is in his custody, a sequestration may be obtained. See order in Pope v. Ward, supra. Elvard v. Warren, supra. Kinsey v. Yardley, supra. Bowes v. Countess of Strathmore, supra. Dunkley v. Harr. 125. 333. Gilb. For. Rom. 191. And see Scribnor, supra. Rowley v. Ridley, supra. That a sequestration issues on motion only. See Sequestration, ante. For order for sequestration on certificate of Warden of the Fleet. See Pope v. Ward, supra. Where the party was taken upon an attachment, and turned himself over to the Fleet, a sequestration could not issue before the return of the attachment. Martin v. Kerridge, 3 P. W. 240. By Propositions 5, 7, and 8, subjoined to the Chancery Report, the processes of bringing the defendant to the bar of the Court by habeas corpus, alias, pluries, &c. upon the return of cepi corpus, to an attachment, with a view to taking the bill pro confesso, are sought to be got rid of. Messenger. Upon the return of cepi corpus to an attachment, or other ordinary process of contempt for non-performance of a decree, an order may be obtained for a messenger. See Anon. Prec. in Ch. 331. Holme And see Miles v. Lingham, 7 Ves. 230. Frederick v. David, 1 Vern. 344. Harr. 135. v. Cardwell, 3 Mad. 114. Anon. 2 Atk, 507. Wyatt, P. R. 392. The Messenger is one of the deputies of the Serjeant at Arms, who has several; those employed before a commission of rebellion are called messengers, those after by the name of their principal. Harr. 135. Wyatt, P. R. 391. Formerly the Court allowed messengers to those particular jurisdictions only where the amercements went to the sheriffs themselves, and consequently the party was without remedy. Harr. 119. Anon. 2 Atk. 507. Anon. Mos. 305. Anon. 2 P. W. 301. Anon. 1 Vern. 116. Gilb. For. Rom. 70. But it afterwards became the rule to send a messenger into every county generally, without any restriction. Harr. 119. Anon. 2 Atk. 507. And see Gibbs v. Cotton, 1 Vern. 154. The order is made on motion as of course. 2 Atk. 507. Harr. 119. Anon. In Wilkinson v. Belsher, 2 Bro. 181. upon the return of non est inventus by the messenger, an order was made for a Serjeant at Arms. But it seems that upon the return of the messenger, an order may be obtained for a sequestration. Holme v. Cardwell, supra. Fre derick v. David, supra. And see Sequestration, ante. It seems that upon a return of cepi corpus by the messenger, an order may be obtained for a commitment to the Fleet, and upon that an order for a sequestration. See Sequestration, ante. APPENDIX (1). [Inter alia] Et ideo vobis, tribus vel duobus vestrum, mandamus quod, certis diebus et horis ad hæc congruis et opportunis, ad maneria, terras, tenementa, et ad omnia et singula præmissa prædicta, accedatis, intretis et ingrediamini; ac omnes et omnimodos redditus, exitus et proficua quæcunque eorundem, et omnia et singula bona et catalla et status quæcunque prædictorum defendentium tam realia quam personalia in manus et possessiones vestras, trium vel duorum vestrum, capiatis, levetis, exigatis, recipiatis, et debito modo ad opus et usum dictæ Annæ Bedingfield querentis, vel assignatorum suorum, de tempore in tempus, debito modo persolvatis et satisfaciatis, donec pecunia prædicta ut præfertur adjudicata et damagia inde dicta querentis satisfacta fuerint, juxta tenores verasque intentiones seperalium ordinum prædictorum, quorum seperalem tenorem vobis mittimus per latorem præsentium. Teste R. &c.-Appendix to Reg. Brev. 52. APPENDIX (2). [Inter alia] Et ideo vobis, tribus vel duobus vestrum, mandamus quod ad certos dies et horas ad hæc congrua et opportuna, ad messuagia, terras, et tenementa et præmissa quæcunque præfati defendentis, accedatis, eaque intretis et ingrediamini; ac omnia et omnimoda redditus, exitus et proficua quæcunque eorundem cum arreragiis inde, ac omnia et singula bona et catalla et status quæcunque præfati defendentis, tam realia quam personalia, in manus et possessiones vestras, trium vel duorum vestrum, capiatis, petatis, levetis, exigatis et recipiatis, et debito modo ad opus et usum præfatæ querentis ut præfertur sequestretis, ac omni executioni præmissorum intendatis diligenter; ac quicquid præmissorum levabitur in manus et possessiones vestras, pro usu præfatæ querentis detineatis et conservetis donec et quousque præfatus defendens, querimoniæ prædictæ perfectè responderit, dictaque curia nostra aliter ordinaverit in hâc parte specialiter, juxta vim formam veramque intentionem ordinis prædicti. Teste &c.