the estate, or that the tenant is not bound to bear them by the terms of his lease.

In investigating the propriety of the payments, particularly if the fund is insufficient to satisfy all demands, the parties interested should ascertain whether any debt paid was barred by the statute of limitations; whether debts of inferior degree have been paid before those claiming a priority; whether the executor or administrator has confessed judgment, or given preference to any creditor after the decree; whether the amount paid for funeral expenses exceeded that to which the testator's rank and property entitled him. These subjects will be considered in treating on the administration of assets, to which the reader is referred.

If an accounting party does not bring in his discharge within a few days after the charge has been allowed, the plaintiff should take out a warrant for him peremptorily to bring in his discharge; and if he does not, at the return of the warrant, crave time, or leave the discharge, the Master may proceed to make a report, if otherwise in a situation to do so without such discharge, charging the defendant with the whole of his receipts. But if the defendant can offer any explanation why the discharge was not brought in, the Master will afford him a reasonable opportunity of retrieving his omission. If the discharge is brought in, and the accounting party does not proceed with it, or having partially proceeded on it, queried items remain to be disposed of, the plaintiff should take out and serve a warrant to dispose of the same, and if the defendant does not then support the items, or crave time, the whole of such payments may be struck out, or disallowed by the Master, or he may direct a further warrant to be taken out, to give the party an opportunity of setting himself right before he proceeds to disallow the payments. If

the party is anxious, and does his best to support his discharge, the Master will afford him every indulgence; but if negligent or contumacious, the Master may disallow all items not duly supported. The charge and discharge, when completed, form schedules to the Master's report, and are the sources from whence he ascertains the balance.

CHAPTER XIII.

INTERROGATORIES FOR THE EXAMINATION OF A PARTY.

EVERY decree and order of reference to the Master should contain a direction that he may be at liberty to examine the parties upon interrogatories. Before the 61 N. O. this was the only mode of proceeding against an accounting party. If on the attendance on the warrant to consider the decree, or on any subsequent occasion, the Master is of opinion that an examination by interrogatories will be more beneficial to the parties than by bringing in the accounts in the form of debtor and creditor, he may, pursuant to the 61 N. O. direct such examination. If, after the accounts have been left in the form of debtor and creditor, any of the parties are not satisfied, they may examine the accounting party upon interrogatories, as the Master shall direct. 61 N. O. In either case the party having the carriage of the decree or order, or the party

dissatisfied with the accounts, prepares and leaves written interrogatories in the Master's office.

The plaintiff is at liberty to examine each of the defendants upon interrogatories, and any of the defendants may examine the plaintiff. The party examined is not regarded as a witness; and his examination is considered almost in the same light as an answer to a bill; thus the examination of defendant A. can only be used as evidence as between the plaintiff and defendant A., and not to the prejudice of defendant B.; so the examination of the plaintiff can only be used as evidence against himself. But although the examination of a party cannot be used as evidence against any other person, yet any party to the suit, and interested in the question, may avail himself of an admission in such examination to charge the party examined, the object of the examination being to sift the examinant, and not to obtain evidence against the other parties; thus if the examinant admits to have received certain sums, and the party exhibiting the interrogatories does not bring in a charge against him, any party interested may;—but if an executor swears by his examination that he paid defendant B. 1007. on account of his legacy, or otherwise, that is no evidence against defendant B.* If a party in a cause examines another party before the Master, this examination may be read by the Master as evidence upon the matter referred to him, although the party who examined declined to use it before the Master. It was proposed to be read on exceptions, and objected to as not read before the Master, but the objection was overruled. Gilbert v. Wetherell, 2 S. & S., 259.

It is true that a defendant not interested in the question to which he is examined may, upon an order being obtained for that purpose, be examined as a witness; but in such case he is treated as a witness, and the interrogatories are not settled by the Master, and any of the other parties may cross-examine him.

The interrogatories are prepared by the solicitor, and settled by the Master: they do not require the signature of counsel. In strict costs, a fee is not allowed to counsel for perusing or signing any interrogatories which are to be settled by the Master; and even in more liberal costs a fee to peruse and settle interrogatories is only allowed in cases of difficulty. A copy of the interrogatories is left in the Master's office, and warrants on leaving and to settle the same are taken out and served in the usual manner. At the return of the latter warrant, the parties attend before the Master, or his chief clerk, and the interrogatories are settled on that or on subsequent warrants. The right to take copies of the interrogatories, and to attend the warrants to settle, is not restricted to the party who exhibits the interrogatories, nor to the examinant; but every party interested in the result of the inquiries is allowed to take copies of the interrogatories, and to attend the warrants, to settle them.

When the interrogatories are settled, they are engrossed by the Master's clerk on unstamped parchment; and the Master signs the engrossment, and also a certificate of having allowed the interrogatories. The fees for engrossing the interrogatories, and for the certificate, of allowing them, are payable by the party leaving the interrogatories, whose province it is also to file the Master's certificate of allowance. The engrossment of the interrogatories, though paid for by the party exhibiting the interrogatories, is taken from the Master's office by the party to be examined. In some offices, a duplicate of the engrossment of the interrogatories is made, in which case the examiner takes both the certificate, and the engrossment and the examinant takes and pays for the duplicate.

It sometimes becomes necessary in the progress of a reference, to exhibit further interrogatories for the exami

nation of a party who has been already examined. In some of the earlier cases on the subject, it appears to have been considered a doubtful point, whether a distinct order was necessary for the purpose. (See 3 Atk. 511.) Lord Hardwicke, however, lays it down, that "where there is a general direction in a decree to examine upon interrogatories before the Master, as the Master shall direct, if a party has been examined on one set, and afterwards there should arise another matter, on which the Master thinks it proper to examine, it is in his judgment whether, and at what time, and how often he thinks fit that the defendant should be examined, and that a new order is not necessary." Lord Hardwicke adds, if a witness is once examined, it might be dangerous, without an order, to let him be examined again; but that is from the danger of drawing in a witness, when it is known what he has already sworn to; but there is no danger as to the party interrogated who may be examined toties quoties, without a new order of Court. Cowslade v. Cornish, 2 Vez. 270.

Whatever doubt might have formerly existed on the subject, the practice may be now considered as settled, that the Master is at liberty, without an order, to receive further interrogatories at his discretion. Lynn v. Buck, 3 Madd. 282. Price v. Lytton, 5 Madd. 465. In Sidden v. Foster, 1 S. & S. 335, Mr. Bell moved, on behalf of the plaintiff, that the Master might be ordered to receive new interrogatories; the Vice Chancellor considered that the order of Court was not necessary to enable the Master to receive these interrogatories, and that he had full authority, under the general direction in the decree, to examine a party from time to time, as the justice of the case might require.

Before the orders of 1828, an examination by interrogatories, to be settled by the Master, was restricted to par