Mr Fraser replied that that was his argument upou this brauch of the case iv a nutshell. Tho position ho assumed throughout was that his client camo into court with perfectly clean hands, and that he had a right to bo protected as far as the court in its discretion could protect him. Mr Frasor pointed out that his client occupied this extraordinary position : If ha had been less successful, or had the defendants beeu less blameworthy, theu tho plaintill would have beeu entitled to his costs out of the estate, in which case he would havo been comparatively recompensed; but inasmuch as he had been successful and the defendants had been mulcted in costs, if tho couteutiou of tho other side wore correct he would bo simply entitled to code costs, losing the party and party costs, to which he would otherwise havo been entitled. Tho learued couusel also said that if his client had beeu grantod administration, and no decree had been made for costs, he would havo been entitled to havo taken costs and charges, iu cludiug the costs of litigation, out of the estate. After arguing tho matter at some length, couusel submitted that would not decline jurisdiction and inflict an injustice to the litigant, who camo into court with perfectly clean hands to do what he had been directed by the court to carry out. To decide in such a caso that the successful party was only entitled to code costs would practically enable wrong doers to defy justice, because it would cost a large sum to proceed against them, and if the proceedings were successful only a small sum would bo granted as costs.
