Error, in English law, is any mistake in fact, in law, or in the form of process, requiring to be set right by the court before which an action is tried, or by a court of review. If the error was in fact, the case, under the old system, was heard before the court in which the action was originally tried; if the error was in law, proceedings had to be taken before the Court of Exchequer
Chamber (q.v.). Where a party disputed the ruling of the judge, the form was by Bill of Exceptions (q.v.). According to the former practice, it was necessary, in order to obtain a review on the ground of error, that an original writ, called a Writ of Error, should be issued. The writ, if the error was in fact, was styled coram nobis, where the case was in the King's Bench, the sovereign being presumed to preside in that court; if in the other courts, the writ was coram vobis. Writ of error in civil cases in the High Court is abolished by the Judicature Acts, and so is Bill of Exceptions. Since 1875 all appeals are to the Court of Appeal by way of rehearing, and are brought by notice of motion in a summary way, and no petition or other formal proceeding other than such notice of motion is now necessary. The appellant may by the notice of motion appeal from the whole or part of any judgment, and this does not usually stay proceedings. Nearly all the judgments of the Divisional Courts of the High Court are subject to appeal to the Court of Appeal and thence to the House of Lords. The jurisdiction was transferred to the High Court of Justice in 1875, which used formerly to be vested in the Common Pleas at Lancaster and at Durham, and which used to be by writ of error to the Queen's Bench. Writs of error used formerly also to be brought on judgments of inferior courts. But since the establishment of County Courts and the changes introduced by the Judicature Acts, the analogous proceeding is an appeal by way of a case stated for opinion of the High Court, and sometimes by motion in a summary way. In criminal cases, error does not now lie for formal defects in the indictment; these should be objected to before the jury is sworn, and may then be amended. A writ of error will lie for a defect in substance appearing in the indictment, as in the case of Bradlaugh v. the Queen, where an indictment for publishing an obscene book was held defective because it mentioned the book by title only, instead of setting out the passages alleged to be obscene. A prisoner has therefore three opportunities of taking legal objections; he may demur to the indictment, or move in arrest of judgment, or sue out a writ of error. On the facts in a criminal case there is no appeal from the verdict of the jury. In the United States, the procedure of the State Courts follows the analogy of the English common law; in the Federal Courts the term error is also known; for further details reference may be made to the Acts of Congress and of the several state legislatures.