case countess of gainsborough versus Gifford at the roll Eq can ab pl see  prece in Chan the plaintiff bring her bill to be relieve against a contract  which her broker have make for the purchase of twelve share in the stock of  the Welsh copper company from the defendant for pound per share to be transfer  by the defendant to the plaintiff at the then next open of the book the  contract be make on the that of August and the next open be on the d of the  same month the defendant bring his action on the contract and recover a  verdict for the whole money deduct only for what the share sell at the  countess first bring her writ of error and then her bill in this court and the  injunction be dissolve by the Lord chancellor the countess pay the money  recover at law and the cost the bill insist that the defendant have not so  many share nor have register the contract peer William but the defendant in  order to recover the cost in this court set down the cause ad requisitionem to  ward off it be argue for the plaintiff that the defendant by his answer have  confess he have sell her share on the d of August at pound per share and that  this be I the produce of the plaintiff the countess share which she have buy  the money belong to her upon which the defendant counsel insist that this be a  mistake in the plaintiff office copy the original of the defendant answer be  otherwise which be then also produce and sign by the counsel Mr Hungerford own  hand wherein it be not say her share but it be say ten share his honour  immediate order that the answer itself shall be send for from off the file and  in the meantime it be urge for the defendant that even this be what ought to  have be insist upon by the defendant at law the now plaintiff peer William er  p at the trial in mitigation of damage and that a court of equity ought not to  give relief to a defendant at law who may but neglect to make a proper defence  soon afterward the record itself of the answer be take off the file be bring  into court and the word in question appear to be her as in the office copy and  not ten as in the original draft of the answer master of the roll I do agree  the court ought to be very tender how they help any defendant after a trial at  law in a matter where such defendant have a opportunity to defend himself peer  William but still such case there be in which equity will relieve after a  verdict in a matter where the defendant at law may proper have defend himself  see Stevens v pillage Ves jun Bateman v Willoe Sch l ware v Horwood Ves  Protheroe v Florman swan as if the plaintiff at law recover a debt against the  defendant and the defendant afterward find a receipt under the plaintiff own  hand for the very money in question here the plaintiff recover a verdict  against conscience and though the receipt be in the defendant own custody yet  he not be then apprise of it seem entitle to the aid of equity it be against  conscience that the plaintiff shall be twice pay the same debt so if the  plaintiff own book appear to be cross and the money pay before the action  bring now the principal case be within the same reason if the defendant in  this court who be plaintiff at law have be pay great part of his money by the  sale of those share which he have contract to sell to the plaintiff the money  raise by this sale ought to be apply towards the discharge of the debt which  the plaintiff the countess owe he and though it be impossible for any other  person to know one share from another yet the plaintiff at law who be the  defendant in this court may himself know that these share which he sell on the  d of Aug be the very share he contract to sell to the plaintiff the countess  and the court must take this confession of the defendant in his answer to be a  ingenuous confession of the truth more especial as the price of per share be  much more than the intrinsic value of the stock and it appear that the rate  which the stock bear at the time the verdict be peer William give though then  very low be yet not full allow to the plaintiff the countess nor will his  honour hear of any proof that the record of the answer be mistake in be make  contrary to the original draft but as the defendant in his action at law have  recover his money against conscience the court decree he to pay back to the  plaintiff the money for which he have sell the share confess by the answer to  be her share deduct what have be allow at the trial to the countess for the  then value of the say twelve share but afterward upon very full affidavit by  the solicitor and his clerk that this be only a mistake in the person that  ingross the answer and the foul draft be produce upon solemn date before Lord  chancellor assist by the master of the roll the court give the defendant leave  to amend the answer and to swear it over again though no precedent can be show  that this be ever do after the cause hear and this matter have be before deny  on a petition and on a motion the order after state the several fact relative  to the mistake and the substance of the affidavit and that the say defendant  have apply to have the say cause reheard proceed thus and the say cause come  on to be reheard his lordship give the say defendant time to find out  precedent whereby leave have be give at or after the hear of a cause to a  defendant to amend his answer in the material part thereof and the say  defendant on the saint of June instant lie several precedent before the court  his lordship direct the defendant to attend he and the master of the roll  therewith and give he leave to move to amend his answer in the particular cc  aforesaid on this day and the say defendant now move the same accord whereupon  and upon hear the several precedent read the court declare that the insert the  word her instead of the word ten in the say defendant answer be a mistake of  the clerk who ingross the same and do therefore order that the defendant be at  liberty to take the say answer off the file and to amend the same by change  the word her instead of the word ten and to new swear his answer Reg lib a fol  the present course be to give leave not to amend but to file a supple mental  answer upon a proper case be make out Jennings v Merton college Ves Dolder v  bank of England Ves well v wood Ves strange peer William er p v Collins v b  Edward v MLeay ib curl v marquis Townshend Ves French v mile mad so in the  exchequer tenant v Wilsmore Anst Harris v Daubeny Anst Ridley v obee wight S c  nom tailor v obee price but where a answer by mistake or otherwise refer in  its title to the bill by a wrong description it be no answer and the court  will permit it to be take off the file amend and resworn Griffiths v wood Ves  peacock v d of Bedford V b but see white v Godbold mad the title to deposition  be amend and witness resworn cur v bowyer swan and see very v Silvester Jacob