case Maynard versus pomfret at the last seal after Hilary term march where a  defendant for want of put in his answer have stand out the whole process of  contempt to a sequestration and the bill take pro acknowledged admitted fact  on a decree against he ad to sum up the court will not discharge though  sequestration on pay the cost of the contempt only but will keep it on foot as  a security to the plaintiff for the defendant appear before the master to take  the account a bill be bring against the defendant for a discovery as the  material part of the case depend upon the discovery the defendant will not  answer but stand out the whole process of contempt to a sequestration and the  bill be take pro acknowledged admitted fact and there be a decree against the  defendant ad to sum up it be move on behalf of the defendant that the  sequestration may be discharge on pay the cost of the contempt Lord chancellor  pay the cost of the several process ten shilling for one or twenty for another  be not clear the contempt for the contempt be the not put in his answer which  be not in the defendant power to do now after the cause have be set down and  the decree make it be say for the defendant that this differ from the case  where a certain duty be decree upon a bill take pro acknowledged admitted fact  because there the estate may be sell and the money arise from the sale apply  to discharge it pursuant to the decree but here as it be a decree ad to sum up  it may be presume till the account be take that the defendant may have a  balance in his favour and therefore on pay the cost the sequestration ought to  be discharge this be a pretty hard presumption in favour of the defendant  after he have stand out the whole line of the process rather than submit to  answer but if I be to discharge this sequestration I shall do a manifest  injustice and make the process of the court entire ineffectual and the  defendant will have his end of the contempt in not put in his answer for he  will refuse attend the master to take the account and the plaintiff by that  mean lose the fruit of his decree and therefore as I be of opinion the cost be  consequential of his contempt and not the contempt itself I shall not  discharge the sequestration but keep it on foot as a security to the plaintiff  for the defendant appear before the master to take the account