566

course took place between him and the prisoner. Rex v. Pitcher, 1 C. & P. 85. [Hullock]

After a witness has been told that he is not bound to disclose any matter which may tend to criminate bimself, if be does answer a question of that description, he is bound to answer all questions relative to that transaction. Dixon v. Vale, 1 C. & P. 278. [Best]

If a witness answers any questions on a matter rendering himself liable to forfeiture or punishment, he cannot afterwards claim his privilege, but must answer throughout. East v. Chapman, 1 M. & M. 47. [Abbott]

If several defendants appear by different counsel, each of the counsel may cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses; but only one can examine their own joint witnesses in chief. King v. Williamson, 3 Stark. 162. [Abbott]

(b) In Equity.

If one party is examined by the other parties, his examination, though not used by those other parties, may be looked into by the Master, or the Court. Gilbert v. Wetherell, 3 Law J. Chanc. 138, s. c. 2 S. & S. 254.

Any party to the cause may be examined in the prosecution of an inquiry directed by the decree. A defendant may be examined, saving just exceptions, as well after the decree as before. Hemmings v., 4 Law J. Chanc. 141.

A witness will not be allowed to be examined de bene esse, on an affidavit that she labours under a cancer, but not stating that she is in immediate danger. Anon. 1 Law J. Chanc. 76.

A party will not be allowed, on inquiries before the Master, to examine witnesses whom he has examined in the cause, except upon affidavit, setting forth special circumstances, and the points as to which they are to be re-examined, which points must not have been in issue in the cause.

It must appear on the affidavit that these witnesses could not, as to the points proposed, have been examined on the interrogatories exhibited before the hearing. Cantpbell v. —, 1 Law J. Chanc. 70.

Where a witness has been examined in the cause, to prove the loss of a deed, but has not been examined so as to let in secondary evidence of the instrument, and an inquiry has been directed before the Master, the Court will give leave to re-examine the witness before the Master. Hurlock v. Priestly, 1 Law J. Chanc. 212.

A witness, who has been examined at the hearing only to prove exhibits, may be examined before the Master on interrogatories to prove other exhibits, without a special order.

The refusal of a witness to be cross-examined is no reason for suppressing his deposition, but the adverse party must at the time enforce such right of cross-examination as he has. Courteney v. Hoskins, 2 Russ. 253.

If, after a defendant has been examined as a witness under the usual order, it is discovered that he has not effectually released his interest; and he afterwards release that interest, an order may be obtained for the suppression of his deposition, and his re-examination on the same interrogatories, sav

ing just exceptions.

134.

-v. Figes, 3 Law J. Chanc. The examiner of a witness in the Examiner's office, is bound to keep him in London forty-eight hours after his production at the seat of the adverse clerk in court, and not forty-eight hours after his examination is finished: and if the cross-interrogatories are left with the Examiner within the fortyeight hours, then the party producing him must keep him in London till his cross-examination has terminated; therefore, where a party did not comply with the above rule, they ordered him back to London at his own expense. Whittuck v. Lysaght, 1 S. & S. 446.

(c) In the Ecclesiastical Courts.

All letters which transpire between a solicitor and a witness relative to his examination, must, if required, be produced. Atkinson v. Atkinson, 2 Add.

468.

The Court will compel a witness to answer explicitly, whether he is or is not responsible in some way, for the party's expenses in whose behalf he is examined. Hudson v. Beauchamp, 2 Add. 352.

Where a witness has been repeated and dismissed long anterior, she cannot, as a matter of course, be examined upon articles of a plea which she has not been designed to at the time of her production. Wilkinson v. Dulton, 1 Add. 339.

(F) INTERROGATORIES.

[See PRACTICE, IN EQUITY.]

On the trial of an ejectment, the Court will not grant a rule to examine a material witness upon interrogatories, although the witness was so ill that he could not attend. Anon. 2 Chit. 199.

It is not necessary to set forth the names of the witnesses whom it is wished to be examined on interrogatories. When the motion is made in term time, no costs are allowed; but when it is made at Nisi Prius, then the opposite party has the costs of the day. Anon. 2 Law J. K.B. 94.

