UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 SCHOOL OF LAW 
 LIBRARY 
 
 J
 
 #'
 
 THE 
 
 LAW AND PRACTICE 
 
 RELATING TO DISCOVERY BY 
 
 INTEREOGATORIES 
 
 UNDER THE COMMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT, 1854; 
 
 TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX OF 
 
 PEECEDENTS, AND FULL INDEX. 
 
 WILLIAM COMER PETHEEAM, Esq. 
 
 OP THE MIDDLE TEMPLE. 
 
 LONDON: 
 WILLIAM MAXWELL, 32, BELL YARD, LINCOLN'S INN, 
 
 HODGES, SMITH, AND CO., GRAFTON STREET, DUBLIN. 
 
 1864.
 
 T
 
 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 The great and increasing importance of interroga- 
 tories in actions at law lias induced me to collect 
 whatever of recognised authority exists on the subject, 
 and to add a selection of forms of interrogatories 
 which have been allowed by the Judges sitting at 
 Chambers. A perusal of the following pages will 
 shoAv that considerable difference of opinion has ex- 
 isted among the judges as to the proper meaning to 
 be put on the words of the section of the Common 
 Law Procedure Act under which interrogatories 
 are administered ; and an attentive exammation of 
 the forms m the Appendix will show that individual 
 Judges have given to the section a wider meaning 
 than has ever been given by the full courts. I think, 
 however, that from the decisions quoted in the text, 
 and from the examples in the Appendix, enough can 
 
 80B45H
 
 IV PREFACE. 
 
 be gathered to enable the reader to judge, with some 
 approach to certainty, what questions will be allowed ; 
 and I offer this little volume to the members of the 
 profession, in the hope that it may be found not alto- 
 gether useless to them in conductino; this branch 
 of their practice. I may here state that since the 
 body of this work has been printed, I have been 
 informed by ]\Ir. Brandon, the registrar of the Lord 
 Mayor's Court, that an application was lately made 
 to him for leave to administer interrogatories to the 
 garnishee under the custom of foreign attachment; 
 it w^as opposed on several grounds, first, because, it 
 was said that the garnishee was not a " defendant," 
 properly so called, and also because It was objected 
 that the registrar had no power to make the order 
 under the section. He, however, made the order, 
 and the Eecorder aftenvards affirmed it, which de- 
 cision would appear to be entirely borne ovit by the 
 cases of Flitcroft v. Fletcher, and White v. Watts. 
 
 5, Paper BuildiiigSj 
 May, 1864.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PACK 
 
 Cases Quoted vii 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 Interrogatobies undee. the Act 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Rules which have been laid down by the Courts as to 
 
 WHAT InTEUROGATOKIES MAY BE ADMINISTERED . . 41 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 1. "What Affidavits are necessary in support of the 
 Application to administer Interrogatories. — 2. 
 When oral Examination of the Party interro- 
 gated will be allowed 53 
 
 Appendix 65 
 
 Index 113
 
 CASES QUOTED. 
 
 Adams v. Lloy.l, 27 L.J., 499 Ex. ; 3 H. & X., 351. ..19, 42, 44, 57. 
 
 Atter V. Willison, 7 W.E., 2G5...47. 
 
 Attorney-General v. Corporation of London, 2 M'X. & G., 247. ..11. 
 
 Attorney-General v. Corporation of London, 18 L.J., 315 Ch....l8. 
 
 Bartlett v. Lewis, 31 L.J., 230 C.P....5, 25, 49. 
 
 Baj'ley v. Griffiths, 31 L.J., 477 Ex.. ..38, 45. 
 
 Bellwood V. "Wetherall, 1 You. & C, 211. ..16, 17. 
 
 Bender V. Zimmerman, 29 L.J., 244 Ex.. ..56. 
 
 Blyth V. L'Estrange, 3 F. & F., 154. ..38. 
 
 Chester v. Wortley, 17 C.B., 410. ..35, 48. 
 
 Chester v. Wortley, 18 C.B., 239. ..55. 
 
 Croomes v. Morrison, 5 E. & B., 984. ..54. 
 
 Curran v. Elphinstone, 4 W.E....63. 
 
 Edwards v. Wakefield, 6 E. & B,, 463. ..11. 
 
 Flitcroft V. Fletcher, 25 L.J., 94 Ex.. ..2, 11, 13, 18, 50, 51. 
 
