atkins case Fleetwood versus jansen and MENNILL November a motion for further  time to redeem a mortgage and that it shall stand as a security only for what  be good fide advance but forfeit as to what be win at play Lord Hardwicke say  as Mr Fleetwood in a former cause where he may have do it do not insist on a  redemption the foreclosure can not regular be keep open but on the whole  circumstance allow three month Lord chancellor a motion be make on behalf of  the plaintiff for further time to redeem the mortgage which be original give  to Mr Delmee and by he assign to the defendant and it be insist by the  plaintiff counsel that the mortgage which Jansen and Mennill have upon his  estate ought to stand only as a security for so much as have be good fide  advance and shall be forfeit as to what be win at play to be sure the enforce  the game act be not mere confine to the interest of private person but be of  great consequence to the public and so I have always think it when I sit in  the other court and as in other crime accomplice be always encourage so more  especial ought they to be in these case for notwithstanding among gamester  themselves they call it honour and debt of honour I think it false honour and  that a person who lie open and discover these practice have do a meritorious  action but though it may be the rule yet the circumstance of this case be  particular and will not fall within all the general rule the defendant with Mr  Delmees and their own mortgage have at least pound upon the plaintiff estate  and upon a valuation of the mortgage premise which be stretch to the very  utmost it do not amount to more than pound and when it come to be sell it be  not for probable that any purchaser will give more than pound with such a  large encumbrance upon it the mortgage assign by Mr Delmee to Jansen and  Mennill be pound and allow by the plaintiff to be a fair mortgage atkins and  if Jansen and Mennill have not take this mortgage of Mr Delmee he will  undoubted have be entitle to have foreclose they both and as Fleetwood in the  old cause between Mr Delmee plaintiff upon a bill of foreclosure Jansen  Mennill and Fleetwood defendant never insist upon a redemption at the hear nor  even before a master consider whether it will not introduce a dangerous  precedent in this court to admit he to redeem now after he have acquiesce  under the foreclosure in the former cause and whether it be not better that a  private person shall suffer a inconvenience rather than a general one shall  arise to the public what be the rule at law upon a to know facias take out on  a judgement why that a defendant shall not insist upon any thing but what may  have be insist on at the hear of the original cause atkins er p so be that e  rule in equity with this variation that if any thing new have happen since the  hear the defendant man take advantage of it this be the case upon the old bill  then what be that e equity upon the new why that the whole money secure upon  Mr fleetwood estate except Mr Delmees mortgage be forfeit to the heir at law  of Fleetwood as be win at play by virtue of the game act and that the heir at  law have assign over the whole benefit to a trustee in trust for Mr Fleetwood  who now bring his bill and insist upon be let into a redemption on pay the  defendant only what shall appear to be just and good fide lend but I be of  opinion that regular I can keep open this foreclosure neither will it be any  great benefit to the plaintiff to do it because he will have the advantage of  any equity at the hear which may arise from his bill notwithstanding the  foreclosure however upon the whole circumstance of the case I will allow the  plaintiff three month more to get the money for redeem Mr Delmees mortgage and  that to be peremptory