case LINGOOD versus croucher August S c post where the party have agree to  make the submission to a award a rule of court and to be restrain from bring a  bill in equity the arbitrator notwithstanding the award may be defective in  point of law may plead it in bar to a bill here the plaintiff and Mr eaden  have be partner in trade but upon the dissolution of the partnership some  dispute arise between they a suit be carry on for some time in equity but a  proposal be make to refer all matter in controversy it be agree to and the  submission be make a order of this court one condition in it be that the party  shall be restrain from bring a bill in equity against the arbitrator they  award pound to be due to Mr eaden on the balance of account upon which Mr  Lingood bring a bill against the arbitrator croucher be one charge corruption  and partiality and pray that they may set forth the general account between  the plaintiff and the defendant eaden relate to the partnership to so much and  such part of the bill as seek a general account c the defendant refuse to  discover and plead the award in bar the bill further pray a discovery from  what account or account of the party they find their award to this part they  likewise refuse to discover and plead the award itself in bar atkins Lord  chancellor there be many instance in this court where arbitrator to a bill  charge corruption and partiality may plead the award in bar to the discovery  but then it be incumbent upon they to support their plea by show themselves  incorrupt and impartial or otherwise the court will give a party a remedy by  make arbitrator pay cost I remember a instance of this sort in a famous case  of John ware Ves SC vide Kampshire v young ante who be a party in a cause  where one John atkins er p Warner be a arbitrator upon ware be come into the  room he say I John Warner will make you John ware pay cost ware complain to  the court of this partial behaviour in the arbitrator and the court invert  warner threat for they make he pay John ware cost the great doubt with I be as  this award seem to be executory and not final whether it be a good award at  law and if it be not good at law then how can the arbitrator plead it in bar  to the discovery pray by the bill when the party have submit to make the  submission to the award a rule of court it be a contempt of this court to  dispute the order unless they can show partiality corruption or misbehaviour  in the arbitrator and this will depend upon the denial of these fact in their  answer and if they do that sufficient the plea ought to be allow but still if  upon the hear of the cause the evidence shall be strong enough to convince the  court that the arbitrator have be guilty of corruption partiality or  misbehaviour it will effectual open the plea therefore I be of opinion  notwithstanding any defect in the award in point of law yet upon the party  agree to make the submission a rule of court and one condition in it be to be  restrain from bring a bill in equity against the arbitrator the plea of the  award by they ought to be allow in the case of Mr robin the counsel who be  appoint a arbitrator by this court accept of it upon a proviso that the party  will enter into a rule not to bring a bill in equity which be do accord  notwithstanding this the party against who the award be make bring a bill  against the arbitrator and charge corruption and partiality upon which Mr  robin move Lord chancellor king that he may be strike out from be a party to  the cause his lordship grant the motion and say it will be a very great  hardship upon arbitrator if they shall be harass with suit when they undertake  atkins such a employment without any gratification and that allow they be  liable to such a bill will effectual discourage person of worth from accept of  be arbitrator and therefore he strike he out from be a party so in the case of  the eastindia company where they agree to waive the penalty but insist upon it  afterward the bill be dismiss as against the person who be liable to the  penalty Videathe eastindia company v Sandys vern