of the said note; and that the defendant did procure the said P. R. and J. M. to join in making the said note; and the same was made upon the terms and the consideration aforesaid, and upon no other; and that afterwards, and before the note became due, the plaintiff, in violation of said agreement, and of the terms and consideration upon which the note was made, sued out of the Court of Record, of the borough of Dublin, a certain writ, called a city attachment, and procured the defendant's goods and chattels to be seized and attached; and afterwards prosecuted an action in said court, against the defendant, for the said sum of £20, in violation of the agreement and the terins, and consideration upon which said note was made. On the first plea the plaintiff joined issue, and to the special plea replied that the promissory note, in the said plea mentioned, was not made upon the terms and consideration in said plea alleged. The jury found for the defendant upon the special plea, and, by the direction of the court, for the plaintiff upon the general issue, on the first count, and for the defendant on the issue on the indebitatus counts, which were not sustained by the evidence. Held that the special plea was a valid one, and that the finding of the jury thereupon having shewn a total failure of consideration, the defendant was entitled to a general verdict upon the record. Pepper v. Maguire, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 461, Ex. said E. F. and the company, setting forth, &c. (setting forth and qualifying certain of the items contained in the declaration, with respect to his age, health, habits, and his accession to the articles of agreement, and constitution of the company, and omitting the others,) and the policy concluded with a proviso "that in case any untrue or fraudulent allegation be contained in said declaration deposited in the office as aforesaid, or that any information respecting the past health or habits of the party assured, or any other circumstance important for the directors to know shall have been withheld from them, or in case payment of the said premiums shall not be regularly made as aforesaid, or if the interest on the part of the assured in the life shall cease and determine, or in case any of the pullities specified in the conditions hereunto annexed, as well as in the original proposal, then and in every such case this policy shall be null and void, and all monies paid therefor shall be forfeited to the company." The plaintiffs averred in their pleadings that the decla ration of the said E. F. so referred to in the policy and so made by him, was in all respects true. Held, that all the matters contained in the proposal and declaration referred to in the policy, besides those specially set forth, were to be taken as matters of warranty and not of mere representation, and that therefore the suppression by E. F. of the fact of his having been attended by another medical man besides the one named in the declaration, although not A declaration in assumpsit by the indorsee one of those matters specially set forth in the policy, against the acceptor, which contained a special had vitiated the policy, though the jury found that count, with the usual promise to pay in it; and the the fact suppressed was neither fraudulently with common money counts concluded with an aver-held, nor a circumstance important for the directors ment, that the defendant afterwards, &c., in con- of the company to know. Scales v. Scanlan, 6 Ir. sideration of the promises respectively, then and L. Rep. 367, Ex. Ch. there promised the plaintiff to pay the last mentioned monies respectively, on request; yet he hath disregarded his promise, and hath not paid any of the said monies, or any part thereof, to the plaintiff's damage, &c. Held, to be a sufficient averment of a breach of the promise contained in the special count. Bourke v. Cooney, 6 Ir. L. Rep., C. P. Evidence.]-On a sale by auction of certain property of a bankrupt, the conditions of sale referred to public advertisements, which professed to contaiu a description of the property to be sold. Held, in an action of assumpsit, by the vendee against the assignee of the bankrupt, to recover back the deposit on the purchase money, that these advertisements were admissible to show that the conditions of sale misdescribed the premises. Thompson v. Guy, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 6, Q. B. [Pennefather, C. J., dissentiente.] ASSURANCE, (POLICY OF.) Policies on Life.]