of the court will not be liable to the costs of a mo- mis v. Macklin, Bl. D. & O. 222, C. P.; S. C. 10 tion, though a consent had been previously tendered, Ir. L. Rep. 7. offering the same terms imposed by the court. Waldron v. Hussey, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 134, C. P. If a party comes into court seeking any benefit to himself by his motion, he will not be entitled to costs. Finn v. Walsh, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 368, C. P.; Loveland v. Daly, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 537, Ex. The defendant, though required by several notices, the last of which bore date the 27th of October, had not signed a consent to make a rule of Nisi Prius, of the 18th of June, a rule of court, until the 29th of October, and after expenses incurred by the plaintiff, in preparing for a motion to have the rule entered with costs, of which notice had been served on the same 29th, and an offer made on the part of the plaintiff to withdraw it on payment of the expenses actually incurred. The court made a conditional order, obtained on the first day of term for the purpose, absolute, with costs. Regan v. Francis, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 6, C. P. The court has no jurisdiction to order a party to pay costs to another, incurred in proceedings in equity. Lynch v. Lynch, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 298, C. P. Where a motion is not properly moveable, the party appearing to oppose it will not be allowed his costs, except the notice of motion state that leave to move had been given. Mara v. Murphy, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 138, C. P. The process server was prosecuted by the defendant, and convicted of perjury. The court set aside the civil proceedings with costs, but refused to make the plaintiff pay the costs of the prosecution. Lewis v. Hynes, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 177, Ex. The defendant having prosecuted, and convicted the process server of perjury, the court set aside the civil proceedings with costs, and the costs of taking the affidavit of the process server off the file, for the purpose of the prosecution, but refused the costs of the motion, as the notice asked the costs of the proceeding in the Criminal Court. Fahie v. Nash, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 304, C. P. Quære, has the court jurisdiction to order the plaintiff to pay to the defendant the costs incurred by the latter in the prosecution. Ib. A plaintiff is not entitled to the costs of a motion, calling on the defendant to furnish the particulars of a set off, where no previous demand has been made. Betham v. Franklin, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 40, Q. B. No costs of a motion will be given except asked for by the notice. If, on argument of a demurrer, the objections have not been noted in the judge's books, in pursuance of the 134th rule of the court, the party obtaining judgment, on such objections, will not be allowed his costs. Cochrane v. Fitzpatrick, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 187, Q. B. A defendant is entitled to the costs of a commission to examine witnesses, though the witness examined was not produced, nor his depositions read at the trial, the plaintiff not having provided, by the form of his order, for that contingency. Kem Security for Costs.]-A tenant will be required to give security for costs, under the 1 Geo. 4, c. 87, though there has been laches, on the part of the landlord in the service of the notice required by the statute, if there be no affidavit on the part of the tenant, shewing that there is something to be tried. Flynn v. Ejector, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 72, Q. B. A defendant in ejectment will not be required to give security for costs, when he holds under a lease for 21 years, though determinable, at the end of each year, by a previous six months notice, either from the lessor, or lessee, if the ejectment be brought upon a notice, pursuant to the proviso in the lease, for determining the interest. Duke of Devonshire v. Ejector, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 6, Q. B. A defendant who is a seafaring man, will not be required to give security in an action for costs of replevin. Corscaden v.Stewart, 1 Ir.L.Rep.1 10, Q.B. In an ejectment for non-payment of rent, the defendant was compelled to give security for costs, it appearing he was a mere cottier tenant, and that for the mere purpose of depriving the landlord of costs; defence had been taken in his name, by the principal tenant, who had been delapidating the premises since the ejectment was brought. Hen derson v. Hoghan, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 231, Ex. Where an insolvent took defence to an ejectment brought by his assignee, the court refused to interfere, either by setting aside the defence, or by compelling the defendant to give security for costs, it appearing, that, in consequence of his refusal to give up possession of the premises, he still continued a prisoner, and had not obtained the benefit of the Act for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors. A defendant in ejectment will not be compelled to give security for costs, unless under very special circumstances. Evans v. Reilly, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 