Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/691

mortgage, and consequently could only be entitled to one-fifth part of the fines. That it was not insisted, at the hearing of the cause, that the respondent Alderman Bolton should pay Lady Irwin interest, nor did the Court see any reason for directing interest; the Alderman being always ready to pay, what in justice Lady Irwin was entitled to do, and did, in fact, advance and pay her several sums of money, before any became due. That all the deeds, writings, and accounts, were proved in the cause, and therefore of course must be produced before the Master; and if there had seen any reason for it, this also might have been supplied by a motion. Besides, rectified it upon a motion. And, as to the examining Alderman Bolton upon personal interrogatories, it was not insisted upon at the hearing; but if the Court had seen any reason for it, this also might have been supplied by a motion. Besides, it was proved in the cause, that the Alderman paid £805 15s. 2d. to the Governors of the Hospital, which appeared to be then due to them on the mortgage; and that the account was approved of by the daughters, and by the respondent the Dean, as their trustee. And as to costs, considering how fair the respondents had acted, it was not reasonable that costs should be decreed against them; and the rather, because the respondent Alderman Bolton stood in the place of a mortgagee, as well as a purchaser of the reversion; and since the appellant Lady Irwin had inrolled the decree, acquiesced under it for five years, and received upwards of £500 by virtue thereof, and would not, under her uncertain estate for life, have ever reaped any benefit from the premises in question, without the methods taken by the Alderman for the improvement of them; it was hoped, that the decree would be affirmed, and the appeal dismissed with costs.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the same should be dismissed; and the decree therein complained of, affirmed: and it was further ordered, that the appellants should pay to the respondents the sum of £40 for their costs in respect of the said appeal. (Jour. vol. 21. p. 614.)

This was an appeal brought from several orders made by the Court of Exchequer in Ireland; by the first of which, the respondents were at liberty to shew cause, why a bill brought by them against the appellant should not be dismissed with costs; and [440] by the others, the time limited for that purpose was several times enlarged. And as the questions turned wholly upon the regularity of bringing such an appeal, and not upon the merits of the dispute; it is thought unnecessary to state any more of the facts or circumstances of the case.

In support of the appeal it was said (W. Hamilton, W. Murray), that the application to dismiss was a motion of course, and therefore none of the parties ought to be heard in opposition to it; and much less should any time be given or enlarged to shew cause against such a motion.

On the other side it was said (D. Ryder, W. Noel), that the Court of Exchequer had given no judgment as to the motion made by the appellant, but only given time to the party to shew cause against it; and it was apprehended to be unprecedented, to appeal from an order only granting time to shew cause. For if this should be permitted, it must tend to great vexation and infinite delay; and nothing can be more reasonable, than to allow every Court of Justice to be the proper Judges of the time and manner of giving their judgment.

On the hearing of this appeal, the Counsel were directed by the House to speak to this point only; "Whether an appeal will lie from an order of a Court of Equity to shew cause, before the same be made absolute?" And having been heard accordingly, it was declared, that this appeal being brought against an order to shew cause only, and no unreasonable delay having been occasioned to the parties by