—A policy of assurance effected on the life of E. F., commenced with a recital that E. F. had proposed to effect an assurance on his own life with the C. J. company, and had deposited in the office of the said company a declaration signed by him, dated &c., which being set forth as the strict statement of the facts, was received as the basis and condition of the contract of assurance between the Overruling the judgment of the court below, (5 Ir. L. Rep. 139, Ex.) Brady, C. B., Richards, B and Perrin, J. dissentientibus. Assumpsit on three several policies of assurance, each contained a provision that it should be void "if anything stated by the assured, either in the declaration thereinbefore mentioned to have been made by him should not be true." The proposal for assurance contained the following particular: "Has the party's life been accepted or refused at any other office, and, if accepted, was it at the usual returned by the assured was, "Asylum and National premium, or with what addition?" The answer Office, at the usual premium." The following agreement appeared at the foot of the proposal, and was signed by the assured: "I hereby agree that the proposal mentioned in the above policy shall form the basis of the contract between the assured and the company; and if there be any fraudulent concealment or untrue allegation contained therein, all money which shall have been paid on account of this insurance shall become forfeited, and the policy void." The defendant proved at the trial that the assured had proposed the same party's life for insur ance at two other offices, previous to effecting the assurance with the defendants, and his proposal was rejected. The judge, in summing up, stated to the jury that it was for them to say whether there had been a concealment by the assured of any circumstance which it was material for the company to know. Held, that this was a misdirection, for that the assured had contracted with the company that sioned thereby, though the subpoena did not require the several matters contained in the proposal should him to attend "from day to day" until the cause was be answered truly, and, consequently, that the ques-disposed of, and though he was not served with a given was more or less ma- further notice to attend. Swanne v. Taafe, 8 Ir. Bennett v. Anderson, L. Rep. 101, C. P. tion, whether an answer terial, was not open to him. 1 Ir. Jur. 245, Q. B. Held It is not necessary that a subpoena should be entitled in the name of more than one of the lessors of the plaintiff. Ib. Where a question was left to the jury whether a Policies on Vessels.A policy of assurance effected on a vessel contained the words "lost or not lost at Cardiff to Ballyshannon, beginning the adventure from loading thereof at Cardiff," and in a sub-particular witness was not collusively kept out of the sequent part of the policy were the words, "that way, Held, that the subpoena being to attend on a particular day only, was no defence, though it might the said vessel was warranted safe in port." be cause against an attachment. Keating v. Smith, that the words "safe in port" meant the port of departure, and that the vessel being at the time of Bl. D. & O. 159, N. P. [Per Pigot, C. B.] effecting the policy safe in another port, did not The satisfy the terms of the policy, Kernahan v. National Assurance Company. 10 Ir. L. Rep. 319. Q. B. Substitution of service upon Insurance Companies.]-See PRACTICE at Law, (SubsTITUTION OF SERVICE.) ATTACHMENT. Against Sheriff]-See SHERIFF. For contempt of process of Court.]-To obtain an attachment for not obeying a writ of habeas corpus if the writ be not personally served, the affidavit must state that a servant or agent of the party to whom the writ is directed was served at the house where the person was detained. In re Wildridge, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 1, Q. B. Where an attorney had been subponed to give evidence and excused his absence, on the ground that he was attending a motion in the Rolls Court, and denied the contempt, the Court refused an attachment at the instance of the plaintiff against whom there had been a verdict. Collins v Green, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 17, Q. B. Where a witness came from the country to Dublin, pursuant to a subpoena ad testificandum, and attended court during the first day of the sittings, but did not attend on the next day until after the case had been called on, and the plaintiff nonsuited, the court refused to grant an attachment against the witness, it appearing that he had been induced to suppose from the state of the Nisi Prius list at the close of the first day, that the case could not come on at an early hour on the second; and the witness deposing that he had been unable to leave his bed until a later hour than usual on the latter day, in consequence of indisposition. M' Cormack v. Magrath, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 519, Ex. The court refused to attach a witness for not attending a trial in obedience to a subpoena, where his non-attendance originated in a misconception of the meaning of an arrangement entered into between him and the plaintiff's attorney, whereby he was to be sent for. Ib. For non-payment of Costs.]-Where a motion to take a frivolous demurrer off the file was granted, and the parties filing it ordered to pay costs, Held, that an attachment might issue for them, as they could not be included in the execution, not being costs in the cause. Anonymous, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 66, Q. B. Ex. circumstances of the case, though he had not served An attorney admitted as an apprentice under the five years. Ex parte Merville, 2 Jon. 282. A minor will not be admitted an attorney of the court. Ex parte Robinson, 2 Jon. 622. The 1 & 2 Geo. 4, c. 48, applies only where the party has been bound apprentice after he has taken his degree. Ex parte Colville, 2 Jon. 624. Privilege.]