awarded, or it may be held bad as to the whole (t). Thus, where an arbitrator, without authority, awarded on the costs of the reference, and the demand was of one sum, including the costs, the rule for an attachment was discharged ("). Where there had been a proper demand for costs awarded, but the amount was subsequently reduced pursuant to a judge's order, a fresh demand of the reduced amount was held necessary to ground an attachment (.). But if the award be of two distinct sums, one within the submission, and the other not, and a demand be made of both, a clear refusal to pay anything will be a contempt, and an attachment will issue in respect of the sum really due (y). Generally speaking, the demand of performance of an act beyond the power of the arbitrator to order will not vitiate the demand as to other matters properly awarded (≈). PART III. CH. VI. 8. 2. The precise thing awarded should be demanded. Where, Demand of on an award to pay money, and to deliver a wine warrant, awarded. precise thing for a certain hogshead of wine lying in the docks, a demand of the money and of the hogshead of wine was made, the court let an attachment issue for all excepting the wine, and refused it for that, since a demand of the wine is not equivalent to demanding the wine warrant, for the delivering the wine would impose upon the party the payment of the dock dues, which the delivery of the warrant would not (a). vice of copy 11. Service of the rule, award, and other documents.]-In Personal sergeneral, besides the demand, in order to ground an attach- of award and ment, there must be personally served on the party sought rule. to be charged, at the time of making the demand, a copy of the award. It used also to be necessary, and still is, in some cases, to serve a copy of the rule of court, founded on the submission (b); for a party could not be held to be in contempt until he had been made acquainted with the rule of court, for the disobedience to which it was sought to put him in con PART III. CH. VI. S. 2. Of the master's allocatur. Of the agent's power of attorney. Showing originals. Giving notice of enlarge ment of time. What sufficient notice. Serving sub mission not requisite. tempt. Leaving a copy of the rule at the party's office was insufficient, though the original were shown him (c). If there be a demand of costs which have been taxed, a copy of the master's allocatur for them must also be given at the same time. And if an agent make the demand, there must be personally left with the party a copy of the power of attorney, or other authority under which the agent acts. The originals of all these several instruments must be produced and shown at the time of serving the copies (d), even though the party do not require to see them (e); serving a copy of the award one day and showing the original two days afterwards, when the demand was made, was insufficient (f). If the award have not been made within the period limited by the submission, but the time has been enlarged, notice of the enlargement, and that the award has been made within the extended time, must be given, in order to fix the party with a contempt (g). Mere verbal notice is sufficient. Though the submission require that the enlargement be made in writing, it is not necessary to produce the original to the party, or to serve him with a copy. It is enough to bring the knowledge of the enlargement home to the party in any manner (h). A recital in the award that the arbitrator has enlarged the time to a certain day does not, it seems, amount to a good notice, although the award purports to be made within the extended period (i). Serving the original submission was not necessary, for it was the disobedience to the rule of court that was the foundation of the contempt (k). (c) Parker v. Burgess, 3 N. & M. 36. (d) Tidd, Pr. 837, 9th ed.; Mayor of Bath v. Pinch, 4 Scott, 299; Boyes v. Hewetson, 2 Scott, 837; Gifford v. Gifford, Forr. 80; Doe d. Hickman v. Hickman, 1 Scott, N. R. 398; Bass v. Maitland, 8 Moore, 44, contrà; Wadsworth v. Marshall, 1 C. & M. 87; Anon. 12 Mod. 257; R. v. Tooley, 12 Mod. 312; Chanler v. Driver, 12 Mod. 317; King v. Packwood, 2 Dowl. 570; Laugher v. Laugher, 1 Dowl. 284, S. C. 1 C. & J. 398. (e) Jackson v. Clarke, M'Lel. 72, S. C. 13 Price, 208; Reid v. Deer, 7 D. & R. 612; R. v. Sloman, 1 Dowl. 618. (f) Lloyd v. Harris, & C. B. 63. (g) Hilton v. Hopwood, 1 Marsh. 66; Wohlenberg v. Lageman, 6 Taunt. 250. (h) Doddington v. Bailward, 7 Dowl. 640. (i) Davis v. Vass, 15 East, 96; Doddington v. Bailward, 7 Dowl. 640. (k) Greenwood v. Dyer, 5 Dowl. 255. Tendering the copies of the proper documents to the party, and leaving them by him, is sufficient service, though he refuse to take them up (1). The originals need not be delivered into the hands of the party when produced to him. If they be shown so that he can read them it is sufficient (m). PART III. CH. VI, S. 2. What good service. No attachment can be granted if a personal service and Personal serpersonal demand cannot be effected, even when a party keeps vice necesout of the way purposely to avoid service (n). sary. Though on a very strong case a relaxation of the general rule applicable to all attachments may be allowed, where an attachment is the only remedy for a debt, yet in the case of an award, where