brown roland Bateman and another Appellants huge Conway and others Respondents  that march Mews dig three the brief of a party in the cause be clandestine  take out of the chamber of his attorney and make a improper use of by the  opposite party the court order the brief to be return and grant a attachment  not only against the person who have obtain it but also against those who have  make use of it though a brief be not of itself evidence against the party for  who it be prepare yet as a discovery of the secret and merit of his case may  be productive of perjury or subornation of perjury and thereby obstruct the  justice of the court in which the suit be depend the obtain of it in a  surreptitious manner be a offence high deserve the censure and punishment of  that court the respondent Hugh Conway be seize for three life with a covenant  for perpetual renewal of the land of Portrinand in the county of Limerick by  lease from the right honourable Lord Southwell and have a large family and no  fortune but the profit of this farm he be under the necessity of contract many  debt and be much press for the payment of they he mortgage the farm to the  honourable John Fitzherbert Maurice for pound but be still necessitous he  afterward offer the equity of redemption of the premise to sale and after some  treaty the appellant Bateman agree to become the purchaser for pound accord by  lease and release date the d and d of June the respondent Hugh Conway together  with Sarah his wife and the respondent John Conway his old son in  consideration of pound convey all the say land and premise to the appellant  Bateman and his heir subject to the mortgage on which there be then due for  principal and interest pound after the appellant Bateman have agree for this  purchase but before the deed be execute the respondent Hugh have occasion for  money Bateman advance he several sum to the amount of pound on account of the  purchase money and it be agree that he shall have a allowance thereout of the  principal money and interest due on the mortgage and also of the pound so  advance a account be state between they of these allowance on the day of  execute the purchase deed when it appear that the balance come to the  respondent Hugh be about pound the appellant Bateman then pay he the same in  cash except twenty guinea which by his direction be pay to the respondent John  Conway and thereupon the tenant attorned and the appellant Bateman be let into  the receipt of the rend and profit about a year and a half after this  transaction the respondent Hugh set up a pretence that he have not receive the  whole of brown the purchase money but that the appellant Bateman have at the  time of execute the deed give he several promissory note for part thereof  videlicet one for pound another for pound three for pound each one far pound  another for pound and another for pound amount in the whole to pound and some  time in December Mr Bateman receive a letter from one Robert Bentley import  that a promissory note of his to Hugh Conway have be endorse by Hugh to one  hickie and by he to Bentley who thereby require payment thereof and not long  afterward Bateman receive letter from several other person inform he that they  hold diverse note give by he to Hugh Conway which they have negotiate and now  request to be pay the appellant Bateman have not only pay Hugh Conway the  whole of the purchase money which be come to he but have also pay off Mr  Fitzherbert maurice mortgage be much alarm by these letter and by further  intelligence that all the note therein mention have be forge by the respondent  Hugh and his son John and Edmund and therefore he prefer bill of indictment  against they to the grand jury of the county of the city of Limerick at the  general assize there hold in the spring which bill have be find and the party  apprehend brown er p and take into custody the trial come on upon the saint of  September when the witness for the prosecution not be able to recollect some  circumstance touch the payment of the purchase money at the time of execute  the conveyance and there be also some trifle variance in their evidence the  defendant be acquit pen this prosecution the appellant Bateman file a bill in  the court of exchequer in Ireland against the respondent Hugh and his two son  and against the several endorsees of the note for a discovery of several  matter concern they and for a injunction to stay proceed at law upon they and  that they may be bring into court and lacerate and the respondent the Conways  have neglect to put in any answer to this bill several process of contempt  issue against they in consequence of the Conways be acquit of the criminal  prosecution the appellant Bateman find Us character very severe handle for  have attempt to defraud a poor distress man of his right and therefore he  think it necessary to take some step in order to his own vindication for this  purpose he on the that of September apply to the other appellant yield to be  concern for he as his attorney who be then a stranger to the matter and not  know any thing of the suit depend in the exchequer desire to see one of the  appellant bateman brief which have be give to his counsel upon the trial of  the indictment to which Bateman reply that Mr Enraght his former attorney have  get all his brief and be then out of town but Thomas Studert esquire happen to  be present at