-In transitory actions, an attorney has the privilege of suing in his own court, and laying and retaining the venue in the county in which it is situated. Montgomery v. Cheyne, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 163, Q. B. In an action, by an attorney, for the recovery of a bill of costs, the venue was changed before plea A material witness who was served with a sub-pleaded to the adjoining county, upon an affidavit, pona ad testificandum on a certain day, and attended accordingly, but on finding that the trial was adjourned until the following day, expressed an intention of absenting, and did absent himself, was at tached until he paid the costs of the non-suit occa that from the peculiar influence of the plaintiff in the county, where the venue was laid, a fair and impartial trial could not be had. Boyse v. Smyth, 2. Ir. L. Rep. 366, Ex. If an attorney be sued in autre droit by bill, no writ having been issued against him, his proper course is, to move to set aside those proceedings; if he appear and plead, or demur, he waives the objection. Kehoe v. Wright, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 261, Ex. Where an attorney is sued in autre droit by bill, without process, the proceedings are irregular, and will be set aside with costs. Keely v. Lynch, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 563, Ex. Where an attorney is sued as such jointly, with an unprivileged person, the declaration will be set aside for irregularity. Johnson v. Sparkes, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 139, C. P., S. C., Bl. D. & O., 49. The circumstance of the defendant having compelled the plaintiff to give security for costs, is not a waiver of the irregularity 16. An attorney of the superior courts, on appeal, can assert his privilege, as an objection to the jurisdiction of the Manor Court, though he appeared below by counsel and attorney. Molloy, appel. v. Caldbeck, resp. Bl. D. & O. 217. [Per Pigot, C.B.] License-Certificate.]-The defendant, who was an attorney, but had not taken out his license for several years, having been served with process, appeared by attorney, and pleaded in abatement his privilege to be sued by bill without process. The court refused a motion to set aside the plea. Fury v. Ryan, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 518, Ex. Semble, that the 68 section of the 56 Geo. 3, c. 56, which imposes a penalty on an attorney practising without having obtained his annual certificate, does not apply to the case of an attorney practis ing in the Crown Court at Quarter Sessions. Scott v. Frayne, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 41, Ex. Bill of Costs.]-In an action for attorney's bill of costs, if it appear from the bill itself that the defendant is the person intended to be charged, the bill need not be drawn in the technical form of a debtor and creditor account. Holmes v. Magrath, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 376, Q. B. An English solicitor suing, in this country a defendant resident here, for costs incurred in England, is not bound to serve his bill of costs, pur. suant to the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73,* (Eng.) prior to bringing his action. Whyte v. Chichester, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 409, Q. B. An Irish solicitor suing in England for business done in Ireland, is not bound to serve his bill of costs one month before bringing the action. Guinness, v Allen, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 412, Q. B. Taxable items.]-When a bill of costs was for conveyancing, with the exception of one item, for drawing a bond and warrant of attorney. Held, that the warrant being a taxable item subjected the whole bill to taxation, and no action could be brought on such a bill if not served pursuant to the statute. Dunne v. Tierney, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 321, Ex. Taxation of]-Where an attorney delivered his bill a month before action brought, and after action brought, the client obtained an order to have the bill taxed, and more than one-sixth was struck off. The court refused to give the client the costs of taxation, no settled practice to the contrary being shewn. Hamilton v. Gould, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 285, Q. B. Copies of an attorney's bill of costs are not allowed in the taxation of the costs of an action brought to recover the amount of that bill. Gor v. Donovan, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 333, Q. B. The court will not entertain a motion to renew taxation before the costs have been signed by the officer. Burke v. Ormsby, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 64, C.P. Where an executrix of an attorney sued for a bill of costs due to her testator, the court stayed the pro ceedings