duction from the parties who obtained the consent order: Dent v. D., 1 Eq. 186.

0. XXXVII, 7, under which the Court has power "at any stage of the proceedings," to order attendance of any person for producing documents which he could be compelled to produce at the hearing, does not confer any new right of discovery against non-parties: Straker v. Reynolds, 22 Q. B. D. 357. The object of the rule was to remove the difficulty which existed in compelling production at any other stage than the hearing, and the Court has no jurisdiction to order a non-party to produce a document unless the parties are entitled to the production of it for the purpose of justice at the moment the order is made: Elder v. Carter, 25 Q. B. D. 194, C. A.; Re Smith, Williams v. Frere, (1891) 1 Ch. 323; and see Parnell v. Wood, (1892) P. 137, C. A. ; Zumbeck v. Biggs, 82 L. T. 654; 48 W. R. 507; and as to the effect of an order under the rule (which is equivalent to a subpoena duces tecum), and that it may be made ex parte on a non-party, see Re Smith, Williams v. Frere, sup.

It was at one time doubted (Law v. Indisputable, &c. Co., 10 Ha. xx.), but afterwards settled, that where production of documents was required from a co., the secretary or some other officer should make an affidavit: see Ranger V. G. W. Ry., 4 D. & J. 74; and see Ryde Commrs. v. I. of W. Ferry Co., Form 12, p. 54; and as to delivering interrogatories to members or officers of corporations, v. sup. p. 66. The clerk of a co. making affidavit that the documents were in the custody of the warden and court of assistants, and that without their leave he had not access to them, but not stating that he had asked leave and been refused, had to make a further affidavit: A. G. v. Mercers' Co., 9 W. R. 83; 3 L. T. 438; and after an affidavit by directors that they had no documents in their possession other than those in the possession of the co., a further affidavit by them that they had no documents whatever in their possession or power, was held insufficient: Clinch v. Financial Corp., 2 Eq. 271.

Affidavit of documents on behalf of a municipal corp. has been ordered to be made by the town clerk: Corp. of Hastings v. Ivall, 8 Ch. 1017; and as to claim of privilege in such a case, v. sup. p. 66.

Defts who stated in their answer that they had been, but were no longer, treasurers and trustees of the society, could not be ordered to produce documents in the society's possession: Penney v. Goode, 1 Drew. 474; and where the officers have been changed since the transaction, see Moline v. Tasmanian Ry., 32 L. T. 828; and that they cannot evade giving discovery by resigning: Acomb v. Landed Est. Co., 14 W. R. 387; 14 L. T. 57. The solr of a co. is not an "officer" of it: Brown v. Thames, &c. Co., 43 L. J. C. P. 112.

As to production of a co.'s books by the secretary on his cross-examination, under a subpoena duces tecum, see In re Emma Mine, 10 Ch. 194; and as to examining officers of the co. and other persons in a winding-up, and requiring production of documents, see Companies Act, 1862, s. 115, and Buckley, 328 et seq.; N. Australian Co. v. Goldsborough, (1893) 2 Ch. 381; as to production to inspectors appointed by the Board of Trade, s. 58.

As to the right to inspect documents in the custody of the Court in Lunacy, see Re Strachan, (1895) 1 Ch. 439, C. A.; and as to discovery of documents in actions for libel, see Hope v. Brash, (1897) 2 Q. B. 188; Yorkshire Provident Co. v. Gilbert, (1895) 2 Q. B. 148, C. A.; Kelly v. Colhoun (1899), 2 I. R. 199. The liquidator of a co., being an officer of the Court acting under its direction as to production of books, &c., will not, as of course, be ordered to make an affidavit of documents: Re Mutual Society, 22 Ch. D. 720, C. A. ; Gooch's Case, 7 Ch. 207; and as to discovery by liquidators, v. sup. p. 66. And that a trustee in bankruptcy, Plt in an action, will not be allowed to avail himself of s. 27 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, so as to obtain discovery from a stranger, see Re Franks, Exp. Gittins, (1892) 1 Q. B. 646.

The Crown in proceedings against a corp. to establish rights to foreshore has the same right to discovery as a subject has against a subject in an ordinary action, not only of the documents relating to the parts of the river claimed, but also of acts of ownership and other things which tend to show that the Defts are not absolute owners of the foreshore: A. G. v. Newcastleupon-Tyne Corp., (1897) 2 Q. B. 384, C. A.

