Answer, plea or demurrer of defendant. Equity confessed upon the answer. filed within eight days after the time limited for the appearance of such Defendant. After that time no interrogatories can be filed for his examination without special leave of the Court, to be applied for upon notice of motion. The defendant, if required to answer the Bill, must put in his plea, answer or demurrer thereto, not demurring alone, within fourteen days from the delivery to him or his solicitor of a copy of the interrogatories. The Court has power to enlarge the time on application." In a case in which the Plaintiff allowed the cause to come to a hearing without having taken any steps to obtain an interlocutory injunction, the Defendant's answer denying the validity of the Patent and the fact of the infringement, the Master of the Rolls, being of opinion that the Plaintiff, upon the evidence, had not made out a case which would have supported an injunction if applied for in the interlocutory stage, refused to give him an opportunity of establishing his title at Law, by retaining the Bill with liberty to bring an action, and dismissed his Bill with costs." The rule of the Court requiring that there should be an equity confessed by the answer in order to sustain an injunction, does not require that the equity so appearing should constitute such admission by the defendant as on the face of the answer would entitle the plaintiff to a decree. By an equity confessed upon the answer was meant, under the old practice, that the Defendant had thereby admitted such facts as sufficed to show the Court that there was a question to be tried at Law.* ⚫ General Orders in Chancery, 7 Aug. (1852), No. 16. Ibid. No. 20. u Ibid. No. 19. Bacon v. Jones (1839), gas-burner, 4 My. & Cr. 433; affirmed, L. C., 1 Beav. 382; 3 Jur. 476, 994. × Per Wigram, V. C., Bentinck v. Willink (1842), 2 Hare, 11. The right to an injunction is not lost by not applying The hearing. for it till the hearing. If previously obtained, the Court may continue it on the undertaking of the plaintiff to be answerable in damages or by way of compensation in the event of the injunction being dissolved." The Court Affidavit. will at any time previous to the hearing postpone the hearing in order to allow time for filing affidavits; but no affidavits filed after the hearing is begun can be read." And similarly at the hearing, the plaintiff may move to have the injunction already obtained ex parte made perpetual, or the defendant may move to have it dissolved. If the plaintiff has not accompanied his Bill in the first instance with a sufficient affidavit as to his belief that he was the inventor, it will now be dismissed with costs. If, having obtained the injunction ex parte, on the terms of speedily trying the right, he has been guilty of laches with respect to the trial, it will be dissolved. No reference will be allowed to affidavits filed on the application for the injunction; but, under Stat. 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, s. 59, such affidavits may be made evidence in the cause. amination. Where a case before the Court is not such, upon the Viva voce exevidence, that it would direct an issue on a matter of fact raised by the pleadings, the Court will not examine witnesses vivâ voce on the mere speculation as to the evidence which may be elicited on such examination.f Where the Vice-Chancellors are to work out questions Scientific as y Bacon v. Spottiswoode (1839), 1 Beav. 382; 4 M. & Cr. 433. Morrison v. Moat (1851), L. J., medicine, 18 L. T. 164. a Electric Telegraph Company v. Nott (1841), V. C. C., 11 Jur. 272. ↳ Newall v. Wilson (1852), L. J., wire rope, 19 L. T. 161. © Sturtz v. Delarue (1828), paper, 5 Russ. 322. e d Stevens v. Keating (1847), cement, 2 Ph. 333. Barfield v. Kelly (copyright), 4 Russ. 359; and see Dunstan v. Patterson (copyright), 2 Ph. 341. f Wilkinson v. Stringer, 20 L. J. 76, Ch. sistance. Interim order. Writ of injunction. Service. Order. of reference which were formerly sent to the Masters, they will do so in Chambers, with, if necessary, the assistance of accountants, merchants, architects, &c., as provided for by Stat. 15 & 16 Vict. c. 80, s. 42. Mere questions of detail will be worked out by the Chief Clerk : questions of Law or of a grave nature arising will be discussed in open Court.h On a motion ex parte in the analogous case of staying waste, although an injunction was refused, an interim order was made, with leave to discharge it. Considerable care is necessary in the wording of the order-a party being entitled to move to dissolve the injunction, if from ambiguity in its terms he may, under any construction of the order, be prejudicially affected.