said there was no provision in the law authorizing a setting aside of the attachment, because the grounds of taking it were not followed up by proof satisfactory to the court, that the tenant was about to remove his goods. But in regard to costs, they had equitable powers; and, as they considered in this case that theie was not sufficient ground for the attachment, they directed the landlord to pay the costs.

Mr. Wolfe suggested that the bond taken in this case was not to the landlord, for the payment of rent, but to the sheriff for the forthcoming of the goods; and he wanted better security; which the court ordered.