230, Ex. The 8th new G. R. does not apply to an attor ney giving security for costs for a defendant living out of the jurisdiction. Anonymous, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 294, Q. B. Where the plaintiff stated, that he then resided, and intended to reside, within the jurisdiction, and that an order requiring him to give security for costs, was obtained for the purpose of delay, Held, that this was not sufficient ground to rescind the order. Woodley v. Woodley, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 86, Q. B. Where a Court of Equity directs that an action. should be tried at law, and the plaintiff, in the action, resides out of the jurisdiction, the law court, in which the action is brought, may order the proceedings to be stayed until the security for costs be given. Lilly v. Stafford, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 300, Q. B. [This application may be also made in the Court of Chancery. Desprez v. Mitchell, 5 Mad. 87.] When there has been judgment for the defendant in the court below, and the plaintiff sues out a writ of error, he is bound to enter into security, as if the defendant below was plaintiff in error. Dawson v. McIntyre, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 443, Q. B. [Williamson v. Haygarth, 12 Jur. 727, Ex. Ch.] In a writ of error, from an inferior court, the Common Pleas will not compel the defendant to security for costs, being the plaintiff below, residing out of the jurisdiction, but who had been required to give security for costs in the t below. Harkin v. Montgomery, 3 Ir. L. . 471, C. P. party being resident, out of the jurisdiction, hose suit a scire facias to revive a judgment sued, will not be compelled to give security for Walker v. Fitzgerald, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 509, S. P. contra. Archdall v. Supple, 3 Ir. L. 287, C. P. here the action of trespass, for mesne rates, is ght in the name of the feigned lessee, the upon the defendant's application, will stay proceedings till security be given for costs. land v. Daly, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 537, Ex. here the plaintiff was not a person in solvent mstances, and the action was brought at the estion and cost of the landlord, the proceedwere stayed till the plaintiff gave security for Egan v. Kirkaldy, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 542, Ex. an ejectment on the title, a defendant will not ompelled to give security for costs, unless or collusion be clearly shewn. O'Brien v. er, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 380, Q. B. plaintiff residing abroad, but who has property eland, and has been resident since the comement of the suit, and purposes to do so till ttlement, will not be required to give security osts. Sisson v. Cooper, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 401, personal representative residing out of the diction will be ordered to give the defendants, scire facias, security for costs. O'Brien v. , 4 Ir. L. Rep. 419, C. P. he court will not order an attorney to disclose e defendant the name and place of abode of client, or to give security for costs, when he s that he resides in Ireland, and that he will uce him at the trial; but if he fail, he must the defendant's costs. Riley v. Beatty, 6 Ir. Lep. 100, C. P. he court will not compel a defendant in ejectt to give security for costs, except some fraud ollusion be shewn. Colclough v. Magill, 6 Ir. lep. 220, Ex. laintiffs will be compelled to give security costs, though many of the members reside in country, the company being essentially a ign one. North American Colonial Associav. Archer, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 509, Ex. "he defendant is not entitled to the costs of a on to compel a plaintiff to give security for s. Ib. plaintiff who serves notice of speeding a writ nquiry, upon a suggestion of breaches under 9 Wm. 3, c. 10, cannot be compelled to give rity for costs. Thompson v. Donnelly, 6 Ir. L. .30, Ex. pauper tenant bringing an action of trespass, injury to his holding, his attorney being the rney of the landlord, who a short time presly discontinued an action in his own name for Same cause of action, was ordered to give secufor costs. Larkin v. Lauder, 7 Ir. L. Rep. C.P. is not necessary, under such circumstances, to make a previous application or demand for such security. Ib. If the officer, on a reference to measure security for costs, fix the amount above the ordinary sum, the court will not direct him to review his taxation, unless that order be clearly wrong. Lewis v. Earl of Charleville, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 301, Ex. Semble. The court will direct him to review his order, if the plaintiff state that he is unable to procure the required amount of security. Ib. An officer serving in the East India Company's service is liable to give security for costs, when resident out of the jurisdiction. Thorpe v. Murphy, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 332, Q. B. A plaintiff out of the jurisdiction gave security for costs, and at the trial a verdict was given against him, on which he took a bill of exceptions. The court, after the bill of exceptions had been made up, made an order, on the application of the defendant, that the proceedings should be stayed until