-Appendix to Reg. Brev. 51. No. II. ORDER FOR PARTY TO BE EXAMINED PRO IN 典 TERESSE SUO. (1) Upon opening the matter this day unto the Court by Mr. C. being of the plaintiff's counsel, it was alleged that a commission of sequestration having issued against the defendant William Ley for non-payment of the sum of £- -pursuant to an order made in this Court &c. That T. P. and H. R. two of the sequestrators named in the commission of sequestration took possession of a messuage &c. as part of the real estate of the said William Ley, since which Mr. E. Cove and Catherine his wife, claiming title to the said premises by virtue of a mortgage thereof made by the defendant Ley to the said Catherine, then Catherine Prestwood, have brought an ejectment in His Majesty's Court of Common Pleas against the said T. P. and H. R. for recovering possession thereof; and therefore it was prayed that &c. Whereupon and upon hearing Mr. C. of counsel for the said Cove and his wife, and upon hearing an affidavit of the said T. P. and H. R. read, and of what was alleged &c. it is ordered that all proceedings on the said ejectment be stayed (2). And that the said E. Cove and C. his wife do come and be examined pro interesse suo before Mr. S. one &c. And the plaintiffs are to file interrogatories for that purpose in a week before the said Master. Hamlyn v. Ley, L. C. 12th February, 1743. Reg. Lib. A. 1742. fol. 194. S. C. 1 Dick. 94. 3 Swan. 301. note. NOTES. (1) Examination pro interesse suo. Where a party claims an interest in property sequestered, an order may be obtained that he may go before the Master and be examined pro interesse suo. Hamlyn v. Ley, supra. Fawcet v. Fothergill, 1 Dick. 19. S. C. 2 Dick. 541. Bowles v. Parsons, 1 Dick. 142. Harr. 144. Gilb. For. Rom. 80. Cooper v. Thornton, 1 Dick. 72. The Master cannot inquire into the title to property sequestered without an order. Anon. 3 Swan, 311. note. In Kaye v. Cunningham, 5 Mad. 406. it was held by the ViceChancellor, that an order for the examination of a party pro interesse suo could only be made upon his application, or by his consent. But see Hamlyn v. Ley, supra. And see Bird v. Littlehales, 3 Swan. 300. note. Mitchell v. Draper, 2 Mad. Ch. 245. note. The order cannot be made until the return of the commission, Lord Pelham v. Duchess of Newcastle, 3 Swan. 290. note. An order may also be obtained for an injunction. Hamlyn v. Ley, supra. And see Johnes v. Claughton, Jac. 573. In case of delay the party will be ordered to put in his examination within a limited time. Cooper v. Thornton, supra. And see Wharam v. Broughton, 1 Ves. 180. S. C. 1 Dick. 137. Where the right is clear, the Court will give relief, without compelling the party to go before the Master. Dixon v. Smith, 1 Swan. 457. And see Attorney-General v. Mayor of Coventry, 1 P. W. 308. But a mortgagee must come in and be examined. Hamlyn v. Ley, supra. Anon. 6 Ves. 288. So a party claiming by an adverse title. See Angel v. Smith, 9 Ves. 336. Johnes v. Claughton, supra. Sometimes leave will be given to the party to proceed at law. Attorney-General v. Mayor of Coventry, supra. Anon. 6 Ves. 288. Angel v. Smith, supra. And see Brooks v. Greathed, 1 J. & W. 178. In Hunt v. Priest, supra, the Court refused to interfere upon petition. But in Walker v. Bell, 2 Mad. 21. on the petition of mortgagees an order was made for reference to the Master to inquire into their title; and on the report a further order was made on petition. Liberty will be given to a party to proceed pro interesse suo, in formá pauperis. James v. Dore, 2 Dick. 788. The mode of proceeding is the same where the property is in the possession of a receiver. Anon. 6 Ves. 287. Angel v. Smith, supra. And see Brooks, v. Greathed, supra. See Order for Reference of Examination, No. II. post. (2) See Decrees respecting Injunctions, No. XII. Note (3.) No. III. ORDER FOR REFERENCE OF EXAMINATION. Upon the humble petition of Evans Cove and Catherine his wife, this day preferred to the Right Honourable &c. for the reasons &c. it is ordered that it be referred to Mr. S. one &c. to look into the interrogatories exhibited by the plaintiffs, pursuant to an order of the 12th of February instant, before the said Master, for the examination, &c. and also to look into the petitioners' examination put in thereto, and certify whether the petitioners have made out a title to the said premises or not. Hamlyn v. Ley, M. R. 9th June 1743. Reg. Lib. A. 1742. fol. 474. S. C. 1 Dick. 94. 3 Swan. 301. note. NOTE. Order for Reference of Examination. When the examination has been put in, an order may be obtained for a reference to the Master, to see whether the party has made out his claim. Hamlyn v. Ley, supra. Fawcet v. Fothergill, 1 Dick. 19. S. C. 2 Dick. 541. Cooper v. Thornton, 1 Dick. 72. Bowles v. Parsons, 1 Dick. 142. Hunt v. Priest, 2 Dick. 540. If the examination is not replied to, it will be conclusive. Attorney-General v. Mayor of Coventry, 3 Swan. 311. note. And see Bowles v. Parsons, 1 Dick. 143. note. If the examination is replied to, leave will be given to either party to examine witnesses. See Fawcet v. Fothergill, supra. Rowley v. Ridley, 3 Swan. 308. note. Harr. 144. Gilb. For. Rom. 86. Exceptions to Report. Exceptions are sometimes taken to the report. Broughton, 1 Ves. 181. Belt's Supp. 105. But this the matter should be set down upon the report. supra. See Final Order, No. IV. post. See Wharam v. is irregular, and Hamlyn v. Ley, |