proper case being made; it has even in Term-time a concurrent jurisdiction with a court of law" (r).

A prohibition does not lie to an inferior court after the defendant has imparled generally (s), or pleaded there; for by so doing the defendant admits the jurisdiction. But at the instance of the King, a prohibition lies, though the defendant has pleaded. If a prohibition has been granted, the Court will issue a supersedeas, if there is an affidavit that the cause arose within the jurisdiction (t).

If a prohibition has been improperly granted, the Court will grant a supersedeas (u); but the inferior court must obey the writ, whether improperly issued or not; it has no discretion; to disobey it would be a contempt (x).

The Spiritual Court has jurisdiction over Grammar Schools; but in a case where the libel was for teaching schools generally, without saying what school, the Chancellor granted a prohibition (y).

So, if the Spiritual Court has granted administration to a wrong person, resort may be had in vacation to the Chancellor, for a prohibition, returnable into the King's Bench or Common Pleas (≈).

When a churchwarden had passed his accounts before the parson and a majority of the parishioners, and was afterwards cited in the Ecclesiastical Court, and pleaded the before-mentioned facts, and the plea was refused, a prohibition was allowed; the plea being considered as proper (a).

(r) Ex parte Lynch, 1 Madd. Rep. 24.

(s) Anon. 1 P. Wms. 477.
(t) Anon. 1 Vern. 301.
(u) 1 P. Wms. 476.

(x) Iveson v. Harris, 7 Ves.

254, 5.

(3) Cox's case, 1 P. Wms. 29. (z) Blackborough v. Davis, 1 P. Wms. 43.

(a) Wainewrightv. Bagshaw, East, 7 Geo. 2nd. 1733, M. S.

A prohibition has been refused to the Judge of the Prize Court, to enjoin him from proceeding in a cause involving a question of prize (b); but if a Court of Prize, or other inferior court, misconstrue their jurisdiction, it is, it seems, a ground of prohibition (c). Where a question is incidental to a question of Prize, such Court has jurisdiction, and a prohibition will not be granted (d).

V. The teste of original writs against hundreds, corporations, heirs, and in several other cases, is, by the practice of the cursitors, the same day the writs are bespoke (e). But it is not so with all writs; and where a capias was taken out on the 31st of January, and the original on which it was founded made out on the same day, but tested on the preceding 16th of October, the common teste-day before Michaelmas Term, and the defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and non assumpsit infra sex annos, and then moved that the teste of the writ might be altered and made the 31st of January, the motion was refused (f).

VI. Writs of error are due of right in all cases except treason and felony (g); and writs of error in criminal cases will be ordered to be sealed, provided they are first signed and allowed by the AttorneyGeneral (h).

VII. The Chancellor will not order a mandatory

(b) Ex parte Lynch, 1 Madd. Rep. 15.

(c) Arg. in the case of the Danish Ship Noysomhed, 7 Ves. 595- and see 1 Hen. Bla. 164.

(d) Case of the Danish ship Noysomhed, 7 Ves. 593.

(e) Price v. Hundreds of

Chewton, &c. 1 P. Wms. 437.

(f) Robinson v. Stevenson, Ambl. 375.

(g) 2 Salk. 504.

(h) Crawle v. Crawle, 1 Vern. 170; and see what is said in the Rioters case, 1 Vern. 175.

writ to the Chief Justice of the King's Bench to sign a bill of exceptions, though such a writ has issued to a judge of an inferior court, the judge of the Sheriff's Court in London (i), for instance.

This writ, which has rarely been used, is grounded on the Stat. Westmin. 2nd. commanding judges to seal a bill of exceptions; but it has been held not to lie where the exception taken is to an order of a court of law to amend its own records, nor, as it seems, to any order made upon motion. And in cases where the writ does lie, it ought to be made out by the clerk of the Crown, and not by the cursitor ought it to be issued without a special order from the person holding the Great Seal (k).

; nor

VIII. An original, will on petition be allowed to be filed after a writ of error brought to reverse a judgment, where the omission proceeds from the mistake or nesciance of the clerk, but not where it arises from mistake or misprision (1). Slender excuses have been admitted (m). Such permission also has been given in cases of quare impedit, and in actions against the hundred for a robbery, where the suit must be commenced within a limited time; and where the time had been so far elapsed as that the statute of limitations had been a bar, if the judgment should be reversed (n).

IX. It has been said that after a writ has once issued, it is de officio, and the Chancellor has nothing

further to do in it (0); and this is true, unless there be an informality in the writ. It seems to be admitted, that the Chancellor may quash a writ before it is returned (p), but not after (q); nor before it is returned, unless error appears on the face of it (r); and even then (except the party be in custody,) the best course is by plea in the court where it was returnable (s). But a writ though returned may on application be superseded by the Chancellor (t).

An executrix, in custody under a Writ de excommunicato capiendo (u) for not appearing to a citation by a creditor to exhibit an inventory, moved for a supersedeas, disputing the debt upon equitable grounds; but the Court refused to supersede the writ, and said, it followed of course upon the significavit (x).

A supersedeas to a writ de excommunicato capiendo has been denied, though the significavit was general and uncertain; the method to proceed being by habeas corpus; but where an appeal was brought, a supersedeas has been granted (y).

If a cursitor alters the return of an original, the writ will be superseded (2), unless it is only altered as to mistakes merely literal, and re-sealed (a).

A writ of error may be superseded by the Chancellor quia improvidè emanavit (b).

A writ of ad quod damnum has been quashed for insufficiency in the equivalent required (c), and has been set aside for surprize in the execution of it (d).

X. According to Sir Edward Coke (e), in all those cases where a man is excommunicated by the Bishop against law, he shall have a writ out of Chancery directed to the Bishop, commanding him to assoil him (f).

XI. With respect to patents, it has been holden, that on an application to the Lord Chancellor to withhold the Great Seal from a patent, he will only consider whether it is legal or not, and not whether the Crown ought or ought not to grant it (g); but there are three stages in which it may be opposed:

1st, While it is under the consideration of His Majesty; 2d, When it comes to the Privy Seal; and 3d, When it comes to the Great Seal (h).

Since the union of Great Britain and Ireland the Great Seals are kept distinct for patents (i).

The Chancellor will not sign a patent for a theatre which does not put the parties under some control, even though there should be no caveat against it (k). Colley Cibber, writing in regard to some theatrical disputes, in King William's time, says, "The

(b) Dean of Dublin, &c. v. Dowgate, 1 P. W. 351.

(c) Ex parte Armitage, Ambl. 294.

(d) Ex parte Venner, 3 Atk. 766.

(e) 12 Co. 67, title "Prohibition;" and see 2 Inst. 623.

(ƒ) 7 Ed. 4. 14. Boraine's case, 16 Ves. 346.

(g) Ex parte Daly, Vern. & Scriv. 499.

(h) Ib.

(i) Oxford and Cambridge Universities v. Richardson, 6 Ves. 708.

(k) Ex parte O'Reily, 1 Ves. jun. 113.