the plaintiff gave further security for costs, the costs out of pocket having exceeded the original security. Levison v. Hodges, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 112, C. P. The defendant having ascertained, when the time for pleading was about to expire, that the plaintiff was resident out of the jurisdiction, gave notice of a motion for security for costs, and on the following day filed his plea. Held, that he had thereby waived his notice. Watson v. Chadwick, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 291, Ex. Semble. The proper course is to serve a cautionary notice on the plaintiff, requiring him not to mark judgment for want of a plea pending the notice for security. Ib. The affidavit to found a motion for security for costs need not be made by the defendant, and when pending the motion, having been served with the rule for judgment, he pleaded. Held, that he was not disqualified from making the motion. Clarke v. Dickson, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 410, C. P. A plaintiff in error, who has been plaintiff below, cannot be compelled to give security for costs, under the 1 Geo. 4, c. 68. Stephenson v. Higginson, Bl. D. & O. 37, Ex. A plea, though filed under protest, is a waiver of the right to move for security for costs. Henry v. Hackett, Bl. D. & O. 248, Q. B. A plaintiff residing as a judge in one of the colonies will not be compelled to give security for costs. Perry v. Moloney, Bl. D. & O. 207, Q.B. A defence taken to an ejectment on the title, in the name of a person served who had subsequently left the jurisdiction, will be set aside, unless security for costs be given, it appearing that his name had been used by other persons, to avoid the payment of them. Stewart v. Bartholomew, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 377, Ex. To induce the court to compel a defendant in ejectment to give security for costs, some fraud or collusion must be shewn, as where a pauper is put forward, by a solvent person, to embarrass the lessor of the plaintiff. Colclough v. Magill, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 220, Ex. If the defendant give the preliminary notice that the plaintiff, residing out of the jurisdiction, shall give security for costs, if the plaintiff assent thereto, such assent must be unconditional, and no further proceedings can be taken until the security be given. Cochrane v. Holden, 1 Ir. Jur. 80, C. P. Particulars of Demand.]--A plaintiff having omitted to file a bill of particulars with his declaration, on being served with a notice of motion on the same day, to compel him to furnish it with costs, forwarded it before six o'clock the same evening, offering to pay the costs incurred to that time, Held, that he was justified in refusing to sign a consent to pay a taxed bill of costs of the motion, and on the defendant's moving the original motion, it was refused, with costs. Hughes v. Fitzgerald, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 114, C. P. A general heading to a bill of particulars omitted the date of each item. To entitle the defendant to the costs of a motion for further particulars, he should have given the plaintiff notice of the irregularity, and demanded further particulars. Anonymous. Bl. D. & O. 99, Ex. Costs of Executors.]-Where there had been a verdict against an executor-plaintiff in action of sci. fa., the court struck out the part of the judgment which awarded costs against him, it having ever been the understood construction of the 9 Wm. 3, c. 10, that executors, whether plaintiffs or defendants, in a scire facias, were exempted from payment of costs in cases of non-suit or verdict, and by the operation of the new statute (3 & 4 Vic., c. 105), the question was not likely to occur again. Glover v. Nagle, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 21, C. P. To exempt an executor or administrator from costs, under the 3 & 4 Vic., c. 105, s. 56, after a verdict for the defendant, there must be some misconduct on the part of the defendant, tending to mislead the plaintiff into bringing the action. Martin v. Johnson, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 245, Ex. Executors, plaintiffs in scire facias, prior to the passing of the 3 & 4 Vic., c. 105, cannot be held liable for costs, when judgment is given against them. Farran v. Otiwell, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 54, Q. B. The 3 & 4 Vic., c. 105, s. 56, puts executors and administrators on the same footing as ordinary plaintiffs, and makes them liable for costs, unless the court, in the exercise of its discretion, shall otherwise order. Ackland v. Grant, 1 Ir. Jur. 80, Q. B. Staying Proceedings and Discontinuance.] The court will permit the defendant to enter a rule to stay proceedings, until the costs of not going to trial, pursuant to notice, be paid, where a trial has been lost by the default of the plaintiff, in not delivering the distringas to the sheriff in sufficient time to enable him to summon the jurors six days before the assizes. Gillespie v. Cuming, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 28, Ex. When the defendant obtains an order upon the plaintiff, to stay proceedings until the latter give security for costs, the court will not give him the costs of the application, though before making the application he called upon