As to discovery by a foreign government, v. sup. p. 67. Where Plts, a foreign republic, persisted in not filing a sufficient affidavit, a day was fixed for dismissal of bill and repayment to Deft of money paid into Court, unless

sufficient affidavit then filed: Rep. of Liberia v. Imperial Bank, 9 Ch. 569; affirmed in D. P. sub nom. Rep. of Liberia v. Roye, 1 App. Ca. 139. An affidavit by the consul in England as to documents abroad that "to the best of his knowledge, remembrance, information and belief" there were no such documents, was insufficient: S. C.

AFFIDAVIT AS TO DOCUMENTS.

The affidavit to be made by the party against whom an order for production is made is to be in the Form 8 in App. B. to R. S. C.; D. C. F. 967; and is to specify those documents which the deponent objects to produce: r. 13. As to examination of witnesses and production of documents in Scotland, see 22 V. c. 20; 48 & 49 V. c. 74, s. 2; Campbell v. A. G., 2 Ch. 571.

The applicant is obliged to accept the oath of the adverse party as to the description, relevancy, and possession of the documents: Wright v. Pitt, 3 Ch. 809; Lyell v. Kennedy, 27 Ch. D. 19, C. A.; Wiedeman v. Walpole, 24 Q. B. D. 537; and the affidavit is therefore conclusive against the party seeking discovery, unless, either from the affidavit itself or from the documents therein referred to, or from the pleadings, it can be shown to be insufficient or inaccurate: Jones v. Monte Video Gas Co., 5 Q. B. D. 556, C. A.; Hall v. Truman, 29 Ch. D. 319, C. A.; Comp. Financiere v. Peruvian Guano Co., 11 Q. B. D. 55, C. A.; Morris v. Edwards, 15 App. Ca. 309; although it merely goes to knowledge, information and belief; Adams v. Fisher, 3 My. & C. 526; or belief on advice: Peile v. Stoddart, 1 Mac. & G. 192; Chart. Bank of India v. Rich, 4 B. & S. 73; 11 W. R. 830; unless there is something to show that the statement is untrue: Mansell v. Feeney, 2 J. & H. 313; 9 W. R. 532; Combe v. Corp. of Lond. 1 Y. & C. C. 651; Luscombe v. Steer, 37 L. J. Ch. 119; Greenwood v. G., 6 W. R. 119 (in which case the order should be for a further affidavit, and not for production at once: Corp. of Hastings v. Ivall, 8 Ch. 1017); or that the party has not examined the documents sufficiently to know their contents: Manby v. Bewicke, 8 D. M. & G. 476; 4 W. R. 757.

And see Gresley v. Mousley, 2 K. & J. 288; 15 Eq. 302; Sutherland v. S., 17 Beav. 209.

Commrs. of Sewers v. Glasse,

The untruth may be shown by contradictory statements, by a discrepancy between the affidavit and other documents already produced, or by the nature of the case: Bowes v. Fernie, 3 M. & C. 632; Greenwood v. G., 6 W. R. 119; or by anything which, appearing on the face of the pleadings, is "enough to raise a reasonable suspicion that the Deft has further documents which may help the Plts to make out their case:" Turner, L. J., in Noel v. N., 1 D. J. & S. 473; Wright v. Pitt, 3 Ch. 809; Comp. Financiere v. Peruvian Guano Co., 11 Q. B. D. 55, C. A.; ex. gr., where a number of customers' names were given, but no books relating to the business: Saull v. Browne, 17 Eq. 402; and see Macfarlan v. Rolt, 14 Eq. 580; West. &c. Co. v. Clayton, 12 W. R. 123; 9 L. T. 534; Imp. Land Co. of M. v. Masterman, 22 W. R. 66; 29 L. T. 559.

And the rule as to the conclusiveness of the affidavit applies when the claim is for privilege on the ground that the documents relate exclusively to the party's own case: Bewicke v. Graham, 7 Q. B. D. 400, C. A.; A. G. v. Emerson, 10 Q. B. D. 191, C. A.; Roberts v. Oppenheim, 26 Ch. D. 724, C. A.; unless the Court can see with reasonable certainty that the nature of the documents has been misrepresented or misconceived: A. G. v. Emerson, sup.; and see Roberts v. Oppenheim, sup.

And where the description of some of the documents in the schedule to the affidavit appeared not to agree with a claim of professional privilege, a further affidavit was ordered: Lyell v. Kennedy, 8 App. Ca. 217, 229.

As to whether the affidavit can be regarded as conclusive in respect of specific documents of which inspection is sought under rr. 17, 18, see Wiedeman v. Walpole, 24 Q. B. D. 537; S. C., 24 Q. B. D. 626, C. A.

