58.
138
SQ
who placed the matter before me as Counsel and I then for the first time became acquainted with any of the particulars of this matter. The Dangure was still under attachment, the plaintiff still took no steps to prove his case, and an order on behalf of the defendant having after delay been obtained for changing the Attornies and served on the other side on the 8th March 1875, application was made for an order calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the two writs of attachment should not be set aside, this being the simplest method of objecting to the legality of the proceedings, or the defendant allowed to put in his answer. The Court gave leave to answer without prejudice to the defendants' right, and on the 16th of March the answer was served on the plaintiff's Attornies.
Upon the 25th of March the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant's Attornies to show cause why execution should not issue under the Order of the 6th of March 1874, to which the defendant's Attornies replied with a summons to be heard the same day for the plaintiff to show cause why the suit should not be set down for hearing.
Upon the two matters coming on upon the 8th April before both Judges, the plaintiff did not press his own motion and assented to the cause being set down for hearing, but stated that he would require a Commission to Paris to examine his agent Sehwoerer who had left the Colony in September, and an order was made to set down the cause for hearing without prejudice to the writs of attachment or to the defendant's rights, if any, as a Sovereign prince.
Upon