JUDGMENT

Rankin J.

1. (His Lordship after setting out the facts proceeded as follows.) To begin with, the claim for interest was denied and it is entirely a wrong practice under Ch. 13A. for a learned Judge to order security merely because looking at the statements on either side he rather thinks that the plaintiff has a better prospect of success than the defendant. There was a specific denial with respect to this agreement and it would be quite impracticable to decide that matter under Ch. 13A.

2. As regards the main question, it is clear that the plaintiff was an accounting party and though he gave a version of an adjustment, he did not profess to be at all sure that it amounted to a promise by the defendant to pay the sum so 'found because he submitted that it amounted to an adjusted account and he asked for an account by way of an alternative relief.

3. So far, therefore, it seems to me that this case is one in which the proper order would have simply been an unconditional leave to defend; but it appears that at the last stage of the summons the parties appeared before the learned Judge and the learned Counsel for the defendant is recorded to have said that he consented to a decre