until the bill had been taxed, but without the costs of the motion, though the defendant had served a consent to pay when the amount should be ascertained. Rowland v. Bole, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 183, C. P. When the practice of the taxing officer is the question to be decided, the court will not enter into it without the officer's report. Irwin v. Jon dan, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 468, C. P. a A petition, praying that the respondent, a attorney, be ordered to tax his costs, and furnish list of credits, without alleging misconduct on the part of the respondent, in having refused the cre dits required, or an undertaking on the part of the petitioner to pay the amount of the costs when ascertained. Held to be irregular, and that the respondent was entitled to the costs of the appli cation. Roddy v. Conroy, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 135, C. P. Where an action is brought by an attorney for the recovery of his bill of costs, and it appears that there is but one taxable item; though it be for business done in some other court of law, the court will stay the proceedings, and refer the bill for taxation-upon an undertaking by the defend ant's attorney, to pay same when taxed and ascer tained-independently of the 7 Geo. 2, c. 14, from the inherent jurisdiction which the court exercises over its own officers. Bastable v. Reardon, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 167, Q. B. Where an action was brought upon two bills of costs, as to one of which the defendant admitted his liability. The court, upon his application, referred the undisputed bill for taxation, upon terms of his lodging with the officer a blank plea of confession, to be filled for the amount to which the said bill should tax, if the plaintiff should fail as to the disputed bill, but if he recovered the amount of it, that also, should be included in the plea of confession. Kelly v. Antisel, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 492, Ex When a bill of costs is pleaded as a set off, the court have discretion to order those costs to be taxed, without the plaintiff giving an undertaking to pay the amount. Alker v. Dunne, 9 Ir. L Rep. 105, Q. B. The court has jurisdiction, independently of the 7 Geo. 2, c. 14, to give to a defendant the costs of taxation, though the reference to tax be not made until after action brought. v. Massey, Bl. D. & O., 150, Ex. The court will not, on a motion by the defend ant for the costs of taxation, enquire whether the taxation be correct, their being no motion to review. 1b. Lien-and Motions for liberty to proceed for costs.] This act has been extended to Ireland, 12 & 13 Vict. In an action of assault, the plaintif having obtained a verdict with 40s, damages, and being indebted in -Editor. larger sum than the amount of the costs of this tion, was afterwards discharged as an insolvent btor, on a motion by the plaintiff's attorney for perty to issue execution for the costs of the action, eld that an admission by the attorney of his ving been paid the costs, though explained was fficient to let in the equities between the parties, d deprive the attorney of his lien on the judgent for his costs. Ronayne v. Doherty, 4 Ir. L. ep. 332, C. P. The parties having entered into a consent, which as made a rule of court, that the proceedings in a eplevin suit should be stayed, on the terms of the laintiff investing one moiety of the arrears and acuing rent for certain specified purposes, and payg the other moiety to the defendant, Held that e attorney for the defendant had no lien on the ccruing rent for his costs. The court ordered e attorney to pay the costs of the motion, it apearing that the bill of costs was large and unixed, and only a small balance due. Regan v. Francis, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 402, C. P. Where an interlocutory judgment in an action or unliquidated damages had been set aside upon ertain terms, and before those terms had all been omplied with, the plaintiff and defendant comproised the action without the knowledge of the laintiff's attorney. The attorney will not be alowed to treat this as a subsisting judgment, for he purpose of recovering his costs against the deendant. Walsh v. Delany, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 205, Q.B. In an action of trespass, the defendant before he trial effected a compromise with the plaintiff, vithout the knowledge of his attorney. Upon an application on behalf of the attorney to compel the efendant to pay him his costs. Held that this eing an action of tort for unliquidated damages, he solicitor had no lien for the costs against the deendant. Ex parte Mitchell, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 33. Ex. The rule is, that the parties may compromise, nless served with notice not to do so, without the nowledge of the attorney, and releases may be iven, if it be done without collusion. Mulligan v. Gilligan, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 323, Q. B. ceed with the action for his costs, and directed a stet processus. Murphy v. Kelly, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 472, Ex. Where a party collusively, and without the privity of his attorney, consented to a compromise of the cause of action, the consent was set aside, and the attorney held to be entitled to his lien for costs, though he had served no cautionary notice. Nugent v. O'Brien, Bl. D. & O. 208. Q. B. If after action brought the demand is settled without the knowledge of the attorney, it is not sufficient that he should serve notice of his intention to proceed for his costs; he should apply to the court for such leave. Kirwan v. Hampton, Bl. D. & O. 227, Q. B. Reference to Tax.]