
    Josiah Willard, Petitioner for Review, versus Samuel Ward.
    The Court will, require affidavits of the facts stated in a petition for a review before malting a rule to show cause.
    After the petition was read, the Court inquired of Bigelow who sued it, for affidavits to verify the facts alleged in the petition 
      Bigelow had thought the practice had not been to require affidavits, when only a rule to show cause was prayed for; and he suggested that the costs the respondent was entitled to, in case the petitioner failed, was as well a security as an indemnity to the respondent.
   Curia.

We always require evidence to support the allegations in the petition. The legal costs which the respondent can tax, in case the petitioner fails of success, are quite an insufficient recompense for being compelled to appear and answer to a complaint which may be idle or vexatious.

Upon Bigelow’s urging some circumstances of hardship in the petitioner’s case, and stipulating to pay double costs, if he failed of obtaining a review, the Court made a rule to show cause.  