In one case the Court inspected one of the documents, and finding the affidavit was manifestly inaccurate as to it, ordered inspection of all: Ponsonby v. Hartley, W. N. (83) 13, 44; but the propriety of such a practice has been questioned: see Leslie v. Cave, 56 L. T. 332; 35 W. R. 515; and Re Holloway, 12 P. D, 169,

When the documents have been inspected by the Court by consent of the parties, no appeal will lie: Bustros v. White, 1 Q. B. D. 423, C. A.

An affidavit prima facie sufficient cannot be impeached by a contentious affidavit: Jones v. Monte Video Gas Co., sup. ; Morris v. Edwards, 23 Q. B. D. 287, C. A.; 15 App. Ca. 309; and see Richards v. Watkins, 6 Jur. N. S. 168; Reynell v. Sprye, 1 D. M. & G. 656, 712; or questioned by interrogatories: Nicholl v. Wheeler, 17 Q. B. D. 101, C. A.; Hall v. Truman, 29 Ch. D. 307, C. A.; except as to specified relevant documents upon a prima facie case being shown: Ibid.; and see Newall v. Telegraph, &c. Co., 2 Eq. 756; and Bray, 214, 505.

The documents must be described with sufficient distinctness to enable the Court to enforce its order: Taylor v. Batten, 4 Q. B. D. 85, C. A.; Bewick v. Graham, 7 Q. B. D. 400, 410, C. A.; and see Fortescue v. F., 24 W. R. 945; Bovill v. Cowan, 5 Ch. 495; Hamilton v. Nott, 16 Eq. 112, 117; Budden v. Wilkinson, (1893) 2 Q. B. 432, C. A.; and possession must be admitted clearly. It has been held sufficient if the relevancy can be inferred from the description in the schedule, though no express admission of it appear in the body of the affidavit: Storey v. Lennox, 1 My. & C. 525. A party must examine his documents before answering or making affidavit as to their relevancy, to enable himself to schedule them correctly: Gabbett v. Cavendish, 3 Swa. 267, n.; and must show that he has tried to obtain the information required from his agents: Glengall v. Fraser, 2 Ha. 99; M'Intosh v. G. W. Ry., 4 D. & S. 544; and v. sup. p. 69.

A statement that the documents did not "relate to or evidence" the title of the Plt was too ambiguous: Felkin v. Herbert, 30 L. J. Ch. 798; 9 W. R. 756; and see McLean v. Jones, 66 L. T. 653; and inf. pp. 84, 85.

The inaccuracy of the affidavit as to one document does not of itself destroy privilege as to others: Leslie v. Cave, 56 L. T. 332; 35 W. R. 515.

As to the identification of letters, where numerous, by tying them up in bundles, and numbering or otherwise distinguishing them, so that they may be readily called for, see Cooke v. Smith, (1891) 1 Ch. 509, C. A.; Hill v. Hart-Davis, 26 Ch. D. 740, C. A.; Bewicke v. Graham, 7 Q. B. D. 400, C. A.; Taylor v. Batten, sup. ; Mayor of Bristol v. Cox, 26 Ch. D. 681; Walker v. Poole, 21 Ch. D. 836; Budden v. Wilkinson, (1893) 2 Q. B. 432, C. A.; but the practice must not be too freely used: see Milbank v. M., (1900) 1 Ch. 376, C. A.; and as to the description of documents or letters for which privilege is claimed, see Taylor v. Batten, 4 Q. B. D. 88; Bewicke v. Graham, sup.; Gardner v. Irvin, 4 Ex. D. 53, C. A.

The affidavit must not be confined to documents for which an order for production could be made under r. 14, as being in the possession or power of the deponent: v. inf. p. 74; but all documents must be included of which the party has any possession or property jointly with others, or even in which he has no property at all, provided they are in his corporeal possession (see Form 7, sup. p. 52): and see Price v. P., 48 L. J. Ch. 215; Vyse v. Foster, 13 Eq. 602; Swanston v. Lishman, 45 L. T. 360; Bray, 225.

Books of a solr employed by a trustee to receive rent of trust property were not required to be mentioned in the trustee's affidavit of documents: Eglinton v. Lamb, 35 L. J. Ch. 113; 12 Jur. N. S. 45; 13 L. T. 698; 14 W. R. 170; Colyer v. C., 30 L. J. Ch. 408; 4 L. T. 134; 9 W. R. 452. Production was ordered, at the instance of a purchaser under a decree, of documents relating to the property: Dent v. D., 35 L. J. Ch. 112.

