1788-07-31 (static/transcriptions/1788/07/482.jpg)Mr. Church in Reply
That the Injon should be continued till the hearing of the cause.
If a court of Eq: can interpose, wth regard to an Award, only where there is fraud or concealment in the pties or partiality or corrupt in the arbtr very hand wd be the case of any man who is injured by the mistake of the Arbtr. But that such mistake in point of law is ground for Equity is in Reply laid down in 2 Vern: 705 –
But the Jt at law is for a penalty & the case of Sloman v Walter in Brown 418, is applicable to that before the Court
In 1 Stra: 453. Eq will rel agt a penalty where a compens – can be settled. Princip of Hindu law that a penalty cannot be sued for.
Mr. Daview obsd on the ca: in 2 Vern that it relates only to mistakes appearing on the face of the award; & none appear here.
Injon ordered, on paymt by Complt of Costs at law.