the plaintiff to give the security. Loveland v. Daly, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 537, Ex. The defendant having entered a rule to stay proceedings, until the costs of plaintiff not pro ceeding to trial were paid, may afterwards apply for a conditional order on the plaintiff, to pay the costs without discharging that rule. Horsfall v. Jennings, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 218, C. P. A defendant may apply for the costs occasioned by the plaintiff not going to trial, pursuant to notice, notwithstanding the usual side bar rule to conditional order for costs absolute, and for the stay proceedings, and the court will make the costs of the motion, and, at the same time, give the defendant liberty to quash the rule to stay proceedings. Broadbent v. M'Nicholl, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 417, C. P. If two actions be commenced for the same cause of action, and a rule to discontinue be entered in the costs of the rule to discontinue are paid. Conone, proceedings will be stayed in the other until sidine v. Moroney, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 486, Q. B. Action of trespass for the diversion of a watercourse. The plaintiff was non-suited, proceedings were stayed in a second action for the same cause, until the costs of the non-suit were paid. Horgan v. Quinlan, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 590, Q.B. Where a notice of trial of an ejectment had been withdrawn, and the defendant had entered a rule to stay proceedings, until the costs of not proceeding to trial were paid, and (a new ejectment having been brought) had also entered a rule to disconti nue, until the costs of the former ejectment were paid, the plaintiff will be ordered to pay the costs so incurred, though the defendant have not discharged the rule to discontinue. Healy v. Ken nedy, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 457, Q. B. Judgment as in Case of Non-suit.]—Where on motion for judgment, as in case of non-suit, after default on a peremptory undertaking to go to trial given on a former motion, the plaintiff gives a peremptory undertaking to go to trial at the ensuing sittings, he will be put under terms to pay the defendant the costs already incurred, the costs of this motion, and also leave will be given the defendant to enter up judgment without further motion, if the plaintiff fail in going to trial pursuant to this undertaking. O'Donohoe v. O'Donohoe, 1 Ir. L Rep. 9, Q. B. If a defendant have obtained judgment, as in case of a non-suit, on the terms of paying to the plaintiff the costs of the motion, and have not taken out this order, the plaintiff, on motion on notice, will be allowed to take out the order for the purpose of recovering those costs. Lucina v. Flattery, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 453, Q. B. Where an action was brought against a barony constable and collector of county cess, for an alleged illegality in the seizure of a horse and car, as a distress for the recovery of grand jury cess, the defendant entered up judgment, as in case of a non-suit, and issued execution thereunder for double costs. Held, that the 10 Car. 1, sess. 2, c. 16, applied to judgments, as in case of non-suit, and that under that statute the defendant was enDobbin v. Morrow, 5 Ir. L. titled to double costs. Rep. 353, Q. B. the The plaintiff's attorney was directed to pay costs of a judgment, as in case of non-suit, he having failed to comply with an undertaking to produce his client, which he gave on a motion for Of New Trial.]-Where inadmissible evidence s allowed by the judge to go to the jury, the court will not give costs against a party seeking a new trial upon that ground, though in the opinion of the judge the evidence could not have influenced the jury. Sinclair v. Barnett, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 46, Q. B. Where the judge at Nisi Prius entertains a strong doubt upon any of the questions raised, and wishes to have them reserved for the opinion of the court above, the costs of the argument will not in general be given against the unsuccessful party. But where the objections are reserved, not from any doubt in the mind of the judge, but to afford hat advantage to the party making them, if he fail in these objections, he must pay costs. Barrett v. Hyndman, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 109, Q. B. The court will not give costs to a plaintiff against whom there is a verdict, though he succeeds upon a motion to change the verdict on liberty reserved, as the plaintiff derives a benefit from that course, by not being obliged to take exceptions to the charge, and go to trial again, and he question being left to the determination of the court, the costs are in their discretion. Daly v. Colbert, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 355, C. P. Where a cause has been tried by one special jury who disagreed, and it was again tried by another, and a verdict had for the plaintiff, and the judge who tried the case on the last occasion certified that the case was a proper one for a special jury, it was held that the party ultimately succeeding was entitled to the costs of the special jury who Atkinson tried the case on the previous occasion. v. Carty, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 170. Where the