
    r M’Lean against Forward.
    which the-Party miSht have applied-for a retaxathe Court will not interfere tho$ there hv item^in^te. After the lapse of two-
    Application, on behalf of the defendant, for . a re-taxation of costs. They were noticed for taxation and taxed, July 30th, 1822. The notice, with a copy of the bill of costs, was served on the agent of the defendant’s attorney, but did not . , J come to the hands of the attorney in season for him to oppos/i, owing to the distance of his residence. Judgment was signed at the last August term.
   Curia.

October and January terms, having both elapsed, at either of which, for aught that appeared, the defendant might have made this motion, We refuse to interfere, ah though there appears to be some exceptionable items in the bill.

Motion refused, 
      
       Vid. Morris et al. v. Mullet et al. (1 John. Ch. Cas. 44. S. P.)
     