-After plea pleaded, the defendant will be allowed to have a bill of costs referred for taxation, without an undertaking to pay the amount when ascertained and without prejudice to his right to dispute the retainer. Dolphin v. Bird, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 216, C. P. Recovery after Taxation.]-Where the plaintiff, on changing his attorney, signed a consent, which was made a rule of court, that it should be referred to the taxing officer to tax and ascertain the amount of the costs of the former attorney, the usual undertaking to pay was omitted. The costs having been taxed, certified, and demanded, the court refused to grant an attachment against the plaintiff for nonpayment; and the cause having been referred to arbitration, by a rule of Nisi Prius, the court further declined to stay the proceedings in the cause, or to make an order for payment within a specified time. Blake v. Blake, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 211, Č. P. Jurisdiction of Court over.]-See OFFICER (OF SUPERIOR COURTS.) ATTORNEY GENERAL. demurrer is personal and cannot be deputed. ReThe privilege of the attorney general to open a gina v. Duffy, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 329, Q. B. After declaration filed, au arrangement was en. ered into between the parties, with the privity of AUCTION-See SALE. VENDOR. PURCHASER. he plaintiff's attorney, that securities should be given or the debt, and that the defendant should pay a um of £6 to the plaintiff's attorney for his costs, it eing understood, that the proceedings in the suit ere not to terminate until the costs were paid. The securities were duly paid, and repeated appliations made, for the costs. Held that the plaintiffs torney was irregular in proceeding in the suit, ithout the leave of the court. Farrell v. Elly, 6 L. Rep. 147, [Doherty, C. J. dissentiente.] The defendant's acceptance being dishonoured, e plaintiff's attorney paid the amount to the holder banking company), who promised to send him te bill which they had sent to their attorney. By e same post application for payment was made by e attornies both of the plaintiff and of the bank, e latter of whom stated that the bill was in his ands. The defendant, after declaration at the plainf's suit, paid the attorney of the bank, got the ll, and pleaded the general issue. The court resed to allow the attorney of the plaintiff to pro AUCTIONEER. AUCTIONEER-See SALE, The defendant having been previously in treaty with two persons for the sale of a farm, gave notice to them to come to his house at a particular time, when the property should be set up and sold. They attended at the appointed time, a few of the defendant's friends and neighbours being also present, one of whom put down in writing the names of the bidders, and the conditions of the sale; after several biddings by both the persons who had been negociating for the purchase of the farm, one of them having outbid the other, was declared by the defendant to be the purchaser. Held that this was not such a sale by auction as subjected the seller to the penalty imposed by the 54 Geo. 3, c. 82, on a person acting as an auctioneer without being licensed, or as rendered the sale liable to the auction duty. Attorney-General v. Cathew, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 149. Ex. Quære. If a person selling his own goods by auction, subjects himself to the penalty imposed by the 54 Geo. 3, c. 82, on an unlicensed auctioneer. Ibid. In construing the terms of a penal act, the court is bound to see that the transaction sought to be effected by it is within the plain and ordinary meaning of those terms. 1b. ment allowed to render their principal in discharge of the condition of the bond. Budd v. Coyne, 6 it. L. Lep. 214, Ex. Bail bond.]