An affidavit by husband and wife should state what documents they or either of them have or have had in the possession or power of them or either of them. It is not sufficient to state what documents are in their joint possession, as that might enable them to keep back documents of which one of them had separate possession: Fendall v O'Connell, 29 Ch. D. 899, C. A.

Where underwriters were suing in the names of a foreign firm, they could not relieve themselves from making a further affidavit on the ground that they had done all they could to comply with the order, but the case was to be treated as if the nominal Plts were suing for their own benefit: Wilson v. Raffalovich, 7 Q. B. D. 553, C. A.

A party must make the affidavit though there is nothing to show that there are any documents: The Minnehaha, L. R. 3 A. & E. 148; and though he has good grounds against producing the documents. It is not sufficient for the deponent to state that documents are privileged; he should set forth the

facts upon which the privilege is grounded: Gardner v. Irvin, 4 Ex. D. 49, C. A.; Taylor v. Batten, 4 Q. B. D. 85, C. A.

An affidavit unnecessarily prolix was ordered on motion to be taken off the file: Walker v. Poole, 21 Ch. D. 835.

It seems that documents for which privilege is claimed as relating to the party's own title only are sufficiently described by giving their dates: Taylor v. Oliver, 45 L. J. Ch. 774; 34 L. T. 902.

The Deft's time for filing the affidavit ought not to be extended until he has received from the Plts particulars of claims for damages: MaximNordenfelt, &c. Co. v. Nordenfelt, (1893) 3 Ch. 122, C. A.

As to what documents must be produced under a subpoena duces tecum by a solr not a party, see Lee v. Angas, 2 Eq. 59; by a partner in a bank of the bank's books, A. G. v. Wilson, 9 Sim. 526; by the secretary of a co. on a petition to wind up, Re Emma Mine, 10 Ch. 194; as to allowing inspection by intended witnesses, v. inf. p. 81.

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.

By O. XXXI, 14, which reproduces in a somewhat different form the Chancery Procedure Act, 1852 (15 & 16 V. c. 86), ss. 18, 20, now repealed, "it shall be lawful for the Court or a Judge at any time during the pendency of any cause or matter, to order the production by any party thereto, upon oath, of such of the documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question in such cause or matter, as the Court or Judge shall think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just."

Orders for production are not made on the solrs of the parties: Cashin v. Craddock, 2 Ch. D. 140.

The right to production is not more extensive as against a Plt than a Deft: Minet v. Morgan, 8 Ch. 361; 21 W. R. 467; but see Boyd v. Petrie, 17 W. R. 903, and Hoffmann v. Postill, 4 Ch. 673.

Production cannot be ordered when no proceeding has been commenced: Re Burton, &c. Co., 31 L. J. Q. B. 62; but may be when only an appeal is pending: Re Nat. Funds Ass. Co., 24 W. R. 774.

Production was ordered on a Plt's application after replication: Lafone v. Falkland Isl. Co., 4 K. & J. 38; 6 W. R. 4; Parkinson v. Chambers, 1 K. &

J. 72.

The Deft had no right to production until he had put in his answer: Smith v. Lay, 18 W. R. 915; Halliday v. Temple, 8 D. M. & G. 96; but see P. of W. v. Liverpool, 1 Sw. 114; 3 Sw. 570; but had though he had not filed an affidavit: Haldane v. Eckford, 7 Eq. 425; or a further affidavit of documents after an order to do so: Noel v. N., 1 D. J. & S. 468.

A Plt lost his right to move on an admission of relevancy in the answer by amending his bill, and thereby altering his case: Haverfield v. Pyman, 2 Ph. 202; but this depended on the nature and extent of the amendment: A. G. v. Thompson, 8 Ha. 118; Evans v. Richard, 1 Sw. 7; and in Warden v. Peddington, 32 Beav. 639, the Plt was held entitled to a further affidavit on account of his amendments.

Notice may be given, at any time, to any party to produce any document referred to in his pleadings or affidavits, and if the notice be not complied with (except for such cause as the Court shall consider sufficient), such document cannot be used in evidence: O. XXXI, 15. For form of such notice, see R. S. C., App. B. No. 9.

An affidavit not filed, but of which a copy has been furnished to the opposite party, is an affidavit within this rule, and under r. 18 an order may be made for inspection of documents referred to in such an affidavit: Re Fenner and Lord, (1897) 1 Q. B. 667, C. A.

The rule extends to the contract sued on, referred to by the Plt in an affidavit in answer to interrogatories: Morse v. Peachey, 39 W. R. 592.

