pending the proceedings in bankruptcy: Cobham v. Dalton, 10 Ch. 665; and see Re Deere, 10 Ch. 650.

But a person who has been attached and committed to prison under the Debtors Act, s. 4 (3) or (4), does not by subsequent adjudication of bankruptcy acquire privilege from arrest, or become entitled to his discharge from prison: E. Lewes v. Barnett, 6 Ch. D. 252.

5. Committal for Trial for Perjury.

UPON the trial of this action on the day of --, and this day before the Court, and upon reading an affidavit of the Plt, filed &c., and the Plt and W. A. having been duly sworn, and upon hearing the evidence of the Plt in his own behalf, and the evidence of the said W. A. on behalf of the Defts, taken upon their respective oral examinations, this Court being of opinion that the Plt has been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury in his evidence given as aforesaid before this Court, and that there is a reasonable cause for the prosecution of the Plt for perjury, doth order that the Plt (name) be prosecuted for such perjury and be committed until the next session of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery for the county of M.; And this Court doth require the Deft (name) to enter into a recognizance, conditioned to prosecute, or give evidence against, the said Plt.-S. v. W., V.-C. B., 19 Feb. 1877, B. 207.

6. Recognizance by Person directed to prosecute.

You [insert the name or names, and if more than one add, and each of you] shall acknowledge yourself [yourselves and each of you] to owe to our Sovereign Lady the Queen the sum of one hundred pounds [each] of good and lawful money of G. B., to be made and levied of your goods and chattels, lands, and tenements to the use of our said Lady the Queen, her heirs and successors; the condition of the recognizance being that if you shall appear at the next session of the Central Criminal Court to be holden in the City of London, and there prefer, or cause to be preferred, a bill of indictment for the offence of perjury against one (name), and there also duly prosecute such indictment, then this recognizance to be void, or else to stand in full force and virtue. Question.-Are you contented to be so bound? Answer.— I am.-S. v. W., sup.

This is to be read by the registrar; and the obligee is not required to sign any document.

7. Record of the Recognizance to prosecute.

Be it remembered that on the day of -, X. &c., of (name &c.), — personally came before me (name and title of Judge), and acknowledged himself [themselves and each of them] to owe to our Sovereign Lady the Queen the sum of £100 [each] of good and lawful money of G. B., to be made and levied of his [or their] goods and chattels, lands and tenements, to the use of our said Lady the Queen, her heirs and successors, if he [or they] the said (name) shall fail in the condition

indorsed. Taken and acknowledged the day and year first above mentioned at Lincoln's Inn, in the county of M.

THE Condition of the within written recognizance is such that whereas one (name) was on the day of —, by virtue of an Act passed in the 14 & 15 V. intituled "An Act for further improving the administration of criminal justice" directed by &c. (name and title of Judge), to be prosecuted for perjury at the next session of the Central Criminal Court, if therefore he the said (name) shall appear at the next session of the Central Criminal Court, and there prefer or cause to be preferred a bill of indictment for the offence aforesaid against the said (name), and there also duly prosecute such indictment, then the said recognizance to be void, or else to stand in full force and virtue.-S. v. W., sup.

(Signed), Registrar.

The recognizance is engrossed on parchment and sent to the chief clerk at the Old Bailey.

8. Certificate signed by the Judge after the Prosecutor has been bound to enter into a Recognizance.

I (name and title of Judge) do hereby certify that it appears to me that the (Plt) (name) has been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury in his evidence given orally (and by affidavit) before this Court on the trial of this action, and that there is reasonable cause for the prosecution of the said (Plt) for such perjury, and that I have directed the said (Plt) to be prosecuted for such perjury, and have committed him until the next session of oyer and terminer, or gaol delivery for the county of M.; and I have required the (Deft) (name) to enter into a recognizance conditioned to prosecute or give evidence against the said accordingly.-S. v. W., V.-C. B., 19 Feb. 1877.

(Signed)

J.

This certificate is given to the prosecutor under 14 & 15 V. c. 100, so as to entitle him to costs.

9. Appointment of Usher to take Person into Custody in absence of

Tipstaff.