The Court will not, in general, give time to exaamine witnesses abroad, on interrogatories, in justification of a libel, but they will do it on terms, as, on the defendant admitting the fact of publication. Brown v. Murray, 2 Law J. K.B. 222, s. c. 4 D. & R. 831.

A party who omits to cross-examine a witness under a commission at the usual period, will be allowed to exhibit interrogatories for that purpose on a subsequent day. Carter v. Draper, 2 Sim. 52.

A witness who, had answered some of the interrogatories, but refused to answer the others, was ordered to answer those interrogatories within four days, or to stand committed. Austin v. Prince, 1 Sim. 348.

(G) DEPOSITIONS.

[See EVIDENCE, and PRACTICE, IN EQUITY.]

The depositions of parishioners, tending to charge the defendant with costs on an information for money received by him for the use of the parish, are admissible in evidence, where the witnesses are not relators mentioned by name in the information. Attorney General v. Griffiths, 1 Ken. 126.

(H) PROTECTION AND PRIVILEGES.

[See ante, EXAMINATION.]

A witness who has absconded from his bail, may be re-taken by the bail in court, although he is attending to give evidence in a court of justice, and has received a subpæna. Horn v. Swinford, 1 D. & R. N.P.C. 20. [Richards]

The Court will restrain a plaintiff from the use of answers, in a penal proceeding, which may tend to criminate the witness. Jackson v. Benson, 1 Y. & J. 32.

The counsel in a cause have no right to object, in favour of a witness, that the answer to a particular question renders him liable to punishment or forfeiture. Such objection belongs to the witness only. Thomas v. Newton, 1 M. & M. 48. [Tenterden]

It is a sufficient reason for a witness's refusing to disclose his residence, that the defendant, at whose instigation the question has been put, he believes, has a bailable writ out against him. Watson v. Bevern, 1 C. & P. 363. [Abbott]

In an action for criminal conversation, the executor of a deceased relation of the defendant is bound to state the amount of property which the defendant acquired under the testator's will. Peter v. Hancock, 1 C. & P. 375. [Abbott]

(I) EXPENSES.

Where there is a reasonable doubt whether the evidence of a witness will or will not be admitted, the Master is justified in allowing the expenses of his attendance at the trial. Rushworth v. Wilson, 1 Law J. K.B. 113, s. c. 1 B. & C. 267.

Although a Master, in the taxation of costs, had allowed for witnesses who were not called, yet the Court refused to direct him to review his taxation. Adamson v. Noel, 2 Chit. 200.

Circumstances are the criterion which decide what witnesses are entitled to their expenses, since the fact of their being subpoenaed without being examined, has no influence. Bagnall v. Underwood, 11 Price, 510.

Men of science were held not entitled to be allowed their expenses incurred by them in travelling from London to York to inspect a building erected by the plaintiff, although he could not safely proceed to trial without such inspection. Bayley v. Beaumont,

4 Law J. C.P. 191.

A witness returning from a journey, which was intended before the subpoena, sooner than he otherwise would have done, is entitled to the expenses of that journey, though the trial is at the place of his abode. Vice v. Lady Anson, 1 M. & M. 96. [Tenterden]

If the plaintiff subpoena the defendant's attorney to produce books, the latter is not entitled to receive anything from the plaintiff for expenses or loss of time in attending as a witness. Pritchard v. Walker, 3 C. & P. 212. [Vaughan]

By the 53 Geo. 3, c. 71, (incorporated in 9 Geo. 4, c. 22,) a witness, summoned on behalf of the sitting member before an election committee, is entitled to his expenses, and to enter up judgment on the Speaker's certificate, in the same manner as wit

567

nesses summoned on behalf of the petition are entitled under that act. Magrane v. White, 6 Law J. K.B. 361, s. c. 8 B. & C. 412, s. c. 2 M. & R. 440.

