Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.
1. We think the Judge was wrong in disallowing the five days which elapsed between the 24th June and 29th June, on which latter date the plaintiff got back his plaint from the first Court. We see no reference in the judgment to the affidavit of the plaintiff that he had asked for the plaint on the 24th June, that he was told that a copy was to be made, and that the plaint would be returned after the copy was made. But in any circumstances a party cannot always get back his plaint on the same day as an order is made that the plaint has been filed in the wrong Court; and -as long as the plaintiff has exercised ordinary diligence in pursuing his claim, there is no reason why the period up to the day when he gets back his plaint should not be taken into account. Therefore, in this case, the rule will be made absolute by directing the lower Court to allow the plaintiff the five days which elapsed between 24th June and 29th June in getting back a copy of the plaint and pass the necessary decree.
Costs costs in the suit.