and  Tindal  C.  J.  said  (a),  "  We  have  no  power  to  dis-
pense with  an  affidavit  of  such  notice  having  been  given,
although  the  respondents  have  waived  it.  Still,  as  the
proviso  enables  the  Court  to  postpone  the  hearing  of
the  appeal,  '  if  it  shall  appear  to  them  that  there  has
not  been  reasonable  time  to  give  or  send  such  notice;*
and  as  it  appears  that  the  appellant  has  been  lulled  into
security  by  the  conduct  of  the  respondents,  I  think  the
appeal  may,  under  the  circumstances,  stand  over  till  the
next  term.  That  delay  will  give  the  appellant  ample
time  to  serve  the  respondents  with  notice  of  his  inten-
tion to  prosecute  the  appeal  .'^


Wilde  C.  J.  I  should  be  very  glad  if  I  could  find  a
ground  upon  which  we  could  postpone  this  appeal,  so
as  admit  of  ten  days'  notice  being  given  to  the  re-
spondent ;  but  it  behoves  the  Court  to  conform  to  the
enactments  of  the  legislature,  and  I  can  see  nothing  in
the  case  which  would  authorize  us  to  grant  the  applica-
tion. The  affidavit  proceeds  upon  the  footing  that  due
notice  has  been  given,  and  therefore  it  states  nothing  to
shew  that  there  has  not  been  reasonable  time  to  serve
such  notice.  It  is  singular  that,  in  the  sixty-second
section  of  the  act,  no  time  is  mentioned  within  which  the
appellant  is  required  to  give  the  respondent  notice ;  it
only  directs  that  notice  of  the  intention  to  prosecute  the
appeal  shall  be  given  to  the  Master  within  the  first  four
days  of  Michaelmas  term.  This  section  seems  intended
to  meet  the  case  of  an  appeal  in  which  the  respondent
appears.  But,  when  the  respondent  does  not  appear,
there  is  an  express  enactment  that  the  Court  shall  not
have  power  to  hear  the  appeal,   unless  the  appellant


(a)  Ante,  p.  336.