this conversation thereupon observe that he have hear at brown  the house of Mr Kean who be attorney for the Conways and with who he have dine  the day before that after the trial be over the appellant bateman brief have  be see lie about the hall or court house and that he Kean have take up one of  they out of curiosity and bring it home to read and have lie it by in his  window for that purpose whereupon Mr Studert be desire by the appellant yield  to go to keans house and ask for that brief he go accord and receive from  Henry napper soninlaw of Kean a brief which he understand and imagine be one  of bateman brief and soon after deliver the same to Anthony Stoughton esquire  who in the presence and by the order of the appellant Bateman deliver it to Mr  yield as hip attorney the appellant yield on see this brief discover that  instead of be one of Mr bateman brief it be one of the brief which the Conways  have prepare for their counsel and which have be accord use upon the trial but  that prosecution be over and it have be rumour that the Conways admit the  payment of the purchase money but allege that the same have afterward be repay  to the appellant Bateman who have give the note in question for it Mr yield be  desirous of know what have be state in the brief relative to that matter and  for this purpose he cause the brief to be read and therein find it state as  part of the Conways case that Mr Bateman have pay the entire purchase money  but that Hugh Conway have in some day after repay the same to he the appellant  immediate upon this discovery make it as public as they can in order to wipe  off some of the aspersion which have be throw out upon the appellant bateman  character and soon afterward a application be make to yield by Mr Kean as the  attorney concern for the Conways to return he this brief which Mr yield  declare he be ready to do upon receive a order from the appellant Bateman for  that purpose but Mr Kean do not think fit to apply to Mr Bateman for any such  order although he be tell that Bateman be then in the house the appellant  Bateman be advice to dismiss his bill in the court of exchequer and file a new  one for the same purpose but with some necessary alteration and amendment in  the court of chancery he accord file such new bill and on the that of February  move for liberty to dismiss his say bill in the court of exchequer with cost  and obtain a order accord as a matter of course but on the that of the same  month the respondent although they be in contempt for not answer this bill  obtain a order discharge the say order of dismission and on be serve with  process to appear to the brown er p bill file in the court of chancery they  obtain a order of that court refer it to a master to see whether the bill file  there and that in the court of exchequer be for the same matter brown the  respondent without any previous application to the appellant Bateman for the  brief move the court of exchequer on the d of November for a attachment  against both the appellant and also against Mr Studert and Mr Stoughton for  take away and keep this brief which motion be find on a affidavit of keans  wherein he swear that Studert have take the brief out of his lodging and give  it to Stoughton that Stoughton have deliver it to the appellant or one of they  and that yield have be apply to by Kean for the brief have refuse to return it  whereupon the court be please to order that yield shall be attach and answer  personal interrogatory and that Bateman and the other person complain of shall  answer the matter of keans affidavit accord the appellant Bateman together  with Studert and Stoughton make several affidavit in which they swear that the  brief come into their hand in the manner before state and that when Studert  undertake to procure it they several apprehend it to be one of bateman brief  and that till yield have get the brief into his hand and open the same in  order to read it they do not know it to be a brief belong to the respondent  and personal interrogatory have be exhibit to the appellant and also to  Studert and Stoughton they several answer the same to the like effect as they  have swear in their affidavit on the d of may the court have hear these  affidavit and examination read and after hear counsel for all party be please  to order that the brief shall be deliver into the hand of the officer of the  court which be immediate do that a attachment shall issue against the  appellant Bateman and that the attachment before grant against the appellant  yield shall stand from these several order of the d of November and that of  February and the d of may the present appeal be bring and as to the order of  the that of February it be say d rider a forester that the order make on the  that of that month upon the appellant bateman motion for dismiss his own bill  with cost be proper make and be agreeable to the daily practice of court of  equity that it be make before issue join and when the respondent the Conways  who be defendant to that bill be actual in contempt for not answer it and as  to the other order appeal from it appear from the appellant Yield examination  on the interrogatory which be to be take for truth that the original intention  be only to get a brief of the appellant bateman and that the get one belong to  the respondent in its stead be by mere chance and without any design that this  the