plaintiff succeeds on some issues, and the defendant upon the others, the former will not be allowed the costs of the special jury, though upon his own application. Blair v. Wilson, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 134, C. P. had The party who applies for a special jury must pay the costs of the same, unless the judge certifies, under the 3 & 4 Wm. 4, c. 91, s. 27, even when there are no more costs than damages. Martin v. Cochrane, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 374, Q. B. The defendant applied for a special jury, and there was a verdict for the plaintiff. On a bill of exceptions a venire de novo was awarded, and on a trial before a common jury a verdict had for the plaintiff. The plaintiff paid the jury on the first trial. Held, that he was entitled, on taxation, to be allowed all the costs of striking and paying the special jury. Harrison v. Bradley, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 264, C. P. Notice of Taxation.]-To give notice to the taxing officer of a motion to review his taxation is irregular, and will be dismissed as against him, with costs. O'Connor v. Burke, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 189, C. P. Several Trials.]-Where there had been three abortive trials, a juror being withdrawn by consent on the first occasion, on the two subsequent occasions, the jury not being able to agree, were discharged by the judge, and on the fourth a verdict Taxation.]-In the taxation of costs between was had for the plaintiff. It appeared from affidavits made on the part of the defendant, that addi-party and party, held, first, that an attorney who tional witnesses were examined, on the part of the appears for several defendants will only be allowed one appearance fee. Secondly, that the adversary plaintiff, at each successive trial since the first. is not chargeable with more than one consultation, The plaintiff's attorney said that the evidence on or for the revisal of the direction of proofs by each occasion was substantially the same. Held, leading counsel, or for one fair copy of the pleadthat the plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the ings laid before counsel for the direction of proofs, three abortive trials. Atkinson v. Carty, 2 Ir. L. to assist the defendant in his inquiry after the neRep. 170. cessary witnesses. Thirdly, that the adversary is not chargeable for the costs of procuring from the journals of the House of Commons a compared copy of evidence given before a committee of the house. Fourthly, that he is not chargeable with the expenses attending the examination of several persons, in order to select, from amongst them, those only whom it would be useful and necessary to produce upon the trial. Jones v. Conyngham, Ir. L. Rep. 10, Q. B. The costs of a former abortive trial, when the lefault has arisen from the act of either party, cannot be recovered by the party ultimately sucessful. O'Driscoll v. Macartney, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 570, Ex. Neither the court on motion, nor the officer on axation, can enquire who has been the defaulting arty. 1b. defectu ju-1 Crean v. Secus, in the case of a remanet pro atorum, or withdrawing of a juror. Ballamy, 5 Burr. 2693, overruled. Crean, 2 Fox & Smith, 10, not followed. Ib. Where an order Nisi had been made, setting side a verdict generally, and no mention be made herein of the costs of the trial, the party succeedng on the second trial is entitled to the costs of he former. Rush v. Purcell, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 379, 2. B. Special Jury.]-The party who applies for a pecial jury, unless the judge certifies, must pay he costs of it, even though there be no more costs han damages. Coghlan v. Carney, 1 Ir. L. Rep. 201. A party will not be allowed lump sums for the expenses of witnesses; he must specify the items of expenditure. Atkinson v. Carty, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 170, Q. B. An attorney is entitled to a fee for attendance, not only on the day on which a law argument is heard, but on each of the law days in the week while it is on the list. Thompson v. Birnie, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 38, Ex. In taxing the costs of an ejectment for noupayment of rent, the lessor of the plaintiff will be allowed the costs of registry searches made, against both names and lands, for the purposes of the action. Jack v. Lawler, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 531, Ex. Where the jury omit or refuse to find any costs at the trial, and there is no finding in that respect in the postea. The taxing officer is, notwithstanding, bound to tax the costs, de incremento, when the verdict will carry them. Pigott v. Morris, 6 Ir. L. Rep. 340, C. P. In an ejectment on the title separate appearances were entered by the same attorney for several defendants, and these defences were subsequently consolidated, they having but one common title; the defendants are not each entitled to costs of briefs for counsel at the trial. Egan v. Arkins, 10 Ir. L. Rep. 512, Q. B. In the taxation of costs, the officer should allow a brief to the junior counsel, though there be three counsel of the inner bar. Fay v. Morphy, 1 Ir. Jur. 22, Q. B. There is an inherent jurisdiction in the court over its own officers, to direct the reference to tax which the defendant seeks; with this single qualification, that the bill of costs contains one taxable item. Bastable v. Reardon, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 169, Q. B. The court has jurisdiction to give to a defendant the costs of taxation, though the reference to tax was not till after action brought. v. Massey, Bl. D. & O. 150, Ex. Several Issues.]