1814. ANONYMOUS. Pleas, where, though such a rule as this was discharged, it was made no objection that the motion was made after plea pleaded; and accordingly THE COURT granted a rule nisi. Lawes afterwards moved to amend his rule nisi, by making it part of the terms, that the money paid into Court might be detained in the hands of the officer of the Court as a security for the costs, and BAYLEY J. said the rule might be so drawn up.. 1815. 26th Jan. is a native of England, and departs for N ANONYMOUS. If the plaintiff the course of last Term Abbott moved for a rule to shew cause, why the plaintiff, who was a foreigner, and resident in France, should not give security for costs; but the defendant not having then put in and perfected bail, the Court refused the rule (a); and now Abbott renewed his application on the same affidavit. France, for a mere temporary absence, the Court will not compel him to give security for costs. BAYLEY J. thought at first it was not a sufficient cause for having security. But on Abbot observing that the plaintiff was a native of France, which differed materially from a native of England resident in France on a mere temporary ab sence, BAYLEY J. concurred, and considerd the grounds (a) The defendant, if sued alone, must put in bail previous to the application. 4 T. R. 697. See cases cited in Tidd, 6th ed. 555. If the plaintiff be a foreigner, or native, and departs for a foreign country to reside there for a considerable length of time, the Courts will in general stay the proceedings till his return, or compel security to be given for the costs. 1 Tidd, 6th ed. 556, and the cases there collected. 1815. sufficient to call on the plaintiff to shew cause why security should not be given; for it should be known ANONYMOUS. whether the plaintiff was in France or not. Rule Nisi. BAYLIS against DYNELY. AN action was brought against several defendants, on a bond. Some of them pleaded pleas on which issue in fact was taken, and trial had, and verdict given for the plaintiff; and another defendant pleaded infancy; and, on demurrer to a replication of ratification after age, judgment was given for the defendants generally. The Master would not allow any costs to those defendants on whose pleas the trial had been had, and 1815. 20th April. Where in an bond against several defend action on a ants, they sever in pleading and issue, as fact, and verdict for plaintiff against some defend ants, and the other defend ant pleads infancy and obtains judgment on a demurrer to a replication Campbell now moved for a rule, calling on the plain- of ratification tiff to shew cause why the Master should not review his taxation, and allow those defendants the costs. BAYLEY J. refused the rule, and likened it to the doctrine, that where one of several defendants lets judgment go by default, and the other pleads a plea which goes to the whole declaration, and shews that the party had no cause of action, then, if the plea be found for the defendant who pleaded, he shall have costs; and being an absolute bar, the other defendants have the benefit of it, and do not pay costs; but where (as in this case) the plea does not go to the whole, but is merely in discharge of the party pleading it, there the other party shall not have the benefit of it, but shall pay the costs, though even a verdict be found against the plaintiff. (a) See Tidd's Prac. 7th ed. Rule refused. after age, the defendants who tried the issue are not entitled to costs (a). 1816. 26th Jan. Where the judge does certify that the cause was proper for a special jury, the party is only entitled to the costs actually paid to the attending jury in court: it is the constant prac tice not to allow more costs. THIS CURSUM against DURHAM. HIS action was for dilapidations. Deacon moved for a rule nisi, for the Master to review his taxation of costs, on two grounds; first, that he had not allowed the proper costs of a special jury, but only the sums which had actually been paid them; and secondly, that sufficient expences were not allowed for the witnesses. The judge had certified. Lord ELLENBOROUGH C. J. at first thought that the act only allowed in such cases the money actually paid to the jurors: but upon referring to the statute, he and the Court were of opinion, that where the judge certifies the party is entitled to all the costs. from which he is by the act excluded if the judge does not certify; and therefore here the party is entitled to all the costs of the special jury. Rule nisi on both grounds. Deacon, on a subsequent day, moved that this rule might be absolute; whereupon LE BLANC J. said, that he concluded there would be cause shewn; for if this rule should be made. absolute, it would set aside the practice of this and all the other Courts, ever since the act, as they have all only allowed the costs paid in Court. Rule absolute as to expences of witnesses, and discharged as to the costs of special jury, on the ground of the constant practice; though the Court seemed to think the words of the statute would bear the other construction. ANONYMOUS. CAMPBELL mentioned a case to the Court, as 1817. Trinity Term. Independently to the taxation of a bill of costs of an attorney; of the statute upon which BAYLEY J., ABBOTT J., and HOLROYD J. all said, that though the statute as to taxation of costs applies only to particular cases, and bills of particular description, yet the Court still retains, and has always exercised a right, as at common law, to direct taxation of other bills of costs; such is the constant practice.. PEDLEY against FRAMPTON. (Exchequer.) as to taxation of costs, the Court still retains power at common law to order bills ge nerally to be taxed, 1816. 28th Nov. Full costs in an action on treble value of tythes not set out, where there was a verdict for plaintiff, subject to a re fere arbitrator di rected a verdict to be entered fortreble value, MEREWETHER moved that the postea might be 1816. PEDLEY against FRAMPTON. 1816. 15th June. An award of less than 51. on the reference of a cause, brings it within the London Court of Conscience act (a). arbitrator was not in the situation of a jury, as argued by Laurence Serj., in V. The CHIEF BARON and WOOD, BARON, seemed to think otherwise. Merewether said that the argument Idid not avail in the case cited. He also contended, that it must be proved that the arbitrator was aware of this case, and that he intended to decide according to the justice of the case, and give plaintiff only the sum directed to be entered on the postea; and that he should not have the costs. He added, that by the consent of both parties, no award was made. PER CURIAM (after some consideration) granted rule nisi, on 24th January, 1817. Cause was shewn by Casberd; and it appearing that a verdict was taken at the trial, the rule was discharged with costs. THIS DAY against MEARNS. HIS was an action against the defendant for the recovery of the sum of ―l.; but before the cause came on to be tried, the parties referred it to an arbitrator (a), who afterwards awarded that the defendant should pay a less sum than 57. to the plaintiff; and now Campbell moved for a rule, calling on the plaintiff to shew cause why a suggestion should not be entered on the roll, (under the stat. 39 & 40 Geo. 3. c. 104.) on the ground that the original cause of action did not exceed 57., and that the defendant was subject to the (a) See 8 East, 289. 16 East, 161. By the 12th section of the statute 39 and 40 Geo. 3. c. 104. it is enacted, "that if any action or suit be commenced in any other court than the Court of Requests, for a debt not exceeding 57. and recoverable by the action, &c. in the said Court of Requests, the plaintiff shall not, by reason of a verdict for him, or otherwise, be entitled to any costs," &c. |