ABSTRACT
The statute did not apply to the Chancery Courts, which, however, adopted its provisions so far as they considered it satisfied the requirements of justice. These courts did not take the same view of the opponent's immunity from costs but in many cases held him liable for "Dives costs", that is, any payments actually made by the poor person, even if not legally due. In Scatchmer v. Foulkard 1 Lord Somers ordered a pauper "his costs like other suitors, for, though he is at no costs, or but small costs, yet the counsel and clerks do not give their labour to the defendant but to the pauper". In Rubery v. Morris (i849) 2 Lord Cottenham observed that it appears "to be most consistent with principle and most reconcilable with the weight of authority to hold that any party asserting an unfounded claim by bill, or resisting a well-founded claim by answer, should not profit by the poverty of his opponent, but should, upon failure, pay the ordinary costs of the litigation". And Order XL, rule 5 ( 1 849), provided " where costs are ordered to be paid to a party suing or defending in forma pauperis such costs shall be taxed as Dives Costs unless the Court shall otherwise direct ".
