case tovey versus young may vern S c post Eq Abr pl S c atk verdict be recover  in Suffolk by the factor against the London cheesemonger they bring their bill  fora new trial in a indifferent county but the bill be dismiss a factor buy  cheese for his principal and then break and a action be bring against the  principal and a recovery at law the plaintiff here endeavour in a court of law  to have get a new trial but be deny it and now this bill be bring and suggest  for equity that before the cheese be buy he have countermand the authority of  the factor and that the defendant have notice of it but that be deny by the  answer and not prove another suggestion be that there can not be a indifferent  trial in Suffolk for that almost all the freeholder there be concern in  interest and have declare they never will find against their countryman the  plaintiff likewise find out since the trial that the principal witness on who  testimony the recovery be have be partner with the insolvent factor and cite  the case of Hennell and Graham versus Kelland Eq Cas Abr pl S c February car  where a action be bring against a administrator who plead plene to manage and  the trial be bring down by proviso and at the trial the defendant be put to  prove a sum of pound pay precedent in chancery before the plaintiff original  which not be provide to do a verdict be against he yet after find the note  whereby his witness be enable to swear that matter on a bill bring here a new  trial be grant and Humphreys versus sir Robert Payton November car where a  recovery in a trial at bar be set aside on new matter discover and affirm on  rehear may Ives versus hankey December James of a Cheshire factor allege he  sell to he as a merchant and not as a factor and Tilley versus wharton vern S  c Eq Abr pl S c vern first hear here and after in the house of lord where a  new trial be grant after a trial at bar Lord keeper bill for new trial ought  to be reduce to some certainty the ground for relief be usual partiality in  the juror vezey or new discovery precedent in chancery er p as to the saint  the trial be to be by a jury de Vicineto but if cause the venue may be change  to another place challenge may be allow or a attaint grant and these be to be  at law and the court where the cause be try may if they see cause grant a new  trial which here you have attempt but can not prevail and I can grant a new  trial for partiality new matter may in some case be ground for relief but it  must not be what be try before nor when it consist in swear only will I ever  grant a new trial unless it appear by deed or write or that a witness on who  testimony the verdict be give be convict of perjury or the jury attaint and it  do not appear the witness and plaintiff at law be partner and if the jury have  declare they will find for the plaintiff the court at commonlaw will have take  order in it the case of Hennell and Graham versus Kelland be matter in write  and in the case of Humphreys versus Payton it do not appear what the new  matter be Ives versus hankey be try in Nottinghamshire and not in Cheshire and  go without defence yet a new trial be deny at law but grant here because the  right have never be try but that be not for partiality Tilley versus wharton  precedent in chancery differ much Tilleys bill be dismiss and wharton cross  bill come on and a satisfaction of the bind decree out of the trust estate  that be alter above and another trial grant and that go a contrary way and  controversy this way will never have a end note this be first hear at the roll  and dismiss and now that decree confirm on appeal