to extend the time for taking the testimony should be de
nied and the case should be heard on bill and answer,
The facts of the case do not appear to be analogous. In the
case of Jones vs White the bill was filed in 1893, The case
had been in the court nearly or quite five years when repli
cation to the answer was filed at August Rule 1898, up
to Feby in these years no application had been made to ap
point a Master, and six months had elapsed since the repli
cation was filed, under Rule 1 of the Equity practice the case
might have been dismissed, In the case now before the court
the bill was filed March 17th 1898, The replication was filed
Sept 7th 1898, on this same day an order of reference was ap
plied for and made, During the next ninety days the affi
davit of Mr Hampton shows that he was very busily Engaged
in the Courts, and that there was no ***** on his part & that
on the 16th Feby 1898 he give notice of a motion to extend
the time, It must be seen then that the facts in case of Jones
vs White are not analogous to the facts in this case.
I am of opinion that the motion to hear the case on bill
and answer should be denied and that the motion to extend
the time for taking the testimony should be granted. It is
therefore ordered adjudged and decreed that the motion of de
fendants H.M. & G.M. Tillis to hear the cause on bill and an
swer be and the same is hereby denied, and that the time
for taking the testimony be extended for thirty days from this
date Ocala Fla Feby 22nd 1899                  W.A. Hocker
                                               Judge
Filed Feby 23rd 1899 Recorded Mch 1st 1899
                        H.C. Denton Clerk
                       pr E.C. Wimberly DC

                      In the Circuit Court of Florida Fifth Judicial
                      Circuit in and for Alachua County = In Chancery
Central City Building and Loan Association  }
                  vs                        } Bill to foreclose Mortgage
Susan H. Hutchinson A.S. Hutchinson her     }
husband and Michael Beckler                 } Decree of Foreclosure
            This cause coming on to be heard and it appearing to
the Court, that a Decree pro confesso has been duly entered up against
the defendants A.S. Hutchinson and Michael Beckler, and the Court
having rendered a Decree settling the Equities in favor of the Complainant
and against said Susan H. Hutchinson and this cause having been
referred to a Master and the said Master having made his report and
findings and the Court being advised in the premises, thereupon upon
consideration hereof, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed;
First- That the complainant is entitled to the foreclosure of its mortgage
and that the report and findings of J.A. Ammons as Special Master in