of errors in

an out

lawry on

an infor

mation for

a mifdemeanor.

(First.)

AND hereupon the faid J. A. comes in his proper per- Affignment fon and fays, that in the record and process, and also in the publication of the outlawry aforefaid, there is manifeft error in this, to wit, that there is no fufficient information filed or exhibited against the faid J. A. whereupon to ground the procefs of the outlawry aforefaid, by rea fon whereof the faid outlawry is void and of no effect or force whatsoever; there is also error in this, to wit, that (Second.) the process of outlawry above fet forth, is not fufficient in law to warrant or fupport the outlawry aforefaid; therefore in that there is manifeft error; there is alfo error (Third) in this, to wit, that it does not appear that the sheriff of the city of London returned to or upon the said writ of capias ad fatisfaciendum, firft abovementioned, that the faid J. A. was not found in their bailiwick, or that they made any return thereto, therefore in that there is manifeft error; there is alfo error in this, to wit, that it is (Fourth.) not stated, that the faid J. A. did not appear, or that he made default at the return of the faid feveral writs of capias ad fatisfaciendum abovementioned, or any or either of them, therefore in that there is manifeft error; there (Fifth.) is also error in this, to wit, that it is ftated and appears that the faid fheriffs of London were commanded as before, that they should take the faid J. A. if he should be found in their bailiwick and him fafely keep, fo that they might have his body before our faid lord the king, at Westminfter, on Saturday next, after the octave of the Holy Trinity, to fatisfy our faid lord the king, in manner and form aforefaid, but it is not stated, nor does it appear by whom, or by whofe authority, or in what manner the said fheriffs of London were fo commanded as aforefaid, or that they were fo commanded by a writ of our faid lord the king to them in that behalf directed, therefore in that there is manifeft error; there is alfo error in this, to (Sixth.)

(Eighth.)

to wit, that after ftating that the faid fheriffs of London were so commanded as aforefaid, it is ftated and appears that the fheriffs of the city of London aforesaid returned the faid laft-mentioned writ, although no writ is previously stated to have issued, to which the said return can poffibly apply, therefore in that there is manifeft (Seventh.) error; there is alfo error in this, to wit, that it is stated and appears that by another writ of our faid lord the king, the faid sheriffs of London were commanded that they fhould take the faid J. A. if he fhould be found in their bailiwick, and him fafely keep, fo that they might have his body before our faid lord the king at Westminster, on Friday next after the morrow of All Souls, to fatisfy our faid lord the king in manner and form aforefaid, without flating that the said sheriffs of London were so commanded as they had been oftentimes before commanded or in any other manner whatsoever, therefore in that there is manifeft error; there is also error in this, to wit, that no writ of capia's cum proclamation is ftated to have iffued against the faid J. A. nor any public proclamation to have been made thereupon, at any open county court, or at any general quarter feffions of the peace whatsoever, or at the door of any parish church where the faid J. A. was an inhabitant, according to the exigency of fuch writ, therefore in that there is manifeft error; there is alfo error in this, to wit, that there is an intervening term between the teft and return of the faid writ of exigent which ap pears to have iffued on Friday next after the morrow of All Souls in Michaelmas term, in the thirtieth year of the reign of our faid lord the now king, returnable on Monday next after the morrow of the afcenfion of our Lord, in Eafter term then next following, paffing over Hilary term in the thirtieth year aforefaid, therefore in (Tenth.) that there is manifeft error; there is alfo error in this, to wit, that by the return to the faid writ of exigent, it ap pears that the faid J. A. was exacted at the hufting of

(Ninth.)

pleas of land holden for the city of London, at the Guildhall within the faid city, on Monday next before the feast of Saint Edward the king, but it does not appear thereby in what year of the reign of our faid lord the king, or in what other year he was fo exacted, therefore in that there is manifeft error; wherefore the faid J. A. prays that the outlawry aforefaid for the errors aforesaid, and other errors appearing in the record and process aforefaid, may be reverfed and held for nothing, and that he may be restored to the common law, and to all which he hath loft by occafion of the outlawry aforefaid, &c.

