6 RINGGOLD'S CASE.—1 BLAND.

authenticated in a Court of original jurisdiction, it appears, that
a long series of efforts have been made to prevent or correct the
evil without materially impairing the benefit of the right of appeal
itself.

So far back as the year 1485, the Court of King's Bench, laid it
down as a rule of that Court, that no writ of error in Parliament
should be allowed until some error was shown to it in the record,
lest it should be brought on purpose to delay execution. Tidd
Pra. 1074. And in the next year, it was provided by the statute,
that the party should recover his costs, and damages for his delay,
and wrongful vexation in the same by the discretion of the Court
before whom *the writ of error was sued. 3 Hen. 7. c. 10;
10 Tidd Pru. 1131; Kilt. Rep. 228; Shepherd v. Mackreth,2 H.
Bine. 284. 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. Tidd Pra. 1074. In
the year 1605, it was further provided, by statute, that iu 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 iu double the sum recovered, to prosecute his. writ
of error with effect; 3 Jac. 1, c. 8; Tidd Pra. 1075; and by
another statute, passed in the year 1001, 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 iu
error should have awarded to him double costs lor the delay of
execution. 13 Car. 2. Stut. 2, c, 2, K. 10; Shepherd v. Mackreth, 2
H. Black. 286; 3 Blac. Com. 410. Soon after which, in the year 1664,
the prvisions of these statutes were further extended to almost all
other cases, including by name, dower and ejectment; and it was
declared, that, in case the judgment should be affirmed, the de-
fendant 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 affirmation, 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 execu-
tion awarded for the amount thereof. 16 & 17 Car. 2, c. 8; Tidd
Pra. 1081.

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. Entwistle v. Shepherd, 2 T. R. 78;