Under the 58 Geo. 3, c. 70, which empowers the Court to order the county treasurer to pay the prosecutor or witnesses, who shall appear to have been endeavouring to apprehend any person, and who shall give evidence against any person accused of grand or petit larceny, &c., the costs of prosecuting and appearing before the grand jury, and compensate them for their loss and trouble in such apprehension, it was holden that persons who had travelled many miles and expended a large sum of money in tracing and endeavouring to apprehend two horsestealers, and had succeeded in apprehending them, were not entitled to any compensation for money so expended. Rex v. Austin, 1 D. & R. N.P.C. 24. [Park]

A judge, under the 58 Geo. 3, c. 70, has no power to allow witnesses their expenses, for going to identify stolen property. Rex v. Millington, 1 C. & P. 83. [Hullock]

A seafaring man, a native and resident here, was subpoenaed as a witness before issue joined and notice of trial given. The Court held, that the master had acted properly in allowing him subsistence-money during that time. Berry v. Pratt, 1 Law J. K.B.

116, s. c. 1 B. & C. 276, s. c. 2 D. & R. 424.

Where a plaintiff brought his witnesses too early to attend a trial: Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to the expenses. Anon. 2 Chit. 200.

A gentleman residing in the country was subponaed to give evidence at the trial of a cause in Londou. He proceeded part of the way, and then being from illness unable to go on, he sent a special messenger to London to inform the parties that he could not attend. In his account of expenses, he demanded 51. for the messenger going to London; at the trial of an action for the amount of his expenses incurred, the jury gave him 10l. including the 5l. The Court refused to grant a new trial on the ground of excessive damages. Bryan's case, 1 Law J. K.B.

157.

A witness from the country, subpoenaed there by the defendant, without receiving sufficient for his expenses, and afterwards, when in London, subpoenaed by the plaintiff, and called by him on the trial, is bound to give his evidence both in chief and on cross-examination, and must seek to obtain his expenses in some other way than by objecting to be examined. Edmonds v. Pearson, 3 C. & P. 113. [Gaselee]

An attorney who takes witnesses to an inn, is prima facie liable to the innkeeper for the expenses incurred. Cariss v. Richardson, 1 Law J. K.B. 11.

WORK AND LABOUR.

If a mechanic represents himself as an efficient and skilful workman, and undertakes to perform a particular work, which he does not accomplish, and thereby prevents his employer from deriving any benefit from his labour, the mechanic is not

entitled to any compensation. Duncan v. Blundell, 3 Stark. 6. [Bayley]

Where the owner of unwrought materials bestows his work and labour upon them, to form them into a vendible commodity, at the instance of an intended buyer, the owner cannot maintain an action for the work and labour, unless there has been a specific appropriation of the commodity to the buyer. Atkinson v. Bell, 6 Law J. K.B. 258, s. c. 8 B. & C. 277, s. c. 2 M. & R. 292.

AFFIDAVIT.

TO HOLD TO BAIL.

An affidavit of debt on a bill of exchange, which stated it to be over-due, without setting forth that it is unpaid, was held by the Court to be sufficiently certain that a debt existed. Morgan's case, 1 Law J. K.B. 156.

An affidavit of debt stating that R S, HA, R R, and B S, were jointly indebted to the plaintiff on a bill of exchange, "accepted (in the name and firm of A C & Co.) by the said RS, HA, RR, and B S, or one of them :" Held, insufficient. Harmer v. Ashby, 10 B. Mo. 323.

It is sufficient if an affidavit of debt, made by one of the assignees of a bankrupt, state that the defendant is indebted, &c., as appears by the books of the bankrupt, and as the deponent verily believes; without alleging that the books are in the deponent's possession. Hatton v. Bristow, 11 B. Mo. 504.

ATTORNEY AND SOLICITOR.
LIABILITY.

Where a solicitor detained deeds, &c. and refused to deliver his bill of costs,-the Court ordered him to deliver up the deeds, together with his bill of costs, notwithstanding there were no costs incurred in respect of an action at law or suit in equity. In re Murray, 1 Russ. 519.

