case the bailiff and burgess of the corporation of Burford versus Lenthall and  other may see Andrews v barn Ch d Exceptants to a decree of charitable use be  allow cost on those exception where the that prevail and on those where they  do not the respondent be entitle to cost aylet v dod atk exception have be  take to the decree of the defendant as commissioner of charitable use and  exception out of be allow but there be some doubt as to cost the chancellor  take time to consider it till today there have be six precedent bring to I in  which cost be give and as I find the point thus settle I will follow the  justice of these case whatever doubt I may have have original myself especial  as there be no precedent on the other side to the contrary the first precedent  be chapman versus the inhabitant of Tedbury before Lord keeper Coventry car  the second be in Lord chancellor nottingham time February and the that year of  car relate to the rectory and parsonage of Crowland in the county of Lincoln  atkins the three be before Lord summer which begin in the year and last some  time relate to the college of Bromley a charity find by ware bishop of  Rochester the four be before the lord commissioner h t atkins er p the five be  before Lord keeper wright Cristchurch versus the inhabitant of Newton the that  of Q and the six be Hancock versus walker before Lord Cowper January it be say  by the respondent counsel that these precedent be erroneous because there be  no authority whatever give to the Lord chancellor to award cost by the statute  of charitable use the d of Elizabeth if the court be mere to confine  themselves to the verdict of a jury or a decree of commissioner they must have  shut their eye as to the evidence before the jury or commissioner because  there it be viva voice and from hence have arise these precedent for the court  find these word in the act of parliament sect that the Lord chancellor or Lord  keeper shall and may take such order for the due execution of all or any of  the say judgement decree and order as to they shall seem fit and convenient  have put it in the shape of a original cause in which the exceptants be  consider as plaintiff and the respondent as defendant and put in a answer upon  oath and in the examination of witness in the cause neither side be bind by  what appear before the commissioner but may set forth new matter if they think  proper this have make the court all along consider it as a original cause or  otherwise the court will have know nothing of the merit therefore the court  have mix the jurisdiction of bring information in the name of the attorney  general with the jurisdiction give they under the statute and proceed either  way accord to their discretion it be say the court ought to resort back to the  original jurisdiction in point of cost upon argument chief draw from case of  cost at commonlaw and the old act the stat of marlebridge Henry now  Marlborough c but court of equity have in all case do it not from any  authority but from conscience Jones v Coxeter atk and arbitration good man as  to the satisfaction on one side or other on account of vexation but still it  be say this arise on the commonlaw side as it come out of the pettybag atkins  the return of the commission indeed be in that office the pettybag retain the  proceed yet it come before the Lord chancellor personal and not in his  ordinary or extraordinary jurisdiction I shall be glad to know what authority  I have to give cost in bankruptcy if I can give cost here for it will be  difficult to show from the bankrupt act that I have any such authority it be  only by order sign not common with others manu and process of contempt the  same as to commission of lunacy for though it be say the whole of it arise  from the sign manual of the king yet I be of opinion it do not before the  court of wardship be erect the jurisdiction be in this court both as to  lunatic and idiot therefore all these commission be take out in this court and  return here and after the court of ware be take away by act of parliament it  revert back to the court of chancery and the sign manu l of the king be a  stand warrant to the Lord chancellor to grant the custody of the lunatic and  be a beneficial thing in case of ideocy because the king can not only give the  custody of idiot but the rend and profit of idiot land to person vide in the  matter of heli a lunatic post atk therefore it be not a authority in the Lord  chancellor arise from his ordinary or extraordinary jurisdiction but a  personal one and very difficult to maintain upon a nice foundation how this  authority of cost do arise but fall exact within the case of bankrupt and  idiot vide the case of the corporation of Bewdley p wms relate to award  venires de vicineto de corpore comitatus where the court be govern by  precedent of about seven year stand before the issue of the venire so likewise  in the case of justice of peace they have take upon they to exercise several  jurisdiction which the court of king S bench will not have allow if it have  come original before they I be of opinion therefore I ought to be bind by  these precedent especial as it be in aid of justice the question then be what  ought to be do as to cost above and cost below atkins and as to the first the  exceptants ought to have cost upon those exception atkins er p in which they  have prevail and the respondent cost in those where they have prevail Reg lib  a fol as to cost below it must rest upon the agreement make between the party  and I will not interfere