In  this  situation,  it  appears  that  Sir  John  Alexander  Giffard  was  advised
that  the  decree  of  the  court  of  Exchequer  was  erroneous ;  but  that  he  could
not  have  redress  either  by  bill  of  review  or  by  appeal  to  the  House  of  Lords,
inasmuch  as  he  was  neither  a  party  nor  privy  to  that  decree,  but  merely
a  remote  remainder-man  in  tail ;  and  therefore  that. his  only  remedy  was
by  original  bill.      He  accordingly,  in  the  month  of  December,  1802,
exhibited  his  original  bill,  in  the  court  of  Chancery  in  Ireland,  against
Sir  John  Hort  and  the  other  defendants,  praying  a  reconveyance  of  the
premises  upon  payment  of  what  should  appear  justly  due  on  the  foot  of
the  several  mortgages.     And  the  defendants,  by  their  answer,  insisting
that  they  were  not  mortgagees,  but  bona  fde  purchasers,  and  that  the
decree  of  the  court  of  Exchequer  was  a  bar  to  the  relief  sought  by  the
bill ;  the  cause  came  on  to  be  heard  before  Lord  Chancellor  Redesdale  in
December,  1803,  when  his  Lordship  declared  his  opinion,  that  the  court
of  Exchequer  was  not  warranted  in  dismissing  the  bill  of  the  said  Sir
Thomas  Richard  Walter  Giffard ;  adding,  that,  if  that  decree  were  not  in
the  way.  Sir  John  was  well  entitled  to  the  relief  which  he  claimed ;  but
that,  as  his  Lordship  was  inclined  to  think  that  the  decree  of  the  court  of
Exchequer  was  binding  on  him  so  long  as  it  stood  unreversed,  he  was
pleased  to  order  that  the  cause  should  stand  over  for  the  express  purpose
of  giving  him  an  opportunity  to  appeal  to  the  House  of  Lords.