I [name and title of Judge] do appoint (name) one of the ushers of my Court to execute the orders made by me in the action of &c., on this day directing that (name) do stand committed to - prison.

Dated &c.,
Signed,

J.

A prisoner committed for perjury should be sent to Holloway prison.

In the Q. B. Div., when a Deft is committed for contempt, a memorandum headed in the action in the following terms is signed by the master: "The Deft C. D. is, for contempt in disobeying an injunction made in this action by Mr. Justice, on the day of, committed to the custody of the keeper of Her Majesty's gaol at Holloway, to be kept in safe custody until the further order of this Court." This is handed to the tipstaff, who leaves the same with the keeper. On the following day the order is drawn up, and a copy sent to the keeper.

NOTES.

COMMITTAL AND PROSECUTION FOR PERJURY.

By 14 & 15 V. c. 100, s. 19, the Judges or a Judge of the Superior Courts of Law and Equity, and other judicial persons, are empowered, in case it shall appear to him or them that any person has been guilty of wilful and corrupt perjury, in any evidence given, or in any affidavit, deposition, or examination, answer, or other proceeding, made or taken before him or them, to direct such person to be prosecuted for such perjury, in case there shall appear to him or them a reasonable cause for such prosecution; and to commit such person so directed to be prosecuted until the next session of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery for the county or other district within which such perjury was committed, unless such person shall enter into a recognizance, with one or more sufficient surety or sureties, conditioned for the appearance of such person at such next session of oyer and terminer or gaol delivery, and that he will then surrender and take his trial, and not depart the Court without leave; and to require any person he or they may think fit to enter into a recognizance conditioned to prosecute and give evidence against such person so directed to be prosecuted, and to give to the party so bound to prosecute a certificate of the same being directed, which certificate shall be given without fee or charge, and shall be deemed sufficient proof of such prosecution having been directed as aforesaid; and on production thereof the costs of the prosecution are to be allowed by the Court before whom the person is tried, unless that Court otherwise specially directs.

These provisions were acted upon by V.-C. Bacon, in S. v. W., 19 Feb. 1877 see Forms 5-8, sup. pp. 409, 410.

SECTION VIII.-DISCHARGE OF CONTEMPT.

1. Order to discharge Prisoner in Custody under Attachment upon compliance with the Order.

UPON motion &c., by counsel for (the Deft) B., who alleged that the said B. is a prisoner in (Holloway) prison, in the custody of the sheriff of M., under an attachment issued against him pursuant to the order, dated &c., for his contempt in not [state the default], and that the said (Deft) B. hath since [state the compliance], and upon hearing counsel for the Plt, and upon reading [if so, an affidavit of &c., filed &c., of service of notice of this motion upon the Plt-enter any other evidence], This Court doth order that the said (Deft) B. be discharged out of the custody of the said sheriff as to his said contempt; And it is ordered that the said (Deft) B. do pay to the Plt A. his costs of this application, to be taxed &c.

For order to discharge a prisoner in custody for his contempt in not leaving certain accounts and a statement at Chambers pursuant to order upon payment of the Plt's costs occasioned by the said contempt, see Re Hoggett's Estate, Hoggett v. H., M. R., 17 April, 1878, A. 705.

2. Discharge of Prisoner in Custody for not attorning to Receiver— Plaintiff consenting.

UPON motion &c., by counsel for A., who alleged that the said A. is a prisoner in (Holloway) prison, as by the return of the governor of the said prison appears, for his contempt of this Court in not attorning to and becoming the tenant of S., the receiver appointed in this action in respect of &c., occupied by him, situate at &c., being premises comprised in the Plt's securities, as by the order, dated &c., directed; that the said A. has since attorned to and become the tenant of the Plt, and that the said A. is desirous of clearing his said contempt, and the Plt by his counsel consenting, It is ordered that the said A. be discharged out of custody as to his said contempt.-Smith v. Keene, V.-C. B., 4 May, 1878, B. 708.