-Where issues on one cause of action had been found for the plaintiff, and the issues on the other two causes for the defendant, the defendant was not allowed any portion of the costs paid by him to his counsel, though they were larger than usual, on account of the length of pleadings caused by the plaintiff, having joined the three causes of action in the one declaration. Blain v. Wilson, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 134, C. P. The defendant, in replevin, will be allowed only the costs of the avowry, on which he succeeds, though the arbitrator, to whom the case had been referred from Nisi Prius, had found forty-six issues for the defendant, with costs, and thirteen for the plaintiff, without mentioning costs. Burke v. Ormsby, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 288, Č. P. In an action of libel, where the defendant pleaded the general issue, and special pleas of justification, and the jury found for the defendant on the general issue, and for the plaintiff on the special pleas, Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to the costs of the witnesses subpoenaed, to disprove the truth of the alleged libel; and, also, a portion of the fees of counsel at the trial, and all costs incurred by him, by reason of the pleas of justification, though the witnesses produced would probably have been examined under the general issue. Hurst v. Whaley, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 429, C. P. An attorney is entitled but to one fee for attendance on a motion, and refreshers to counsel stand on the same ground. Goodison v. Whelan, 9 Ir. L. Rep. 90, Q. B. The costs incurred in obtaining an order of the Court of Chancery, for liberty to bring an ejectment, in the name of a receiver, in a cause, are necessary costs in the ejectment suit, and the landlord is entitled thereto. Hitchingham v. Hawkes, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 158, Q. B. Operation of 2 Geo. 1, c. 11, s. 14, 15.]-If the verdict be for the plaintiff, the defendant is not entitled to his costs, whatever may have been the amount of damages. Wynne v. Shea, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 221, C.P. In trespass, for driving a coach against one in which the defendant was, per quod he was injured. The jury found 6d. damages, and 6d. costs, the judges having refused to certify that the trespass was malicious. Held, that the plaintiff was entitled to his full costs of suit. The 2 Geo. 1, cll, s. 15, comprising but two species of action-assault, and battery, and trespass, qu. cl. freg. Chapman v. Spear, 8 Ir. L. Rep. 278; S. C. affirmed, Ib. 461, Ex. Ch. The taxing master is bound to tax the costs of apOperation of 3 & 4 Vict. c. 105, s. 23, 24.]— plications, under the 23rd and 24th section of the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 105, in order to have a judgment charged upon stock, in the books of the Bank of Ireland. Guinness v. Armit, 3 Ir. L. Rep. 359. Quære, can the court give the costs of such application, against the fund charged, together with the payment of the judgment debt. Ib. The court will not direct a fi. fa. to issue under the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 105, s. 27, for the recovery of costs, which the defendant had become liable to pay, by not having appeared at the trial to confess lease, entry, and ouster. M'Donald v. Lawlor, 4 Ir. L. Rep. 329, C. P. Where stock or funds, belonging to a judgment debtor, have been charged with the judgment debt, by an order of court, 3 & 4 Vict. c. 105, s. 23, the court has no power, under the 24th section, in the absence of the debtor, to award the costs of the charging order, out of the stock or fund so charged. White v. Heron, 5 Ir. L. Rep. 165, Ex. Means of Recovering.]—Where a frivolous demurrer was filed, a motion to take it off the file was granted, and the party who filed it ordered to pay costs. Held, that an attachment might issue for these costs, as they could not be included in the execution, not being costs in the cause. Anonymous, 2 Ir. L. Rep. 66, Q. B. Since the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 28, the plaintiff may issue a capias ad satisfaciendum for the costs of an ejectment, where they exceed £10, and though nominal damages only are included in the judgment. Carroll v. Develin, i Ir. Jur. 22. COURT See OFFICERS. (OF SUPERIOR COURTS.) COUNSEL-See AMENDMENT. ASSISTANT In all criminal cases, even where the defendant brings a writ of error, the counsel for the crown are entitled to the reply. Brady in Error v. Reg. 4 Ir. L. Rep. 21, Q. B.; S. C. Jones in Error v. Reg. 4 Ir. L. Rep. 264, Q. B.; Aliter in England, Ib. A bill of exceptions should be always opened by a junior counsel. Hemphill v. M'Kenna, 7 Ir. L. Rep. 395, Q. B. Every one is entitled to assert his right in a court of justice, by the statement of every fact that can, according to the rules of law, conduce to this end. This right may be delegated to counsel, and |