child v brabson Dec defendant in custody for want of further answer put it in  will be discharge on pay the cost of the contempt if that answer or any  further one prove to be insufficient the plaintiff may resume the process  where it leave off see Bailey v Bailey Ves supplement defendant be take on a  sergeant at arm for not put in a answer he afterward put in answer and be  discharge the answer be report insufficient and he be take again and now move  to be discharge out of custody of the messenger on pay cost of contempt c the  question be whether he shall before the further answer be report sufficient or  not vesey senior er p a order by his lordship in duport v ware be mention  where defendant put in answer after great delay and process of contempt it be  refer for impertinence and report so the impertinence be expunge the cost tax  and subpoena issue for they the answer on exception be report insufficient and  subpoena to put in a better answer and on contempt to a sergeant at arm a  further answer be put in and plaintiff insist he shall remain in custody until  the answer be report full on vesey senior that it come before the court and  defendant on pay cost for not put in a further answer be discharge Lord  chancellor where the first answer be report insufficient and the party take on  process for not put in a further answer he afterward put in a further answer  and pay the cost of the contempt for until then it be no answer the course I  take it be that he must be discharge and if the answer be afterward report  insufficient you may carry on the process of contempt at the process you leave  off but I never hear that he shall lie in custody until the master report  whether the answer be sufficient or not which may be report either way and  that after a long time in case of a insufficient further answer you be to take  up your process of contempt just where you leave off which will not be so if  he be to lie in custody during that time the case cite seem to I in point and  as I remember I be there incline that he shall remain in custody because of  the great obstinacy in not answer see Bailey v Bailey Ves and as to  examination bone v Flack Ves the motion allow Reg lib a fol