 Geary v. Burton, 29 L.J., 280 Ex.. .,56. 
 
 Glegg V. Leigh, Madd., 19 3... 18. 
 
 Goodman v. Hervey, 3 X.R., 512. ..45. 
 
 Horton v. Bott, 26 L.J., 2G7 Ex.; 2 H. & N,, 267. ..14, 44, 51. 
 
 Hustler v. Freeland, 2 X.R., 396. ..47. 
 
 James v. Barnes, 17 C.B., 596 ; 25 L.J., 182 C.P....4, 54. 
 
 Jones V. Hargreaves, 29 L.J., 368 Ex.. ..3, 47. 
 
 Jones V. Piatt, 6 H. & N., 697 ; 30 L.J., 365 Ex., ..3, 4. 
 
 London Gaslight Company v. Chelsea Vestry, 28 L J., 275 C.P....45. 
 
 Lowndes v. Davis, 4 Sim., 468... 18. 
 
 Macaulay v. Shakel, 1 Bligh, 96 N.S....37.
 
 vm CASES QUOTED. 
 
 Martin v. Hemming, 10 Ex., 478 ; 2i L.J., 3 Ex., 415. ..42, 54. 
 
 May V. Hawkins, 11 Ex., 2 10... 54. 
 
 Meadows v. Kirkman, 2 L.T., N.S., 251. ..5G. 
 
 Moor V. Roberts, 26 L.J., 246 C.P. ; 2 C.B., 671... 46, 52. 
 
 Osborne v. The London Dock Company, 10 Ex., 698 ; 24 L.J., 140, 
 
 Ex.... 5, 34, 36, 49. 
 Pohl V. Young, 25 L.J., 23 Q.B....3, 
 Robson V. Cooke, 2 H. & N., 766. ..42. 
 Scott V. Zygomelas, 24 L.J., 129 Q.B....56. 
 Selby V. Selby, 4 Bro., C.C. 11. ..18. 
 Sterne v. Sevastopulo, 2 N.R., 329. ..47. 
 Stoat V. Rew, 32 L.J., 160 C.P... .51, 55. 
 Swift V. Nun, 26 L.J., 365 Ex.. ..56, 
 Thol V. Leaske, 10 Ex., 704.. .44. 
 Thorpe v. Macaulay, 5 Madd., 230... 37. 
 Tetley v. Easton, 18 C.B., 643 ; 25 L.J., 293 C.P... .51. 
 Tupling V. AYard, 6 H. & N., 749. ..36, 49. 
 Von Hofff. Hoerster, 27 L.J., 299 Ex.. ..63. 
 Turk V. Syme, 27 L.J., 54 Ex.. ..56. 
 White V. Watts, 31 L.J., 381 C.P... .2. 
 Wolverhampton N. W. Company v. Hawksford, 28 L.J., 198 C.P. ; 5 
 
 C.B., 703 ]Sr.S....51. 
 Zychlinski v. Maltby, 10 C.B., 839. ..42.
 
 }> 
 
 AN EXPOSITION, &c. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 
 
 By the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, 17 
 & 18 Vic, cap. 125, s. 51, it is enacted: "In all 
 canses in any of the superior courts, by order of the 
 coui't or a judge, the plaintiif may, with the declara- 
 tion, or the defendant may, with the plea, or either 
 of them by leave of the court or a judge may, at any 
 other time, deliver to the opposite party or his attorney 
 (provided such party, if not a body corporate,* would 
 be liable to be called and examined as a witness upon 
 such matter) interrogatories in writing nponany 
 matter as to Avhich discovery may be souo'ht. and 
 require such ]5arty, or, in the case of a body corpo- 
 rate, any of the officers of such body corporate, within 
 
 * The public officer of a joint-stock bankinji coinpaii}- may be inter- 
 rogated unilertliis section. (M'Kewen, P.O., r. Rolt, 28 L.J., 381 Ex.). 
 
 -^ B
 
 2 AX EXPOSITION, ETC. 
 
 ten days to answer the questions in writing by affi- 
 davit, to be sworn and filed in the ordinary way ; and 
 any party or officer omitting, without just cause, suf- 
 ficiently to answer all questions as to which discoveiy 
 may be sought within the above time, or such ex- 
 tended time as the court or a judge shall allow, shall 
 be deemed to have committed a contempt of the coiu*t, 
 and shall be liable to be proceeded against accord- 
 
 ingly." 
 
