bullock v Perkins July the cause at hear go off for want of party with liberty  for the plaintiff to amend the plaintiff under the order strike out many  charge in the bill which the defendant have answer order on application to be  restore that the court may give the defendant the cost of such part of the  bill as the plaintiff have waive the cause at hear go off for want of party  and the usual order be make for liberty to amend the bill by add party and the  plaintiff to pay the cost of the day the defendant accept the cost the  plaintiff amend his bill by strike out several charge which have lead the  party necessary into the examination of witness the cause be again bring on to  hear and the like objection be make for want of party and the like order as  before for amend the bill the plaintiff again amend his bill by strike out  some further charge and add new matter and pray relief against the defendant  general the defendant by Mr attorneygeneral and Mr clark their counsel the  above that day of July move to discharge the amendment as irregular or to  refer it to the master to state whether regular or not Mr solicitor general  and Mr brown counsel for the plaintiff can not conceive there be any  difference between the plaintiff strike out before and wave at the hear such  part of the bill as he shall be advice dickens Lord chancellor the difference  be very obvious because if the plaintiff will waive any part of the bill at  the hear the matter be then before the court the court will direct the  plaintiff to pay to the defendant the cost of such part of the bill as be  waive but by strike out the plaintiff make himself as it be his own judge and  by prevent that matter be come before the court from which it be evident he  can expect no relief prevent the court from do that justice to the defendant  which it otherwise will and it will be a matter of great consequence and of  great injustice to a defendant if a plaintiff shall be permit to act in this  manner for a plaintiff may bring a vexatious bill and put the defendant to  great expense in take a copy of it in answer it and examine witness and then  after public action be pass upon see the deposition and find thereby that he  have no equity may under pretence of amend his bill strike out such part as he  can expect relief from and thereby prevent the court from do that equity to  the defendant by order he his cost which the plaintiff have not in himself but  as to the first amendment the defendant by accept the cost thereof and not  complain in time have estopped himself from make any complaint now as to the  amendment under the second order and the plaintiff new charge and pray relief  general against all the defendant it must be consider against the original  defendant in the nature of a supplemental bill and therefore improper by way  of amendment and for that reason I bold the last amendment dickens to be  irregular and as the irregularity appear the court will not send it to a  master to state it but will order the last amendment as to strike out some  charge and add other charge against the original defendant to be discharge and  the plaintiff bill to be restore to what it be before and the plaintiff to pay  the cost occasion thereby and of this application see monk v earl of  Tankerville sim dickens er p