burrow johnson versus HOULDITCH Wednesday that April SC Sayers la c rule to  pay money into court and have it strike out of the declaration on payment of  cost discharge as to the cost the action have be vexatious bring in a action  upon the case for the use and occupation of a house the defendant have in  Hilary term last obtain the common rule for liberty to pay S into court and to  have it strike out of the declaration on payment of cost the plaintiff  attorney apply to get these cost tax and take the money out of court upon and  after which application Mr Whitaker for the defendant have move in the  beginning of this term to discharge this rule so far as it relate to the cost  and also that the plaintiff shall pay the cost of the suit itself and also the  cost of that application for that the plaintiff have the very same offer of  the very same sum before the judge the case he go upon and from whence he  argue the plaintiff conduct to be oppressive be as followsA quarter be rend  amount to S and nothing more be due from the defendant to the plaintiff the  defendant be always ready to have pay it but the plaintiff keep out of the way  in order to prevent a tender and yet bring this action as above state by bill  returnable last term the defendant summon the plaintiff before a judge to show  cause why upon payment of the debt and cost proceed shall not be stay the  plaintiff attorney pretend that the plaintiff have other demand and therefore  refuse to take the S and cost and so the judge be preclude by this allegation  from interfere and can make no order this oblige the defendant to apply to the  court for the common rule to pay the S into court with the cost then incur  after which if the plaintiff proceed it be at his peril but as this common  rule be always make upon the term of the defendant pay cost to the plaintiff  Mr whitaker motion make as above mention be to set aside so much of the say  rule as put upon the defendant those term of pay cost to the plaintiff and he  have even add to this motion that on the contrary the plaintiff shall pay the  cost of the suit itself and also of that application to the defendant it be  most manifest that the plaintiff be determine to oppress the defendant as it  now appear that only this S be real due to he Mr Norton on behalf of the  plaintiff now show cause against Mr whitaker rule and burrow he insist that  however oppressive this action may appear yet the plaintiff have by law a  right to bring it and consequent he be entitle to his cost of suit to be tax  and pay to he upon the defendant obtain this rule under the statute which give  liberty to pay the rend due into the court for those be the term prescribe by  that Act but the court upon full consideration of the matter look upon these  proceed thus carry on by the plaintiff to be oppressive and therefore they do  discharge so much of the above mention rule as direct the payment of cost by  the defendant to the plaintiff the rule now make be this videlicet it be order  that the say rule make in this cause on Wednesday next after three week from  easterday in this same term be discharge and also that so much of the rule  make in this cause in the last Hilary term for the payment I take these rule  to be discretionary and find upon the course and practice of the court not  upon any particular statute burrow er p S into court as relate to the payment  of cost to be tax by Mr clarke be discharge a