* The order for injunction having been obtained, the writ, prepared by the solicitor' and endorsed with his name and address, must be sealed by the Clerk of Records and Writs, whose duty it is to ascertain that it is correct, and that the party presenting it is entitled to sue out the same." Each party enjoined should be served personally. As to substituted service, where the Defendant is not to be found, see Kirkman v. Honour.° It is material that the order should extend to the defendant, his agents, servants and workmen. Unless such be expressed in terms the Court will not commit the defendant's agent for a breach of the injunction.P h Mildmay v. Methuen (1852), V. C. K., 20 L. T. 63; 16 Jur. 965. 1 Anwyl v. Owens (1853), L. J., 20 L. J. 995. * Dalglish v. Jarvie (1850), Lords' Com., 2 M'N. & G. 231. 1 Order XVI., Oct. (1842). The fee for sealing the writ is 17., payable by means of a stamp. Order VI., 25 Oct. (1852). n Order IV., Oct. (1842). • 6 Beav. 400; 12 L. J. (N. S.) 336. P Wellesley v. Lord Mornington (1849), waste, 11 Beav. 180; 12 Jur. 367. bill. If the plaintiff neglect to proceed at Law or be unsuc- Dismissal of cessful, the Bill should be dismissed with costs. Matters at issue on the direction to proceed at Law, if neither decided, put in a train of investigation, nor reserved, must be considered by the Court as points either abandoned or on which the plaintiff was entitled to no order. In a recent case the Bill had been retained for a year, with liberty to bring an action, and it had been ordered, that if the plaintiff should not proceed to trial within that period, the Bill was to stand dismissed. The Court ordered the defendant's motion to dismiss to stand over, and, on a cross motion by the plaintiff, enlarged the time after it had expired. The defendant was allowed the costs of the original motion, those of the plaintiff being costs in the cause. In some cases an order will be made on motion by the defendant for the dismissal of the Bill, on the defendant submitting to the plaintiff's demand and paying the costs of the suit as between party and party," or under very special circumstances without costs.* Although the course of dissolving the injunction by Dissolving indemurring to the Bill is open to him,' it is not obligatory junction. on the defendant. He may move to dissolve upon affidavits before answer or upon the answer coming in.Þ Notice of such motion must be served on all parties a Bickford v. Skewes (1829), L. C., miners' safety fuse, 4 My. & Cr. 499. r 8 Chappell v. Purday (1847), L. C., copyright, 2 Ph. 227. Swanger v. Gardner (1850), V. C., 3 De G. & S. 696; Seton on "Pemberton v. Topham (1838), M. R., 1 Beav. 316. x Holden v. Kynaston (1840), M. R., 2 Beav. 205. 2 Drewry on Inj., supra, 102. Barnsley Canal Company v. Twibell (1844), M. R., 7 Beav. 19; Hudson v. Maddison (1841), V. C., 12 Sim. 416. b But see Curtis v. Cutts (1839), L. C., cards for woolcarding, 8 L J. 184. Demurrer. Motion to dissolve. Costs. likely to be affected by the dissolution. If there appears to be any material inconsistencies in the plaintiff's case, the injunction will be dissolved with costs. Such dissolution does not preclude the plaintiff from reviving the injunction after a successful action at Law; or, if the injunction has been obtained ex parte, from making a fresh application upon the merits. If the injunction be dissolved on the answer coming in, it will not be revived as of course without special motion or amendment verified by affidavit. In Storer v. Jackson the Court refused to hear a motion to dissolve, pending a motion, of which the plaintiff had given notice, for production of documents, no unnecessary delay having taken place on the plaintiff's part. It is the duty of a party asking for an injunction to bring under the notice of the Court all facts material to the determination of his right to that injunction, and it is no excuse for him to say that he was not aware of the importance of any facts which he has omitted to bring forward. Thus, where a plaintiff obtained ex parte an injunction on the facts stated in the Bill, but other facts came out in the defendant's answer raising a question of Law on which the right of the plaintiff to the injunction depended, it was held, that the omission of the plaintiff to bring these facts under the notice of the Court was of itself a sufficient ground for dissolving the injunction.i If after an injunction obtained on motion the defendant do not offer to pay the costs of it, the plaintiff may bring c Service v. Castenada (1845), V. C. K. B., 9 Jur. 367. e Neilson v. Harford (1841), L. C., iron, 2 Coop. C. C. 61, n. & James v. Downes (1811), L. C., 18 Ves. 522. h (1842) V. C., 12 Sim. 503. See as to costs, where the injunction is dissolved with liberty to plaintiff to bring an action, Sunxter v. Foster (1841), 1 Cr. & Ph. 302. i Dalglish v. Jarvie (1850), Lords Commissioners, 2 M1N. & G. |