Notice must be given (see the form R. S. C., App. B. No. 10) by the party required to produce of willingness to produce such documents for inspection at the office of his solr, at a time named (within two or four days, according as the documents have or have not been set out by him in his affidavit of documents), or in the case of bankers' books, or other books of

account, or books in constant use in trade or business, at their usual place of custody, and any objection to production must then be stated: r. 17; and in default an order for inspection founded on an affidavit may be made by a Judge: r. 18.

The object of rr. 15 to 18 is to give parties the same advantage as if the documents had been fully set out in the pleadings, and immediate production of such documents must be given, unless special reason to the contrary can be shown: Quilter v. Heatley, 23 Ch. D. 42, C. A.

Production of books or documents in a district registry may be ordered in any action: Jud. Act, 1873, s. 66.

In lunacy, inspection of documents in the custody of the Court is allowed only on an order of a Master or Judge in lunacy. Inspection of reports made to the Court by its own medical adviser is never allowed, but with this exception, liberty to inspect will be given to any person who wants it for a reasonable and proper purpose, provided that the lunatic, if living, is not injured thereby Re Strachan, (1895) 1 Ch. 439, C. A.; and see Re Smyth, 15 Ch. D. 286, C. A.

As to discovery by an infant party to an action, v. sup. p. 66.

To obtain production of a document as to which there is any dispute (and title deeds are subject to the same rule), the applicant must show that he has an interest in the document, i.e., that he requires its production for the legitimate purposes of the action; and that it is, or may be, evidence which may prove, or lead or assist him to prove, his case; and these points must be admitted by the affidavit of the other party: A. G. v. Thompson, 8 Ha. 112; and that it is not privileged for any of the reasons given inf. pp. 88 et seq. Where the Defts admitted that the Plt had had an interest under a settlement, but alleged that by subsequent deeds that interest had determined, they had to produce the settlement: Bugden v. South, 3 Jur. N. S. 783; 26 L. J. Ch. 425; 5 W. R. 128.

In general, and unless the case falls within the concluding proviso of r. 12 (v.sup. p. 70), the Court does not assume discretion to refuse to order production of documents not protected by privilege: Bustros v. White, 1 Q. B. D. 423, C. A.; Anderson v. Bank of British Columbia, 2 Ch. D. 654, C. A.; but would not order it at the suit of a person claiming as next of kin against the Solr to the Treasury, to whom admon had been granted, until the Plt had made a prima facie case: Lane v. Gray, 16 Eq. 552; and see Wynne v. Humberston, 27 Beav. 421; 30 L. T. 306; nor where the cause had been set down for hearing: Waters v. Shaftesbury, 12 Jur. N. S. 3; 13 L. T. 558; 14 W. R. 259; nor where the production was wanted for a criminal prosecution: S. C. As to what documents the Plt in an action on a marine policy can have produced, see Kellock v. Home, &c. Co., 12 Jur. N. S. 653; China Steamship Co. v. Commercial Union Ass. Co., 8 Q. B. D. 142, C. A.; W. of England Bank v. Canton Co., 2 Ex. D. 472; Henderson v. Underwriting Association, (1891) 1 Q. B. 557.

In an action to restrain sewage nuisance, a general order as to documents in possession of the Deft board was refused, but an order was made limited to certain resolutions and correspondence with the Local Government Board: Downing v. Falmouth United Sewerage Board, 37 Ch. D. 234, C. A.

Privilege claimed for documents is not lost by their being referred to in the pleadings; the penalty for non-production being that they cannot afterwards be used in evidence: Roberts v. Oppenheim, 26 Ch. D. 724, C. A.

In all cases where documents are produced there is an implied undertaking, which may be enforced by injunction, not to divulge the contents: Wms. v. P. of W. Ins. Co., 23 Beav. 338. And the Court will take care that no vexatious or improper use be made of documents ordered to be produced; Mansell v. Feeney, 9 W. R. 610; and will be cautious where the party producing might be prejudiced thereby outside the case: Curver v. Pinto Leite, 7 Ch. 90; Heugh v. Garrett, 44 L. J. Ch. 305; and as to inspection under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act (42 & 43 V. c. 11), s. 7, see Re Marshfield, M. v. Hutchings, 32 Ch. D. 499, 502; and v. inf. p. 81.

On ordering production of letters marked " "private and confidential," against the wish of the writer, an undertaking not to use them for any collateral object was required: Hopkinson v. Burghley, 2 Ch. 447; sup. p. 58, Form 23. And as to a creditor obtaining production after admon judgment in support of his claim, see In re M' Veagh, 1 D. J. & S. 399, sup. p. 59, Form 24,