atkins case Floyd versus nangle October in the paper of petition where a  solicitor have be negligent in manage a client business this court can grant a  attachment against he and court of law exercise the same summary jurisdiction  over atorneys the defendant by his petition set forth that his solicitor Mr  Gordon have gross misbehave in the management of his client cause and  therefore pray that he may make the petitioner satisfaction and also pray by  his petition to set aside the proceed in the cause for surprise and likewise  for a irregularity in the plaintiff proceed before the decree Lord chancellor  with regard to the complaint against the solicitor there be the strong  circumstance of the gross neglect for all the instruction be send from Ireland  by the client to the solicitor that can be desire and the answer return from  thence in order to be file but notwithstanding this it be not file till the  cause be set down upon a sequestration and after this a decree pro confessowas  pronounce the solicitor impute it to the neglect of his clerk he not be at  leisure himself because he be then engage in crown cause if true Mr Gordon  must answer it to the client as much as if his own immediate act there be no  doubt but the solicitor must make satisfaction as to the quantum it depend on  the other question between the defendant and the plaintiff but let that come  out how it will I be very doubtful whether I can make a adequate satisfaction  atkins er p for I can enter into that examination because all the necessary  material in the case be not before I a client to be sure may have a action  against a solicitor for negligent manage his business but court of law have  now exercise a summary jurisdiction by attachment over atorneys which they  have do very right as it be a much speedy remedy and there be no doubt but  this court have the same power over solicitor the next question be with regard  to set aside proceed as between the plaintiff and the defendant and that the  cause may proceed regular I refuse it upon a former application and dismiss  the petition for want of a affidavit atkins I imagine the party on the former  petition presume the court will do as in the case of Robinson versus Cranwell  but that be very different because there that e proceed be regular and the  defendant put in a answer c and no exception be take to it and it be only the  decree be sign and enrol that make a extraordinary application necessary or  otherwise it will have be a application of course to rehear the cause if the  party have come in a reasonable time but here exception may be take by the  plaintiff to the answer and therefore be not at all to be govern by it what  induce I to adhere to the strict rule of the court be that the former process  of contempt be by collusion between the solicitor Mr Gordon and his client in  order to delay the plaintiff which appear by Nangles own affidavit who be  advice by Gordon as he acknowledge to go to Ireland to delay the cause and to  stay there till Gordon shall think it safe to send for he but notwithstanding  if there be a irregularity in the proceed of the plaintiff and the plaintiff  insist upon the strict default of the defendant as the court of law say it be  very necessary a person insist upon the rigour shall hit the bird in the eye  the court of commonlaw where a person do not come in time after a judgement by  default for a new trial will not grant it if the person in possession of the  judgement insist upon it but then he must take care that all his proceed be  regular in obtain that judgement the same rule upon a outlawry set aside by  motion or writ of error or plea where there be a irregularity the irregularity  here be in this manner nangle after several order for time to put in his  answer be by the last order to enter his appearance with the register and  submit that the sergeant at arm shall go without further motion a sergeant at  arm be grant on a certificate of the six clerk that the answer be not file the  return of the sergeant at arm be in June but the return be not file till the  that of October after then it come to this whether a sequestration issue  before the fill of the return of the sergeant at arm be sufficient it have be  insist a sufficient return of the sergeant at arm be make and that it be  enough without fill atkins when a motion be make for a sergeant at arm the  person move have the commission of rebellion in his hand so when a  sequestration be move for after a sergeant at arm return then the gentleman  who move shall have the return of the sergeant at arm in his hand and  therefore the supposition of law be that all these be return and file before  the subsequent process issue but as the question have not be determine before  I will refer it to a master to certify the practice of the court but then it  have be say all this be cure by what the defendant have do afterward and that  a irregularity in process may be cure by the subsequent proceed the first  answer be file after the cause be set down on sequestration and even after the  decree pro acknowledged admitted fact but the court let he in upon the  taxation of cost before the master who be attend by the solicitor on both side  and it be certain this irregularity may be cure as well as a irregularity by  subpoena may be cure by the defendant appearance it be strong litigate in  Whittington versus Charlton stram SC cite stram which be a case of appeal of  murder that the party appear have cure a irregularity in the mesne process  three judge Parker powis and Eyre be of this opinion Mr justice John Powell of  a contrary opinion I do not know that any court of commonlaw have go so far as  to say that if there atkins er p be any irregularity in the proceed where  judgement have be obtain by default they will not let the defendant in to  contend upon the merit notwithstanding the defendant as I say before apply to  the court upon a former petition to set aside these proceed and as there be no  affidavit his petition be dismiss but he be allow to go before the master on  taxation of cost shall such a allowance be sufficient alone to debar he from  enter into the merit all this depend upon the first question whether it be a  irregularity or not for if there be no irregularity he will not be entitle to  enter into they and therefore Lord Hardwicke refer it to a master to inquire  into the irregularity and to certify it to the court Mr Noel cite Henriques  versus pereira in where after a decree pro acknowledged admitted fact the  defendant be permit to open the cause again upon a irregularity in the proceed  on mesne process on the part of the plaintiff Lord Hardwicke direct it to be  look into