case Newsham versus grey April where the court do not think the answer full  enough and direct a issue upon the merit this be not hear a cause upon bill  and answer only but a subsequent proceed and therefore out of the rule of  dismission with forty shilling cost the plaintiff have obtain letter patent of  the crown for a new invention of fire engine a bill be bring by he to  establish his letter patent and for a perpetual injunction against the  defendant who have take upon he to make and vend these engine notwithstanding  the plaintiff have the sole right and property under the letter patent atkins  er p the defendant by his answer insist it be not a new invention so as to  entitle the plaintiff to a injunction there be no replication but the cause  come on at the roll upon bill and answer in September before Mr justice Parker  who not think the answer sufficient direct a action at law to be bring by the  plaintiff for a breach of the letter patent and retain the bill for a  twelvemonth the atkins plaintiff be nonsuit at law upon the merit and the  cause be now set down by the defendant for a dismission of the bill and for  cost Lord chancellor the only question be as this be a cause upon bill and  answer whether the court be bind to dismiss it only with forty shilling cost  it be true this be the general rule of the court but in this case I be of  opinion it ought to be dismiss with cost to be tax by a master the present  case differ from all those where forty shilling cost be give for this do not  proper come upon bill and answer only because here the court do not think the  answer full enough and therefore direct a issue upon the merit and therefore I  do not hear the cause upon bill and answer only but upon the verdict which be  a subsequent proceed beyond the bill and answer and this be a plain  distinction out of the common rule I give direction to the register to search  for case in point but they have not find any as yet however there be several  that be analogous and similar to this if not exact the same vide Sutton v  stone ante as suppose a bill be bring to redeem a mortgage where the defendant  the mortgagee submit by his answer to be redeem and the cause be hear upon  bill and answer and refer to a master to take a account of what be due for  principal interest and cost and to appoint a day to redeem if the mortgagor do  not redeem on the day the court will dismiss the bill with cost to be tax by a  master consider the reference as a subsequent proceed beyond the bill and  answer so likewise on a bill bring to be relieve against the penalty of a bind  where the principal money lend and interest be not pay on the day fix by the  master on the cause be set down again by the defendant the bill will be  dismiss with cost to be tax by a master atkins before Ann c sect for the  amendment of the law this court upon motion use to dismiss bill for want of  prosecution with twenty shilling cost but the act have provide upon the  plaintiff dismiss his own bill or the defendant dismiss the same for want of  prosecution the plaintiff in such suit shall pay to the defendant his full  cost to be tax by a master but since the act another inconvenience have arise  which shall make the court incline as much as they can consistent with their  own rule and justice for dismiss bill of this sort with cost to be tax and  that be a man bring a bill upon a frivolous account who in order to keep his  cause alive reply and afterward move to withdraw his replication and that he  may be at liberty to amend his bill and if the motion be grant he then set it  down upon bill and answer only that it may be dismiss upon forty shilling cost  which be evade the justice of the court for otherwise if he have not withdraw  his replication he will have pay the full cost therefore his lordship seem  inclinable to alter the course of the court with regard to forty shilling cost  only in case of dismission upon a bill and answer as it be a hardship upon the  defendant to be put to great expense with motion and other interlocutory  proceed and yet not to be allow any more than forty shilling cost bill dismiss  with cost to be tax by the master Reg lib b fol Johnson v brown post vol  Mansell v bowl bro Charles Rep