tion of an appellant who subsequently fails to furnish such indemnity-he ought immediately to present a petition to the House setting forth the circumstances, and praying leave to withdraw the appeal. A case of this description occurred about thirty years ago, and upon mature deliberation the application for relief proved successful. I am now referring to the case of

Bateman v. The Countess of Rosse, 16 March, 1812-Where the circumstances, as disclosed by the petition, appeared to be that the petitioner was employed by the appellant's solicitors in Dublin to conduct the appeal, which he accordingly presented to the House, and an answer was thereto put in by the respondent. That, in order to give the appellant the benefit of his appeal, and in full confidence of being satisfactorily indemnified by the solicitors for the said appellant in Ireland, the petitioner (by and with the sanction and advice of his partner) entered into the usual recognisance for payment of costs to the respondent. That the petitioner frequently wrote to the said solicitors in Dublin to obtain satisfactory indemnity against the said recognisance, but had hitherto been unable to obtain such indemnity. That sometime thereafter other solicitors were employed by the said appellant to conduct the said appeal, and proceed therein accordingly; and had printed and lodged a case on his behalf in the House, without having undertaken to indemnify the petitioner as he repeatedly requested them to do. That the petitioner humbly submitted to the House that, under the circumstances aforesaid, the said solicitors should be ordered to indemnify the petitioner against the said recognisance; or that they should be restrained from prosecuting the said appeal at the petitioner's risk, and that the petitioner should be at liberty to withdraw such appeal; and therefore praying their Lordships that they would be pleased to order the said solicitors to indemnify the petitioner against the said recognisance, or permit the petitioner to withdraw the said appeal. A counter-petition was presented by the new agents of the appellant, praying that the House would not, under the circumstances of the case, compel the petitioner to indemnify the original agent, or allow him to withdraw the said appeal, or make any other order to the prejudice of the appellant. Both these petitions were referred to the Appeal Committee, who, on the 2nd July 1812, reported that the hearing of the cause should be stayed until further order, with liberty to the original solicitor to apply to the House to dismiss the appeal unless he is indemnified against the said recognisance, he giving notice to the present solicitor of the appellant and the solicitor of the respondent.— Ordered accordingly.

But, although the House will thus grant permission to withdraw the appeal, the party who has entered into recognisance will have to pay such costs as the respondent has actually incurred by reason of the appeal. Thus, in

Boyd . Russell, 1 March, 1774-A petition was presented on behalf of William Urquhart, agent for the appellant, setting forth that, since presenting the appeal, the petitioner had entered into recognisance for costs; but that, by documents transmitted from Scotland, it appeared that the appellant was in such circumstances of poverty as not to be able to prosecute the appeal, or to pay costs, if costs should be awarded against him; a circumstance of which the petitioner was entirely ignorant at the time he entered into recognisance, and therefore praying their Lordships that he might be at liberty to withdraw the appeal. The agents on both sides being called in and heard at the bar, it was ordered that the petitioner be at liberty to withdraw the said appeal as desired upon payment of 10l. to the respondent.

The methods of proceeding prescribed for putting the recognisance in suit, will hereafter be considered in the chapter relating to the recovery of costs.

PRACTICE

ON

ENGLISH AND IRISH APPEALS.

CHAPTER THE NINTH.

Of Amendments.

Appellant's Petition to amend Appeal, 154.-Petition of Respondent to put in new Answer, or to amend former Answer, ib.-Consequence of Respondent's default, 155.

WHEN the appellant finds that the petition of appeal, although received by the House, is liable to objection, admitting of amendment, he should lose no time in praying leave to amend. His petition, for that purpose, will be presented, after two clear days' notice to the other side; and will set forth the omission, error, or mistake in the appeal; and the prayer will ask permission to make the necessary emendation; the petitioner undertaking to amend the respondent's copy.

The petition will be referred to the appeal committee, upon whose report an order will be made, allowing the application, either subject to the payment of costs, or not subject to the payment of costs, as may appear to be just.

Where the answer has been put in, and a subsequent amendment of the appeal takes place, the respondent may

give in a new answer; but such new answer cannot be lodged until an order be obtained for leave to withdraw the former answer. In such a case, the respondent will have to petition the House; but he will be allowed his costs of all proceedings forced upon him by the irregularities of his opponent.

Instead of lodging a new answer, it may be more advisable for the respondent to amend his former answer; presenting a petition for that purpose, after giving two clear days' notice to the other side. Thus

Thellusson v. Woodford, 22 May, 1801.-The respondents petitioned to have liberty to amend their answer; stating that certain persons had been made parties by amendment, and that the appeal and the respondent's copy thereof had been amended accordingly; but adding, that the petitioners were advised that, in consequence of such amendment of the appeal, it became necessary to amend the answer thereto; and therefore praying leave to do so accordingly.-Ordered as prayed.

If the respondent do not take the proper steps to obtain an order for leave to lodge a new answer, or to amend his former answer, the appellant may proceed against him as in default, and may obtain a peremptory order, and an order to have the cause set down for hearing ex parte, as hereafter to be explained.

But in general the respondent does not put in his answer at this early stage of the proceedings.

PRACTICE

ON

ENGLISH AND IRISH APPEALS.

CHAPTER THE TENTH.

Respondent's Objections to the Appeal.

Objections involving dismissal of the Appeal, 156.-Respondent not to answer, ib.-but to pray dismissal, 157.- Where Amendment necessary, Respondent to pray amendment before answering, ib.-Objections for want of Parties overlooked below, 158.-Not allowed in the House of Lords, ib.-All objections should be made before expiration of time for answering, ib.

THE respondent's solicitor ought in due time to repair to the Parliament Office to inspect the appeal, and to ascertain whether a recognisance has been entered into; for until a recognisance has been perfected, no material expense should be incurred by the respondent; especially if there be reason to believe that the appeal is brought merely for purposes of delay or vexation.

If the appeal be in any respect irregular, or informal, the respondent ought not to put in his answer, but should present a petition to the House, objecting to the appeal, by reason of such irregularity or informality; and, therefore, praying their Lordships to dismiss the appeal with costs. For if the respondent treat it as an effective appeal, by answering and suffering it to proceed, he will not