1850. MORRIS บ. PHELPS. declined to do more than order the accounts to be filed; and that, if the accounts were investigated, the deponent believed that the said A. Bradley would be found to have been overpaid. Rogers shewed cause.-This rule was obtained on the authority of Dawson v. Symmons (a), in which case, upon a return being made by a bishop to a fieri facias de bonis ecclesiasticis, the Court referred it to the Master to say whether the deductions made from the sum levied under the writ in respect of the sequestrator's charges were proper to be allowed. This case is, however, distinguishable, because here the question has been heard and decided by the Consistorial Court of Wells. The effect of granting the application would be to render this Court a Court of appeal from the Consistorial Court. If the plaintiff had been dissatisfied with the decision of that Court, and had appealed from thence to the Arches, he could not have again appealed from the Arches to this Court. Besides, he is the second sequestrator, and this difficulty might arise: that, supposing the first sequestrator applied to the Consistorial Court, which allowed certain deductions, and other deductions were allowed by this Court, there would be conflicting decisions on the same subject-matter. A further difficulty would arise in this respect: it is usual for sequestrators to give a bond well and truly to gather and receive the tithes, and to render a just account: Burn's Eccles. Law, tit. Sequestration:" if then the sequestrator appeared in the Consistorial Court and duly accounted, but his accounts were disallowed by this Court, would the bond be forfeited? [Parke, B.-Until the 12 & 13 Vict. c. 67, a sequestrator was a mere bailiff of the bishop, and therefore could not sue in his own name.] He cited Hubbard v. Beckford (b). (a) 18 L. J., Q. B., 34. (b) 1 Hagg. Con. 307. W. H. Cooke appeared to support the rule, but was not called upon. POLLOCK, C. B.-The rule must be absolute. It would be a mere mockery to say that the plaintiff must apply for a mandamus to compel the bishop to account. That mode of proceeding is certainly not necessary in this instance, any more than in the case of a sheriff. The accounts have been returned to this Court, and Dawson v. Symmons is an authority for our referring them to the Master, to see whether the deductions ought to be allowed. PARKE, B.-The case of Dawson v. Symmons is an authority in favour of this application. It is said that we ought not to interfere, because the question has been heard and determined in the Ecclesiastical Court. If indeed it had appeared from the affidavits, that the plaintiff had appealed to that tribunal, perhaps we should not interfere. But that is not shewn to be so. This is the simple case of a bishop making a return to a writ of sequestration, and the proper course is to refer his accounts to the Master. ALDERSON, B., and PLATT, B., concurred. Rule absolute. 1850. MORRIS V. PHELPS. INDEX TO THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS. 66 mined or signed by both parties. And 66 ALLOTMENT-LETTER OF. ALLOTTEE. See JOINT-STOCK COMPANY, (1). AMENDMENT. See STATUTE OF Frauds, (3). ANNUITY-INROLMENT OF. See LUNACY. APPROPRIATION OF MONEY WHEN DUE. See STAMP, (1). ARREST. Where a Judge's order has been made to hold a defendant to bail under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, and he has been arrested thereon, the proper course to pursue, where the arrest appears to be unfounded, is to order his discharge, and not to set aside the order for his arrest and the bail bond. Burness v. Guiranovich, 520 ASSURANCE-POLICY OF. ATTORNEY. See SHERIFF, (3). Appearance of Infant by. See RAILWAY COMPANY, (5). (1). Negligence by. In an action against an attorney for negligently conducting a cause, by neglecting to instruct any counsel to appear before the action was called on for trial, it appeared that the plaintiff's counsel appeared at the trial of the cause with a brief, and called the attorney and the witnesses, and, upon receiving no answer, withdrew the record-Held, that the evidence established the alleged complaint, that the defendant had not instructed counsel; for that, by the term "instructing counsel" was to be understood properly instructing him, so as to enable him efficiently to discharge his duty. Hawkins v. Harwood, (2). Agency Bill. 503 ings were held, and several enlargements of time for making the award were made; and the last meeting was held on the 13th of December, 1847. By a Judge's order, on the 3rd of January, 1848, the time was enlarged until the 1st of January, 1849. The last appointment was for the 24th of May, 1848; but no meeting took place at that time. A vesting order, under the Insolvent Act, was made as to the plaintiff's property on the 14th of August, 1849. On the 18th of December, 1849, a Judge's order, enlarging the time to Trinity Term, 1850, was obtained on behalf of the plaintiff. On an application by the defendant, the attorney for the plaintiff was ordered to give security for costs, it not being clear upon the affidavits that the proceedings were not for his benefit. Held, also, that the application was in time. Gell v. Curzon, 813 AUDITA QUERELA. A writ of auditâ querelâ, founded upon a release, should be obtained by motion in open court, upon an affidavit of the facts; and where the defendant obtains the writ without such affidavit, the Court will set it aside. Dearie v. Ker, AUTHOR. See COPYRIGHT. AWARD. 82 (1). Sufficient Disposal of the IssueE8. In an action of trover, to which the defendant pleaded, except as to a certain sum, not guilty, and not possessed, and as to that sum, payment thereof into court, a verdict was taken for the plaintiff for the amount of damages claimed, subject to an arbitration, and the arbitrator found gene |