Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/958

an order was, on the 7th of January 1713, made by the Master of the Rolls, whereby the appellant was ordered to be examined upon interrogatories before the Master, in aid of the account directed by the decree.

In pursuance of this order, several examinations were put in, but all of them were reported insufficient; and after very great delay in this business, an order was made on the 12th of November 1719, that the appellant should put in his examination in four days, or stand committed to the prison of the Fleet.

The appellant neglecting to obey this last order, it was, on the 27th of the same month, made absolute for his commitment, and a warrant was issued accordingly; but the appellant keeping himself out of the way, and a non est inventus being returned, the appellant, in order to avoid a sequestration, which was the next process, moved the court on the 14th of December following, that upon undertaking to pay in a week's time what should appear due to the respondents, all further process of contempt might be stayed: but it being insisted by the counsel for the respondents, that by the known rules and practice of the court, persons in contempt ought not to be heard until they have submitted to the justice of the Court, by appearing in person, and clearing their contempt; the Court declined making any order upon this motion, but directed the appellant to clear his contempt, and then move.

But this not being done, the respondents, on the same day, obtained an order for a sequestration, until the appellant should answer the interrogatories, and clear his contempt, and the court should make other order to the contrary.

The sequestration having accordingly issued, and being actually put in execution, the appellant appealed from all the orders; insisting (R. Raymond, J. Hungerford), that as the respondents had no other demand decreed them, but the payment of their said portions and interest, and as the appellant had repeatedly offered to pay the same, together with the costs of the suit; it was unreasonable, that the appellant's estate should be any longer continued under sequestration.

On the other side it was argued (S. Cowper, J. Willes), that though upon a submission to the order of the court, contempts are usually discharged; yet until such submission is made, the party in contempt has no right, by the constant course of the court, to be heard. That the satisfaction pretended to be offered, on the appellant's behalf, was no performance of the order on which the contempt was grounded; but that notwithstanding such offer, the appellant, before he could be discharged from his contempt, ought to put in his examination and pay the costs; and then, but not before, [278] the contempt might be regularly discharged, unless some disability judicially appeared, which rendered him incapable of complying with the order.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that the several orders therein complained of, whereby the appellant was ordered to stand committed, and his estate to be sequestered, and also the sequestration issued in pursuance thereof, should be affirmed: but it was further ordered, that it should be referred to the Master, to compute what was due to the respondents Sir William Osbaldiston and Dame Katherine his wife, for principal and interest of the portion of the said Dame Katherine, and to tax them their costs of this suit; and upon appellant's bringing before the Master the principal money so found due, in order to be paid as the Court of Chancery should direct, and paying to Sir William Osbaldiston what should be due for interest and costs; the appellant might be at liberty to apply to the said court to discharge the said sequestration, giving notice thereof to the respondents John Churchill Wicksted and his wife, and other persons interested in her portion. (Jour. vol. 21. p. 266.)