Barnardiston king b fillip and Knightley vide ante this matter come on again  judge page declare himself to continue of the same opinion as he be of before  in the two principal question he do agree that he have find reason to alter it  in one of the case he have put before and that be in relation to the bind and  he do allow if the arbitrator have award that martial shall give a bind to the  plaintiff to indemnify he in the suit depend that will have be good for there  the arbitrator have ascertain the penalty as the consequence of his not do it  and though indeed by execute this bind the party remedy upon the  arbitrationbond be go yet there subsist as good a remedy upon this bind as  there be upon the other but in the present case by execute the deed of  covenant the party remedy upon the arbitrationbond be go and there be only a  remedy upon the covenant leave in the room of it which be a satisfaction in  damage only to be give by a jury and he think the case in sand as strong a  case as the present one then as to the other point in relation to cost he  think the case of winter and garlic salk full in support of his opinion and in  the case of Sebley and Russell mich will where the dispute be how far  arbitrator may assign part of their authority to be execute by another he  remember well Lord holt lie it down that they can in no case but where they  refer cost to be tax by the master the rest of the court declare their opinion  to be different in both point judge lee in particular say that his notion be  that arbitrator be only bind to make as good a end of the matter refer to they  as the nature of they will admit of so far indeed to be sure he say they be  bind to do or else the award will be void and therefore he do agree that if  the award have be that martial shall be nonsuit in that action that will not  have be sufficient but no further they can be bind to do and therefore the  arbitrator can not possible award that martial shall discontinue the suit  which he have bring on behalf of himself and the poor of the parish for that  will be to divest a interest out of the poor of the parish which be vest in  they by the commence the action then as to the matter of cost he say to be  sure the Barnardiston king b er p arbitrator can not refer the cost to be tax  by a stranger but when the award be only in general that the party shall be  indemnified from the cost of such a suit he think that be sufficient and that  the court may order the officer to tax they to this purpose he say be the case  of eastland and frank in this court there a exception be take to a award for  its order the party to pay such cost as the master shall or ought to tax which  it be say be uncertain but the court hold the award to be good enough and the  reason give be that there be no occasion for a express reference to the master  so he say he remember well there be a case to the same purpose in cro  Barnardiston king b car but he can not indeed think of the name of it accord  the court give judgement for the plaintiff