AND the faid fir A. M. knight, attorney general of our prefent fovereign lord the king, present here in court in his proper perfon, having heard the matters aforefaid above assigned for error, for our faid lord the king faith, that neither in the record and process aforesaid, nor in the publication of the aforefaid outlawry is there any error; and he prays that the court of our faid lord the king, now here, may proceed to the examination as well of the record and procefs aforefaid, as alfo of the feveral caufes aforefaid above affigned for error, and that the outlawry aforefaid may in all things be affirmed t.

Joinder.

+ The outlawry was reverfed. See the cafe, the King v. Almon. 5. T. R. 202.

AND

Affignment

an outlawry on an indictment

for felony
against the
principals,
and the
acceffory
after the

fast.
(First.)

AND hereupon the said Jn. Y. Ja. Y. and Js. Y. come of errors in in their proper perfons and feverally fay in the record and process, and alfo in the publication of the aforefaid outlawry, there is manifest error in this, that the faid Jn. Y. Ja. Y. and Js. Y. are alledged to be a fifth time demanded and outlawed on the nineteenth day of May in the thirtieth year of the reign of our lord the now king, when it appears by the writ of proclamation which is alledged to have iffued on Thursday the twenty-fifth day of March, in the thirtieth year aforefaid, and the proclamation returned thereon, that they the faid Jn. Y. Ja. Y. and Js. Y. had a day given to render themselves to the fheriff, fo that he might have their bodies before the justices therein named, until the affizes and general feffion of oyer and terminer and goal delivery holden for the county of S. next after the eighteenth day of April, in the thirtieth year aforefaid, being the ninth day of Auguft, in the thirtieth year aforefaid, therefore in that there is manifeft error; there is also error in this, that the writ of exigent appears to have iffued contrary to ftatute in that case made and provided against it, the said Js. Y. who is only charged as accessory after the fact to a felony alledged to have been committed by the faid Jn. Y. and Ja. Y. and appears to be outlawed by the fame judgment as that whereby the principals are outlawed, whereas by the law of the land none fhall be outlawed as acceffors until the principal be attainted, but their exigent fhall remain until fuch principal be attainted by outlawry or otherwise, therefore in that there is manifeft error; there is alfo error in this, that the writ of capias which is alledged to have iffued on Monday the twenty-eighth day of July in the twentyeighth year of the reign of our faid lord the king, is not returnable, as the ftatute in that cafe made and provided directs, nor does it appear that there is comprifed therein any command to the fheriff to caufe to be feized the chattels

(Second.)

(Third.)

tels of the faid Jn. Y. Ja. Y. and Js. Y. and safely to keep them till the day of the faid writ returned, as by the law of the land is required, neither is it alledged that the faid Jn. Y. Ja, Y. and Js. Y. did not appear before the exigent was awarded, as by the law of the land ought to have been alledged, therefore in that there is manifeft error; there is (Fourth.) also error in this, that it is not exprefsly alledged that the faid writs of proclamation or either of them were or was delivered to the faid fheriff three months before the return of the fame, as by law it ought to have been, alledged, therefore in that there is manifeft error; there is also error (Fifth.) in this, that the faid writs of proclamation do not appear to be iffued or executed, as the ftatute in that cafe made and provided requires, therefore in that there is manifeft error; there is alfo error in this, that it is not alledged in the return to the faid writs of proclamation that the faid Jn. Y. Ja. Y. and Js. Y. did not after the making of each of the feveral proclamations required by the said writs, appear and render themselves to the faid fheriff, as by the law of the land it ought to have been alledged, therefore in that there is manifeft error. Wherefore the faid Jn. Y. Ja. Y. and Js. Y. feverally pray that the outlawry aforefaid for the errors aforesaid, and other errors appearing in the record and process aforefaid, may be reversed and held for nothing, and that they may feverally be reftored to the common law, and to all which they have loft by occafion of the outlawry aforefaid *.

(Sixth.)

The outlawry was affirmed as to the principals, but reverfed as to the atceffory, fee the record of the outlawry, ante title outlawry, and the cafe, the King v. Yandell. 4 T. R. 521.