevents this as it is Reason for immediately upon their Determination they send for the Sheriff and cause him to amend his Retorn and thence forward the amended Retorn is the Sheriffs Retorn and there is no Record that can warrant any Action to be brought for a false Retorn As when the Marshal of the Kings-Bench or Warden of the Fleet have made an improvident Retorn omitting some Causes wherewith the Prisoner stood charged in their Custody whereby they become liable to Action they frequently move the Court to amend the Retorn and when the Retorn is amended all is set Right for there is no avering against a Record In like manner when the Sheriff hath amended his Retorn he is secure from any Action upon that occasion By this means there has of late years been no Recovery upon the Statute because all Persons chose rather to compel the Sheriff to amend his Retorn that they might be admitted to sit in the House then to take their Remedy upon the Statute and no Man can recover upon the Statute first and afterwards have the Retorn amended for I have been told that by the course of Parliament unless the Petition be lodged some few Days after the Retorn it cannot be received afterwards so that a Man cannot upon that Statute have Remedy at Law and also in Parliament which seems to be wisely provided to prevent any contrariety of Determinations This Statute of 23 H. 6. furnished those that argued for this occasion with one Argument which doth now vanish they said that all the inconveniencies that could be Objected to this Action were the same upon the Statute 23 H. 6. sc that upon that Statute the right of Election must be examined upon a Tryal where there might be contrariety of Determinations for it appears by what I have said that there can be no contrariety of Determinations And there are other Inconveniences in this Remedy by the Common Law which are not in the Remedy given by the Statute for by the Statute the Sum to be recovered is limitted the Informer has a time prefixed So that there are bounds set which cannot be exceeded But the Remedy by the Common Law is without limittation of time which is considerable for all Sheriffs that ever made any Retorn otherwise then the Parliament determined will be liable during their whole lives to them that will call them to Account for it I say this Case is without limittation of Time without measure of Damages or any Rules contained in a written Law it depends upon a general Notion of Remedy which may be enlarged by constructions as it is now introduced without President To finish my Observations upon this Statute I say it is great Wisdom in the Parliament to call the Sheriff to amend the Return and so prevent any Remedy against him upon the Statute of 23 H. 6. For I do not see that the Rules of Law concerning Elections are so manifestly clear and known that it is sit that the Sheriff should upon all Returns that are corrected by the Parliament pay the reckoning of the contest I have a Sixth Reason against this Action which is because the Sheriff is not admitted to take security to save him harmless in such Cases I take this reason to be instar omnium and there needs no other in the Case It were the most unreasonable and grievous thing in the World that the Sheriff should be bound to act without any deliberation and not be allowed to take any security and yet be liable to an Action which way soever he take there is no course can avoid it but this of a double Return as I have before shewn It has not been said by any that argued the other way that the Sheriff may take security and I suppose will not be said for that will be a dangerous course for Parliaments for then the most litigious man
must be returned and not he which is truly chosen If the Sheriff may not take security the Law must be his security It was an Argument used by my Brother that because the Law imposes an Officer viz. the Sheriff therefore the Law must give the party an Action against that Officer if he misdemean himself the Argument does not hold universally for the Law imposes a Judge and yet no Action lies against him but the reason of that Argument if turn'd the other way is irrefragable as thus the Law will not suffer the Sheriff to take security therefore the Law must be his security else it were a most unreasonable Law. This reason of it self is sufficient to bear the whole Case for no Case can be put in our Law nay no Case can be in any reasonable Law where a man is compellable to judge without deliberation and cannot take security and yet shall be liable to an Action I have two reasons to add upon which I lay great weight though they depend not upon any particular circumstances of this Case but the general consideration of it they are these 1. This is a New Invention 2. That it relates to the Parliament As it is a new Invention it ought to be examined very strictly and have no allowance of favour and then it will have the same fortune that many other Novelties heretofore attempted in our Law have had Actions upon the Case have sometimes been received in new Cases where it stands with the Rules of Law and no inconveniency appears but they have been more often rejected I shall instance some Cases that have been rejected because it will be manifest by them that all the Arguments and Positions laid down by my Brothers that would support the Action are as well applicable to several Cases that have been already rejected as to the Case at Bar. An Action upon the Case was brought against a Grand Jury-man for falsly and maliciously conspiring to Indict another and adjudged it would not lie