 The first question which can be made under the 
 wording of this section is, what causes are included 
 in it ? And this question has been twice raised : the 
 first time in the case of Flitcroft v. Fletcher, 25 L.J., 
 94 Ex., and the second time in White v. Watts, 
 31 L.J., 381 C.P. 
 
 Flitcroft v. Fletcher was an action of ejectment, and 
 it was argued, that as the section stated that "the 
 plaintiff might mth the declaration, or the defendant 
 might with the plea," deliver interrogatories, it was 
 implied that interrogatories could be delivered in those 
 cases only where a plea could be pleaded, therefore 
 that no interrogatories could be delivered in the action 
 of ejectment. The court, however, were of opinion 
 that ejectment was within the section, and Alderson, 
 B., said : " The act says interrogatories may be de- 
 livered at any time. The act ought, in this resj)ect, 
 to receive as large a construction as possible." See 
 also Edwards v. Wahefield, 6 E. & B., 463, where this 
 doctrine is affirmed. 
 
 White V. Watts was an interpleader issue, and that
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 3 
 
 was also decided to be within the section. Erie, C.J., in 
 delivering judgment, said : " The question is, wliether 
 an interpleader issue is within the provision of the 
 Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, s. 51, relating to 
 the delivery of interrogatories. The section says that 
 this may be done m all causes in any of the superior 
 com'ts. I know of no legal definition of the word 
 * cause,' but it is obvious that the importance of de- 
 livering interrogatories is as great in intei^leader 
 issues as in any other case. AYe all think that an in- 
 terpleader issue is within the principle of section 51, 
 and my brother Willes has pointed out that section 50, 
 which is pari matend, uses the w^ords 'any cause or 
 other civil proceeding.' " No other authorities are to 
 be found on tliis branch of the subject, but from the 
 two above quoted it would appear the courts "will give 
 the words " in all causes in any of the superior courts" 
 as large a construction as possible. It has also been 
 decided that it is no ground for refusing an order to 
 administer interrogatories to a plaintiff that he is a 
 foreigner resident abroad. Polil v. Young, 25 L.J., 
 23 Q.B. 
 
 InteiTogatories will be allowed to be administered at 
 any time dm-ing the progress of the cause. If the ap- 
 plication is made before the delivery of the declaration, 
 a case of great m-gency must be made out. See Jones v. 
 Piatt, 6 H. & N., 697 ; 30 L.J., 365 Ex. ; and see also 
 Jones V. Hanjreaves, 29 L.J., 368 Ex., which was an ap- 
 plication, under section 50 of the same act, for the in- 
 spection of documents ; but, on examination, the argu- 
 b2
 
 4 AN EXPOSITION, ETC 
 
 ments used there will be found applicable to tlie sec- 
 tion now under consideration. As a general rule, the 
 proper time for the application is after issue joined, 
 as the court or judge is then in a better position to 
 form an opinion as to the relevancy of the proposed 
 interrogatories. See Jones v. Piatt, iihi supra ; see 
 also, as to time, Martin v. Heming, 10 Exch., 478, 
 
 24 L.J., 3 Ex. ; and James v. Barnes, 17 C.B., 596, 
 
 25 L.J., 182 C.P. 
 
 We now come to the question what inteiTogatories 
 may be administered under the words " any matter 
 as to which discovery may be sought ;" and as this 
 question has been a great deal discussed, and many 
 very opposite opinions given as to its meaning since 
 the passing of the act, we shall here examine carefully 
 all the cases which have been decided on the subject, 
 and then endeavour, by the assistance of the light they 
 give, to determine what meaning is now to be put on 
 these words. Looking at the section, it seems evident 
 that the words " as to which discovery may be sought," 
 must have reference to some mode of obtaining dis- 
 covery which was in existence before the passing of 
 the enactment ; and this causes an immediate search 
 for any such methods which may have been in exist- 
 ence. The one which, from the presence of the word 
 " discoveiy" in the section, first suggests itself, is that 
 which was mu.cli in use before the passing of this act, 
 — \\z. by filing a bill in equity for a disco veiy in aid 
 of proceedings at common law ; and this opinion 
 certainly would seem to hold its gi'ound strongly
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 5 
 
 against the otlier wliicli has been set up in opposition 
 to it — viz. that the words mean that any questions 
 may be asked under this section which might be put 
 to a witness under examination in the witness-box. 
 We will now re\'iew in the order in which they were 
 decided all the cases in support of both opinions. 
 