there is another remedy by action, the rule will be strictly adhered to (0), except according to some Unless award, cases, where there is an equivalent to personal service, such &c., already in party's as an acknowledgment by the party that the award and rule possession. have come to his hands, or where they have been seen in his possession (p). Thus, where it was proved that one of two unsuccessful parties had served the other with the rule and award in regular form, the court, on an application against them both for non-performance, held personal service unnecessary, since personal knowledge of the award and rule had been brought home to both (q). Care must be taken that the copies served are correct. Error in copy Where the master's name signed to the allocatur was written served. Day instead of Dax in the copy served, no attachment was 602 PART III. CH. VI. S. 3. Entitling affidavits on the motion. Affidavits on showing cause. SECTION III. THE COURSE OF THE MOTION FOR AN ATTACHMENT. 1. Affidavits on the motion for an attachment.]—All affidavits must be entitled in the High Court of Justice and in the Divisional Court in which they are to be used. When the reference is of a cause by rule of court, judge's order or order of Nisi Prius, the affidavits on which the motion for an attachment is made (t), including the affidavit verifying the power of attorney, if any, for the demand of payment (") must be entitled in the cause also. But when the reference is by agreement out of court, and there is no cause in court, the affidavits needed only to be entitled in the court, though they are often entitled "In the matter" of the parties to the submission, as seems now to be necessary (Order XXXVIII. r. 2 (1883)). Where cross actions in the Common Pleas and all matters in difference were referred by an agreement out of court, that court granted an attachment on affidavits entitled "In the matter of arbitration between A. and B., A. v. B.," not mentioning the cross action B. v. A. (x). On some occasions it was held that after the rule nisi for an attachment had been granted, the affidavits on showing cause ought to be entitled "The Queen against [the party sought to be brought into contempt]," on the ground that there was a proceeding in court between the Crown and the individual as soon as the rule nisi has been granted (y); but later decisions showed that, whether the reference were in a cause or under the statute, they ought to be entitled in the same manner as the affidavits on which the motion has been grounded should be entitled, for that the Crown was no party until the rule for the attachment had been made absolute (≈). (t) Whitehead v. Firth, 12 East, (u) Doe d. Clarke v. Still well, 6 (x) Pike v. Newman, 14 C. B. 425. (y) Bevan v. Bevan, 3 T. R. 601; R. v. Sheriff of Middlesex, 3 T. R. 133; R. v. Jones, 1 Stra. 704. (z) Whitehead v. Firth, 12 East, 166; R. v. Harrison, 6 T. R. 60; Wood v. Webb, 3 T. R. 253; Houghton and Fallowes, In re, 2 M. & P. 452. The rule nisi for the attachment used to be headed in the manner prescribed for the affidavits on which the motion was made. PART III. CH. VI. 8. 3. Entitling rule nisi. After the attachment has once been granted, even although Affidavits it have not issued, every affidavit on a motion to set it aside after attachment granted. or in any matter concerning it, must be headed, "The Queen against [the party attached]” (a). An objection to the want of a title to the affidavits, when it was necessary, could not, it seems, be waived by consent, and the court would not look at them when deficient in this respect (b). The affidavit on which the application is made must verify Affidavit verifying the award. Formerly, if there were an attesting witness to award. it, he was obliged, according to the rules then applicable to written instruments generally, to be the party to attest its due execution. The affidavit should state the date of the Whether it must show execution, or at least should show that the award was made award made within the authorised time (c). Credit, however, is some- in time. times given to the award itself as being made on the day it purports to be made; and it has been said, that when there is nothing to induce suspicion, the affidavit of the execution of the award need not state when it was executed (d). Where the award annexed to the affidavit bore a date within the time limited by the submission it was held sufficient (e). On one occasion, an objection to the want of a statement that the award of an umpire was made within the proper period, was held to be cured, when it appeared by the jurat of the affidavit to the execution of the award that the affidavit itself was sworn before the expiration of the time limited for making the award (f). When the time had been enlarged, the old practice required Verifying enlargement. that the enlargement should be made part of the rule of court with the submission (g). If this had not been done, there (a) R. v. Sheriff of Middlesex, 7 T. R. 439; Whitehead v. Firth, 12 East, 166. Owen v. Hurd, 2 T. R. 643. (c) Wohlenberg v. Lageman, 6 Taunt. 251; Trew v. Burton, 1 C. & M. 533. (d) Doe d. Clarke v. Stillwell, 8 A. & E. 645; Stephenson v. (e) Higgins v. Street, 25 L. J. (f) Trew v. Burton, 1 C. & M. 533. (g) Welsh, In re, 1 Dowl. N. S. |