An Action was brought against a Witness for testifying falsly and maliciously but adjudged that no Action would lie in those Cases These three Instances are applicable to every Argument urged for this Action the Arguments my Brothers made in depressing Falsity and Malice those which they made from the comparison of other Actions upon the Case à minore ad majus the Argument that because the Law imposes the Officer it will punish Malice these Arguments have the same force in the case of a Judge Juror or Witness and yet my Brothers admit in those Cases an Action will not lie which shews the invalidity of those Arguments Now I shall give other Instances where Actions upon the Case have been rejected for Novelty and Reasons of Inconveniency An Action of the Case was brought against the Lord of a Mannor for not admitting a Copyholder and it was adjudged it would not lie Cro. Jac. 368. There was Verdict given and Damages found by the Jury in that Case the Lord is compellable in Chancery to admit a Copyholder and what harm would it have been if there might have been remedy given by the Common Law there being a Custom broken by which the Lord was bound The Reasons of the Book are because it was a Novelty and it would be vexatious if every Copyholder should have an Action against the Lord when he refused to admit him upon his own terms It hath been adjudged that an Action upon the Case will not lie for the breach of a Trust because the Common Law cannot try what a Trust is but if such Actions were allowed the Law might declare that to be a Trust which the Court of Chancery that properly judges of Trusts might say is none and where the Common Law cannot examine the principal Matter the Damages that are but dependant upon it shall not be regarded Anthony Maddison brought an Action against Skipwith for maliciously killing Sir Thomas Wortley The Case was thus The Plaintiff was a young Lawyer that had expended all his Gains in the Purchase of a Rent that was determinable upon the death of Sir Thomas Wortley Skipwith quarrelled with Sir Thomas in the Streets about a Mistriss and killed him whereby Maddison lost his Rent It was held the Action would not lie though it were laid to be done maliciously and on purpose to determine the Paintiff's Rent I observed in that Case that although Mr. Maddison knew very well there was a Mistriss in the case and that his Rent was not aimed at yet he would fain try his fortune in the Suit thinking that perhaps a Jury out of compassion to him or to discourage the like Facts might make the Manslayer pay him for his loss But the Judges would not suffer it to go on it being a meer device and new-fangled Action It hath been held that an Action will not lie against a person for suing for Tithes in kind knowing that there was a Modus because it might then be perilous for any person to insist upon his right It was held by the Court of Common-Pleas that no Action will lie for suing an Attorney knowingly in another Court against his Priviledge for his means to enjoy his Priviledge is by Writ of Priviledge and he is not bound to claim his Priviledge nor can his adversary know he will claim it An Action was lately brought in the Kings-Bench as I heard for delaying a Post-Letter maliciously whereby the Plaintiff wanted Intelligence that might have been of great advantage to him The Court discountenanced the Action so that it proceeded no further It was then said as I heard to this effect That if such Precedents were admitted there could hardly be any dealing or correspondence but might be matter for Actions at Law and although the Case depended upon proof of particular malice and the Defendant will be acquitted if his case be not odious yet we must consider that there is both charge and vexation of mind that attends the defence of a just Cause and we must not subject men for all their actions to such trouble and hazard These Instances shew that although an Action upon the Case be esteemed a Catholicon yet when Actions have been applied to new Cases they have been always strictly examined and upon considerations of Justice or conveniency they have been many times rejected For though the Law advances Remedies as my Brothers observed yet it is with consideration that Vexation be not more advanced than Remedy It is my opinion that no new Device ever was or can be introduced into the Law but absurdities and difficulties arise upon it which were not foreseen which makes me very jealous of admitting Novelties But in matters relating to the Parliament which is my second ground there is no need of introducing Novelties for the Parliament can provide new Laws to answer any Mischiefs that arise and it ought to be left to them to do it Especially in a Case of this nature concerning Elections which
