A word made up of two distinct words or abbreviations of words, (cul. abbrev. of culpabilis, guilty, and prit or prest, ready, i. e. to prove it,) used anciently on the arraignment of a prisoner at the bar, and employed, in the course of time, to denote a prisoner so arraigned. It has not now any technical meaning, but is popularly used to denote any criminal, especially one found or confessed to be guilty. * ** Anciently, when a prisoner had pleaded "not guilty," (L. Lat. non culpabilis; L. Fr. nient culpable, or, as it was abbreviated on the minutes, non or nient cul.") the clerk of the assize, or clerk of the arraigns, on behalf of the crown, replied that the prisoner was guilty, (cul,) and that he was ready, (prit,) to prove him So. 4 Bl. Com. 339. In the course of time, it became the practice for the officer of the court to read aloud these words, without regard to their real meaning, (which was beginning to be forgotten, owing to the disuse of Law French,) and to apply them as an appellation of the prisoner himself; for when a prisoner pleaded not guilty, the officer used to say, "cul. prit,-how wilt thou be tried?" to which the prisoner usually replied, "by God and the country," meaning by a jury. 4 Steph. Com. 408, note. Mr. Christian gives a different explanation, and supposes prit to have been a corruption of pnt, written for ponit, as a minute that issue was joined, or ponit se super patriam, (he puts himself upon the country,) or pnt se might be converted into prist or prest, as it was sometimes written. 4 Chitt. Bl. Com. 340, note. As a confirmation of this conjecture, it is said that the clerk of the arraigns in the English courts, at this day, immediately after the arraignment, writes upon the indictment, over the name of the prisoner, pnts. Id. ibid. However this may be, there is little doubt that the explanation of Blackstone is the true one. That prist (pronounced prit) or prest was the technical word appropriated to express a joinder in issue, or rather a readiness to prove an issue joined, appears from the use constantly made of it in civil cases, throughout the Year Books. See Prest, Prist. That it was not a corruption of a Latin word or words, seems clear, not only from such phrases as prest averrer, (Yearb. M. 1 Hen. VI. 21. Id. M. 12 Hen. VI. 13, corresponding accurately with the L. Lat. paratus verificare,) but from the general fact that the language of the oral pleadings in which it occurs, was exclusively Law French, the Latin being the (record) language of the written pleadings of a subsequent period. Prist and prest were constantly used as terms of issue, by both parties, as in the following entry: Ne unques seisi; Prist, &c. Seisi; Prist, &c. (Never seised; Ready, &c. Seised, Ready, &c.) P. 6 Edw. III. 68. But the following extracts are more apposite to the present head, as showing the use of prist and prest in immediate connection with culp. A q' le pl' dit q', &c. et issint nient culp. A q' le def' dit q' culp. Prest averrer. To which the plaintiff says that, &c. and so not guilty. To which the defendant says, guilty. Ready to verify. M. 1 Hen.