10 RINGGOLD'S CASE.

the writ of error was sued.(z) In the year 1581, it was made a
rule of the Court of Common Pleas, that no supersedeas should be
made upon any writ of error to reverse a judgment of that court
until some manifest or pregnant error therein should be notified by
the party, or his counsel, to the court or one of its judges.(a) In
the year 1605, it was further provided, by statute, that in certain
enumerated cases, no execution should be stayed upon any judg-
ment unless the person, in whose name the writ of error was
brought, should, with two sureties, acknowledge himself bound in
a recognizance in double the sum recovered, to prosecute his writ
of error with effect,(&) and by another statute, passed in the year
1661, the provisions of the previous law were extended to other
cases, and it was declared, that, in case the judgment should be
affirmed, the defendant in error should have awarded to him double
costs for the delay of execution, (c) Soon after which, in the
year 1664, the provisions of these statutes were further extended
to almost all other cases, including by name, dower and eject-
ment; and it was declared, that, in case the judgment should be
affirmed, the defendant should recover such costs, damages, and
sums of money as should be awarded to him; and further, that the
court wherein the execution ought to be granted, upon such affir-
mation, should issue a writ of inquiry, as well of the mesne profits
as of damages by any waste committed after the first judgment in
dower or ejectment; and thereupon judgment should be given and
execution awarded for the amount thereof.(d)

In addition to these statutory provisions upon this subject, the
common law courts of Westminster Hall have undertaken, by the
exercise of a sound discretion, to prevent the abuse of this right
of appeal by refusing to stay execution where it can be shewn,
that the writ of error had, in truth, been brought for the express
purpose of vexation and delay, (e) The abuse of this right of
appeal still, however, continues to be so great an evil in England,
that it has been recommended as proper to oblige the defendant to
bring the whole debt and costs recovered into court, as the only
effectual means of preventing the practice, which too often prevails,
of bringing writs of error for the mere purpose of delay.(f)

(z) 3 Hen. 7, c. 10; Tidd, Pra. 1131; Kilt. Rep, 228; Shepherdi v. Mackreth,
2 H. Blac. 284.—(a) Tidd, Pra. 1074—(&) 3 Jac. 1, c. 8; 'Bid, Pra. 1075.—
(c) 13 Car. 2, Stat, 2, c. 2, s. 10; Shepherd v. Mackreth, 2 H. Blac. 288,8 Blac.
Com, 410.—(d) 16 & 17 Car. 2, c. 8.; Tidd, Pra. 1081.—(e) Eatwistle v. Shepherd.
2 T. R. 78; Christie v. Richardson, 3 T. R, 78; Pool v. Charnock, 3 T. R 79
Kempland v. Macauley, 4 T. R. 436.—(f) Tidd, Pra. 1075, note.