The late Lord Chief Justice NORTH'S ARGUMENT In the CASE Between Sir WILLIAM SOAMES SHERIFF of SVFFOLK And Sir SAM BARNADISTON Bar. Adjudged in the COURT of Exchequer Chamber UPON A WRIT of ERROR CONTAINING The REASONS of that JUDGMENT LONDON Printed and are to be sold by Randal Taylor 1689. The late Lord Chief Justice North's Argument c. SIR Samuel Barnardiston brings an Action upon the Case in B. R. against Sir William Soame late Sheriff of Suffolk setting forth that a Writ issued for the chusing of a Knight for that County to serve in this Parliament instead of Sir Henry North deceased that at the next County Court the Freeholders proceeded to Election and although the Plaintiff was duly chosen per majorem numerum gentium tunc resident infra dict Comitat. quorum tunc quilibet expendere potuit 40 s. libri ten'ti ultra per annum infra Comitat. illud ac licet praedictus Willielmus praemissa satis sciens postea brevem praed in Cur. Cancellar returnavit simul cum quadam Indentura inter ipsum Vicecomitem praedict Electores ipsius Samuelis de praedicta Electione ipsius Samuelis fact secund Exigentiam brevis praedict praedictus tamen Willielmus ad tunc Vicecomes Officii sui debitum minime ponderans sed machinans maliriose intendens ipsum Samuelem in hac parte minus rite praegravare ac eundem Samuelem de fiducia officio unius Mil. Comitat. praedict in dict Parliamento exercend omnino frustrare deprivare Et praedict Samuelem ad diversas magnas grandes pecuniarum summas expend causare contra debitum officii sui praed falso malitiose scienter deceptive ad tunc in ead Cancellar apud Westmonast praedict retornavit una cum Indentura praedict quandam aliam Indenturam eidem brevi similiter annex specificant ' illam fore fact inter prefat Willielmum c. ex una parte diversas alias personas dict Comitat. in Indentura illa specificat continent quod dictae al. personae ut major pars totius Comitat. praedict in praedicto pleno Comitat. elegerunt quend Lionellum Talmash Bar. alias dict Lionell Dom. Huntingtowr in Regno Scotiae in loco praedicti Henrici North un Mil. Com. Suffolk praedict pro Parliamento praedicto adveniend eidem Parliamento pro Com. il Vbi revera praedictus Lionellus non fuit electus per majorem partem prout per ult Indent falso supponitur Ratione cujus quidem falsi retorn de praedicta al. Indent c. idem Samuel in Domum inferiorem pro Comitat. hujus Regni Angliae c. assemblat admitti non potuit quousque idem Samuel per petitionem suam Comitat. dicti Parliamenti pro remedio congruo exhibit post diversas ingentes denar summas in circa manifestationem verificationem dictae Electionis coram dict Comitat. expendit diversos labores in ea parte sustent postea scil c. per Comitat. in Domum Comitat. praedict admissus fuit electio ipsius Samuelis per Comitat declarat fuit fore bond unde deteriat est damnum habet ad Valenc ' 3000 l. There is a Verdict given for the Plaintiff and Damages found to the value of 800 l. and Judgment thereupon and a Writ of Error is brought to reverse that Judgment I have but little time left me to say what I have to offer it being very late and yet I must desire leave to produce these Reasons I have in maintenance of my Opinion I will be careful to detain you no longer then will be necessary And therefore I will not trouble you to State the Case again nor will I speak of any Exceptions that have been made to the Declaration for I love not the Niceties of the Law in Cases where they do prevail and in this Case I have only considered the foundations of the Action which if I had found well established upon Reason or the Grounds of Law I would have Examined what has been Objected to the Forms of the Declaration which must have brought great weight to have overturn'd those Proceedings But as to the point of the Action upon the most serious Consideration I could have of it and weighing what hath been before now and also at this time said in Support of it I am of Opinion that the Judgment ought to be reversed for that no such Action as this at Bar does lye by the Common Law. Because this is a Cause of considerable value great Damages being recovered because it is a Judgment of great Authority being upon a Cause tried at the King's Bench Bar and given upon deliberation there because it is a Case of extraordinary nature and of great import each Party pretending benefit to the Parliament by it because it is an Action primae impressionis that never was before adjudged the report of which will be listned after I have taken pains to collect and set down the Reasons that I must go upon in determining this Case That as the Judgment had the Countenance of some deliberation in the Court where it was given so the Reversal being with greater deliberation may appear grounded upon Reasons that ought to prevail I can say with my Brother Wyndham that I love rather to affirm Judgments than to reverse them but I can attribute nothing of Authority to the Judgment though it were given in a Superior Court and upon deliberation I must judge upon it as if the Case came to be Originally judged by me The Argument to support a Judgment from the Authority of its self is Exceptio ejusdem rei cujus petitur dissolutio which must not be admitted in Case of Writs of Error We are instructed to Examine and Correct the Errors of that Court and for that purpose we are made Superior to it We must proceed according to our own Knowledge and Discretion else we do not perform the Trust reposed in us I must needs say this is a Cause that imports it more than any Cause I have known come before us for it is a Cause primae impressionis and the Question is whether by this Judgment a change of the Common Law be introduced It is the principal use of Writs of Error and Appeals to hinder the change of the Law and therefore Writs of Error in our Law and Appeals in the Civil Law do carry Judgments and Decrees to be Examined by Superior Courts until they come to the highest who are intrusted that they will not change the Law. Therefore do Writs of Error lie from Ireland which is a Subordinate Kingdom to England by whose Laws it is Governed that they might not be able to change the Law by their Judgments and not so much for the particular right of the Party For otherwise it would be very easie for Judges by Construction and Interpretation to change even a Written Law and it would be most easie for the Judges of the Common Laws of