court of exchequer have itself determine by discharge Studert who first  get that brief and also Stoughton who deliver it to the appellant that no  application be make to the appellant Bateman to return it and the appellant  yield who have receive it from his client the appellant Bateman can not  without a breach of trust deliver it up to brown Kean but by bateman order and  especial as they swear that they do not believe Kean be employ by or concern  for the respondent at the trial that it be neither immoral or unjust in the  appellant Bateman to read those instruction of the respondent the Conways for  their counsel which chance have throw in his way nor more so to deliver they  to his attorney the other appellant nor in this last to receive they from he  and it be impossible that this can be a contempt of the court of exchequer in  either of they for the instruction do not relate to any prosecution or trial  direct by that court but to the trial of a indictment find several month  before any bill be file in the exchequer and quite independent of that suit  there be not therefore the least pretence for punish the appellant as for a  contempt of the court and yet it be think proper to attach the appellant yield  instanter by the order of the d of November without a hour give to show cause  whereby he be make subject to day fee ever since and this though at the time  of receive the brief from the other appellant Bateman and for several day  afterward he know nothing of any cause depend in the court of exchequer but  admit for argument sake that the criminal prosecution be relative to or any  part of the cause in the brown er p exchequer the respondent who be then in  actual contempt of that court can not be admit to complain of a contempt in  the appellant without previous clear their own the brief in question do not  come into the hand of the appellant till after the trial be over consequent  the respondent be not prejudice in their defence by the appellant knowledge of  their instruction to counsel or if they can be imagine to have be damnified by  this fortuitous knowledge of the appellant they shall have apply not to the  court of exchequer who have nothing to do with the prosecution but to the  court where the trial be have or they may have seek their remedy against the  appellant by a action at law that there can not now be any doubt of the  injustice of set up the note as the respondent the Conways have never answer  the appellant bateman bill exhibit in the court of chancery in Ireland for a  injunction to stay all proceed at law for the recovery of those note but have  stand out all process of contempt even to a sequestration the appellant  Bateman have obtain a conditional decree against they which have since be make  absolute and the note order to be bring into court and lacerate but this  decree may be render of no effect if the order for attach the appellant shall  not be reverse as the respondent may possible insist not only upon the  appellant pay the day fee for near two year since the order be make but also  the content of the note themselves before the attachment be take off which  will tend to the great oppression imaginable brown on the other side it be  contend W Murray king Evans that from the examination of the appellant and of  Studert and Stoughton as well as from the nature of the transaction it plain  appear that the brief be take and detain with a unjust fraudulent and wicked  intent in order by discover the secret of the respondent case and the nature  of their defence to enable the appellant to procure witness to contradict it  and as the brief contain matter relative to a cause then depend in the court  of exchequer the offence become cognisable there and be a very high contempt  of that court and proper punishable by attachment that though the take of the  brief may subject the offender to a action at law or even to a criminal  prosecution yet the court of exchequer be entitle not only to have its justice  and honour satisfy by a due punishment of the person guilty of so great a  contempt but have as all court of justice have full power to punish such  contempt and though it may be insist that the brief be not in itself evidence  against the respondent yet as a discovery of the secret and merit of their  case may be productive of perjury and subornation of perjury and thereby a  cause of great oppression upon the suitor as well as a obstruction to the  justice of the court wherein the cause be then depend and as this discovery be  obtain in so surreptitious a manner the offence be high deserve the censure  and punishment of that court that as to the order of the that of February not  allow the appellant Bateman to dismiss his bill in the court of exchequer  after the application to that court for a attachment against he it be insist  that the say order be just and agreeable to the daily practice of court of  equity who constant refuse this liberty when it be intend for the purpose of  oppression and to elude the justice of the court as be plain the present case  after hear counsel on this appeal it be order and adjudge that the order of  the that of February discharge the order make on the that of the same month  for dismiss the appellant bateman bill in the court of exchequer with cost  shall be reverse and that the order of the d of November and d of may shall be  affirm jour vol p brown er p avowry