The solicitor of an administratrix receiving money belonging to the estate of the intestate, is not a trustee for the estate; and if he makes payments out of it for the use of the administratrix, which are either previously directed, or subsequently adopted by her, he will be charged only with the balance actually in his hands. Watkins v. Maule, 1 Law J. Chanc. 82.

An attorney, who has in that character received papers from a client, cannot be called to produce them in a cause, although he does not act therein as attorney of the party. Parker v. Yates, 12 B. Mo. 520.

AMENDMENT.

A party had obtained a verdict in an action of ejectment. The opposite party obtained an injunc tion to stay execution, and nothing was done in the suit for many years; during which time the term specified in the declaration expired. The Court would not amend the declaration by enlarging the term, because it was not shewn, that by so doing DIGEST, 1822-1828.

BANKRUPT.

In an action by the assignees of a bankrupt, the production of the assignment to the plaintiffs, duly enrolled, is sufficient without proof of its execution, unless notice has been given that it is to be disputed. Tucker v. Barrow, 1 M. & M. 137. [Tenterden]

Whether a particular payment has been made by a trader in contemplation of bankruptcy, is purely a 4 C

question for a jury. Where a trader upon investigation of his affairs in July, found that he could only pay 17s. in the pound; and was obliged to sell part of his property, to meet certain demands upon him; and in September following, paid off a bond, and in October became bankrupt; but the bankrupt stated at the trial, that he did not contemplate becoming bankrupt at the time he made this payment: Held, that it was properly left to the jury to say, whether this payment had been made in contemplation of an act of bankruptcy; but, the jury having by their verdict found that he did, at the time, contemplate bankruptcy, a new trial was granted on payment of costs, on the ground, that they had not perhaps taken into consideration all the circumstances of the case. Flook v. Jones, 12 B. Mo. 96.

COMMISSIONERS.

If commissioners, under an act of parliament, direct an indemnity according to a clause not applicable to the particular injury complained of, the Court will quash the order. Rex v. the River Douglas Company, 2 Ken. 501.

COMPANY.

A voluntary society for insurance, by way of mutual guarantee, is or is not illegal, according as the shares of the money laid up are or are not transferrable generally to persons not members. Ellison V. Bignold, 2 J. & W. 503.

CONTRACT.

CONSTRUCTION.

It is for the jury to decide on the construction of a mercantile contract. Smith v. Blandy, 1 R. & M. 260.

EXECUTION.

STAYING.

A sum of money secured by a bond, was made payable by instalments, on condition, that if any one instalment was not paid at the time it became due, then, that the whole sum should be payable. The Court, on the appearance of fraud, in not accepting an instalment when offered, stayed execution, but ordered the judgment to stand as security. Stafford's case, 1 Law J. K.B. 51.

GUARANTIE.

A guarantie was given by the defendant, in consideration of the plaintiff's giving A a current credit, to make good, upon the event of his failure, any deficiency not exceeding a certain sum. A short time after the guarantie was given, a bill which had been previously given by A to the plaintiffs, was dishonoured, and the plaintiffs permitted him to renew it without giving any notice of the transaction to the defendant: Held, that this was not such a failure of the principal as to entitle the surety to a notice of the renewal of the bill. Carr v. Browne, 12 B. Mo. 62.

CORPORATION. ELECTION.

By an ancient custom, all the burgesses of Colchester, except innkeepers and others, could vote in the election of headmen, who chose the justices. A charter was granted to the borough, 58 Geo. 3, restoring all rights, but directing that all the burgesses, except the servants of innkeepers and others, should vote for the headmen. The defendant was named a justice by the headmen elected by persons coming within the first exception, and not within the second; and the Court held, that the two classes of disqualifications were not inconsistent with each other, and therefore that the defendant improperly exercised the office of justice of the peace. Rex v. Abell, 1 Law J. K.B. 250, s. c. 3 D. & R. 390.

COSTS.

In quare impedit, a defendant is not entitled to costs on a judgment as in case of a nonsuit. Winnowe v. Bishop of Carlisle, 11 B. Mo. 269.