-Where the names in the bail bond were different from those in the defendant's order, and notice of bail, and it was not stated where it was taken, though it appeared to have been acknow It is not necessary for the special bailiff of a she-ledged before a commissioner, it was held to be inriff to take out a license as an auctioneer, or to em- formal, and was ordered to be taken off the file of the court. Anonymous, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 169, Q. B. ploy a licensed auctioneer to entitle him to sell, by public auction in the usual way, goods taken by him in execution under a civil bill decree, he not being thereby a person carrying on the trade and business of an auctioneer within the meaning of the 6 Geo. 4, c. 81, s. 26. Reg. v. Martin, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 153, Q. B. Quære, is the 46th sec. of the 6 & 7 W. 4, c. 75, repealed by the 1 Vic. c. 43, s. 3. A special bailiff, nominated by the plaintiff, and appointed by the sheriff, is not enabled to sell by way of auction, goods taken in execution under a civil bill decree, without being licensed, or procuring the assistance of a licensed auctioneer. Attorney-General v. Malone, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 245, Ex. AVOWRY-See DISTRESS. REPLEVIN. AWARD-See ARBITRATION. BAIL-See AFFIDAVIT. ARREST. COMMIS SIONERS. Notice of]-A notice of, describing the bail as of "S. A. Street, Druggist," where it appeared that he resided in S. A. Street, but carried on business in a different place, held to be sufficient. liams v. Ansell, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 277, Ex. There is no distinction, in a notice of bail, between the word "householder" and "housekeeper." Coughlan v. Devine, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 375, Ex. [Per Richards, B.] The 8th new General Rule does not apply to an attorney giving security for costs for a plaintiff who resides out of the jurisdiction. Anonymous, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 294, Q. B. [Per Burton, J.] Lodging money in lieu of bail bond.]-A party arrested on an affidavit to hold to bail, and the money for which the fiat issued was lodged by his attorney out of his own money, Held, that a party making such lodgment is to be regarded with the same favour as bail, and is entitled to all the advantages which he would have had in showing error or irregularity in the plaintiff's proceeding, in case he had actually joined in a bail bond. Johnston v. De Pothonier, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 25, Q. B. The practice as to lodging money in lieu of bail is not altered by the 3 & 4 Vic. c. 105, s. 3. Ruskell v. Clifford, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 3, Q. B. Sufficiency of]-A person, tendered in bail swore he was worth double what he owed, but admitted his having bills of his protested without being able to account satisfactorily for his having done so, was refused. Williams v. Ansell,1 Ir. L. Rep. 277. Action on. In an action on a bail-piece, the judgment against the principal is but collateral, and an inducement to the action and not the founWil-dation of it. The declaration alledged that the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the principal on the 17th of June, 1840; on the production of the record it appeared from the entry on the roll, to have been recovered on the 27th of May, 1840the 17th being marked in the margin of the roll as the day on which it was actually entered. Plea nul tiel record. Held, that there was no variance, the allegation of the recovery of the judgment being an allegation of substance and not of description. O'Loughlin v. Fogarty, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 54, Ex. A notice of bail, in which the bail are described as householders, is sufficient. Anonymous, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 229, Ex. [Per Pennefather, B.] A notice of bail, which describes the bail as householders instead of housekeepers, is bad. Foudrinier v. Pike, 1. Ir. L. Rep. 2, Q. B. Commissioners for taking bail.]-Commissioners for taking bail in the country have no authority to take a recognizance of security for costs. Loveland v. Daly, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 537, Éx. Surrender.]-When a ca. sa. had issued against a trader, who had entered into a bond with sureties under the 3 & 4 Vic. c. 105, s. 8, and a return of non est inventus was filed on the 9th of February, and a writ issued against the sureties returnable the 15th of April, and an appearance was had on the 23rd. Held, that the sureties were too late in offering to surrender their principal on the 25th of April. Leemings v. Marshall, 6 Ir. L.. Rep. 454, Q. B. Sureties with a trader on a bond under the 3 & 4 Vic. c. 105, s. 8, conditioned to pay the amount of debt and costs which might be recovered against the principal, or to render himself, were after judg Semble, that if the judgment against the principal were matter of description, there would be no variance, as the day marked, pursuant to the statute, on the margin of the roll, is the true date of the judgment. Ib. Staying proceedings.]-Where in an action against bail, the bail bond was executed the 18th Nov. 1837, the bail offered to render the principal on the 21st, but subsequently requested the plaintiff to stay proceedings on the bond, the principal in the meanwhile became insolvent, and the action on the bond was not commenced till the 21st Sep. 1839. A motion by the defendant to stay proceedings was refused with costs. Norris v. Callan, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 180, Q. B. Affidavit on which to ground a motion to stay proceedings, must deny collusion with the princpal. Ib. |