case lady dowager Abergavenny Jun versus lady dowager Abergavenny senior Lord  chancellor king Eq can ab pl a defendant have answer the bill can afterward  refer it for scandal the plaintiff exhibit her bill against the defendant and  the defendant answer the bill and the plaintiff move to refer the answer for  scandal and impertinence whereupon the master have be attend by counsel and be  about to make his report that the answer be scandalous the defendant get a  order on petition to refer the bill for scandal and upon the plaintiff motion  to set aside this order peer William it be object that though it have be the  constant practice not to refer a bill for impertinency after answer in regard  the defendant by submit to answer have waive the impertinence yet as to  scandal the court itself be concern to keep its record clean and without dirt  or scandal appear thereon and therefore a bill for scandal may be refer not  only after answer but after hear and even by a three person not party to the  suit contra anon mad but see coffin v Cooper Ves and especial in this case  where both the matter allege for scandal be relative to the same thing and the  plaintiff propose that both the scandal shall be waive Lord chancellor if the  course have be for so long a time to refer a bill for scandal after the  defendant have answer it be time now to alter it as occasion great delay  beside in the reason of the thing it ought not to be for when the defendant  have submit to answer the bill why shall be after that procure the bill to be  alter and by that mean to be make a new bill and though his lordship seem to  be influence a little by the objection that both matter of scandal be relate  to thing of the same nature and so proper to be set one against the other yet  he discharge the order for refer the bill for peer William scandal intimate  that it shall be observe as a rule for the future not to refer a bill for  scandal after the defendant have submit to answer it though it be say by Mr  Talbot that it be a argument the defendant do not move to refer the bill for  delay when he first answer the bill before he move to refer it for scandal  note this alteration of a old rule of the court for which reason after a order  to refer a answer for insufficiency though it can be refer for impertinence  yet it may for scandal as be determine in the peer William er p case of  ellison versus burgess hill Vac by Lord chancellor king Pellew v Ves say vide  contra uvoodward v Astley bunb anon ves barn v Saxby in Charles June Carrick v  London in excheq July ferrar v ferrar dick anon Ves