3. Contempt condoned, and Prisoner discharged on payment of Sum on Account of Costs.

UPON motion &c. by counsel for the Deft H., who alleged that the Deft H. has been by virtue of the order, dated &c., a prisoner in (Holloway) prison since the day of for his contempt in the said order mentioned, and that he hath apologised for such contempt, as by his affidavit filed this day appears; and upon hearing counsel for the Plts, and upon reading the said order and affidavit, This Court doth order that the Deft H. do pay to Messrs. —, the Plt's solrs, the sum of £-on account of their costs of the said order, dated &c., and of this application; And it is ordered that upon such payment being made the Deft H. be discharged out of custody (as to his said contempt); And it is ordered that the costs of and relating to the said order and consequent thereon, and of this application, be taxed &c. ; the Plts by their counsel undertaking to refund to the Deft H. the excess, if any, in case such costs when taxed shall amount to less than the sum of £-, so to be paid on account thereof; And it is ordered that the Deft H. do pay to the Plts the amount of their taxed costs, if any, beyond the said sum of £—. See Price v. Hutchinson, V.-C. M., 12 Jan. 1870, B. 7; S. C., Sect. VII., Form 2, sup. p. 405.

The discharge should be limited to the particular contempt in question, because there may be other causes of detention.

4. Discharge of Prisoner under the Debtors Act, 1878 (41 & 42

V. c. 54).

UPON motion &c., by counsel for the Deft B., and upon hearing counsel for the Plt, and upon reading the order dated &c., whereby it was ordered [state direction for payment]; the order dated &c., whereby it was ordered [state the leave to sue out writ of attachment and the nature of the contempt]; an affidavit of &c., filed &c., and it appearing

by the return of the sheriff of M. that the said (Deft) B. is a prisoner in Holloway prison in the custody of the sheriff of M. under a writ of attachment for his said contempt; and this Court having, pursuant to the Debtors Act, 1878, inquired into the case (and also ascertained that the said (Deft) B. is wholly unable to pay the said sum of £—), doth order that the said Deft B. be discharged out of the custody of the said sheriff of M. as to his said contempt.--See Michell v. Malings, V.-C. H., 6 Nov. 1878, B. 1852.

Mere inability to pay is not, in the absence of other circumstances, admitted as sufficient ground for refusing an attachment, or discharging out of custody: see Simpson v. Bell, sup. p. 386.

5. The Like Order.

WHEREAS by an order dated the 2nd day of August, 1878, made upon the application of C., it was ordered that the said C. should be at liberty to sue out a writ of attachment against the above-named S. for his contempt in not paying to the said C. the sum of £30 for costs, as in the said order mentioned, and an attachment was accordingly issued against the said S. directed to the sheriff of Surrey, and the said sheriff hath returned that the said S. is a prisoner in Wandsworth prison under his custody; And the said S. being this day brought to the bar of this Court, by virtue of a writ of habeas corpus issued pursuant to an order made upon his application, dated the 11th day of March, 1879, and now moving in person that he might be discharged out of custody under the said writ of attachment; And upon hearing counsel for the said C., and upon reading the said order, an affidavit filed &c., and the return of the said sheriff of Surrey, This Court, having inquired into the case, doth order that the said S. be discharged out of the custody of the said sheriff of Surrey as to his contempt in not complying with the said order dated the 2nd day of August, 1878; And it is ordered that the said S. do pay to the said C. his costs of this application, such costs to be taxed by the taxing master.-Re Scard, M. R., 14 Mar. 1879, B. 476.

There is now no necessity for an order to discharge a prisoner in custody for a year under the Debtors Act, 1869, s. 4, as the writ of attachment is indorsed with a note that it does not authorize imprisonment beyond one year: Re Edwards, Brooke v. E., 21 Ch. D. 230; R. S. C., Appendix H., Form 12.

6. Discharge of Order for Attachment, and Attachment for

Irregularity.

WHEREAS by an order dated &c. [Recite order to be discharged]; Now upon motion &c., of counsel for the (Deft) A., who alleged that a writ of attachment was issued against the said (Deft) A., pursuant to the said order directed to the sheriff of &c., and that it appears by the return of the said sheriff to the said writ, that the said A. is a prisoner in