 The first time any judicial opinion was expressed on 
 the subject was in the case of Martin v. Heming, 24 
 L.J., 3 Ex., when, in the course of the argument, Alder- 
 son, B., said : " Siu'ely the first requisite is, that it is 
 a proper subject for discovery in equity ;" but as the 
 point was not actually before the court, this can only 
 amount to an expression of opinion. 
 
 Oshorne v. London Dock Company, 10 Exch., 698, 
 24 L.J., 140 Ex., is a case which for a long time was 
 treated as of no authority, and, in fact, was almost 
 looked upon as overruled ; but it has since been 
 brought again into notice by a decision of the Court 
 of Common Pleas founded on its authority, viz. that in 
 Bartlett v. Lewis, 31 L.J., 230 C.P., which will be 
 fully noticed in its proper place. In consequence of 
 that decision, the case of Oshorne v. London Lfoch 
 Company has come to be of considerable importance ; 
 it will, therefore, be necessary to review it somewhat 
 fully. The case came before the court on an appli- 
 cation by the defendants to deliver interrogatories in 
 writing to the plaintiff. The declaration charged the 
 defendants, in the first count, with detaining pipes 
 and hogsheads of wine, the property of the plaintiff ; 
 the second was for a conversion of the same. The
 
 b AN EXPOSITION, ETC. 
 
 third count stated a delivery by tlie plaintiff to the 
 defendants of pipes &c. of wine, to be vatted by the 
 defendants and kept by them for the plaintiff, and 
 that by means of the negligence of the defendants the 
 pipes &c. of wine were lost to the plaintiff. 
 
 The defendants pleaded to the first count, denying 
 the detention ; to the second and third, not guilty ; to 
 the second, a traverse of the plaintiff's property ; and 
 to the third, a traverse of the delivery and acceptance. 
 The object of the interrogatories — which were 159 in 
 number — was to show that fraudulent practices had 
 been used wdth regard to the wines, and that wines of 
 other parties had been fraudulently substituted for the 
 wines delivered to the defendants, and that the plaintiff 
 was pri\'y to the frauds. The application was opposed 
 by the plaintiff, supported by the oath of his attorney, 
 on tlie grounds that the defendants were seeking to 
 obtain evidence from the plaintiff of certain alleged 
 fraudulent practices, for which the party guilty would 
 be liable to be indicted. In the course of the argu- 
 ment, Parke, B., said : " The section does not relate 
 to a bill of discovery in equity. The language of the 
 section is, ' upon any matter as to which discovery 
 may be sought,' not ' upon any matter as to which a 
 bill of discovery will lie.' The plaintiff's time to 
 object to the questions is when they are put to him, 
 and when they pinch him." And per Alderson, B., 
 also during the argument : " The practice relating to 
 bills of discovery has nothing to do with the present 
 question. The practice created by the new act is an
 
 INTERROGATORIES UKDER THE ACT. 7 
 
 improvement on that relating to bills of discovery." 
 The interrogatories were allowed, tlic coui't saying : 
 " If any of the proposed interrogatories tend to crimi- 
 nate the plaintiff, the objection is not properly raised 
 on the present application, but must be taken by the 
 party himself on oath at the time the interrogatories 
 are put." 
 
 Whateley v. Crawford, and Careio v. Davis, 25 L.J., 
 163 Q.B. 5 ; E. & B., 709, were two cases in which 
 the questions were so similar that they were included 
 in the same judgment ; and as that was the first 
 judgment containing anything amounting to a defini- 
 tion of what was to be considered the proper interpre- 
 tation of the part of the section now before us, it will 
 be necessary to review the decision very carefully, 
 Whateley v. Crawford was an action against a sur- 
 veyor for negligence in valuing and surveying certain 
 estates, and for reporting that they were worth and 
 were let for more than they really Avere, whereby the 
 plaintiff was induced to lend more money on the 
 estates than they realized when they were sold, and that 
 thereby the plaintiff lost his money. The interroga- 
 tories which were desired to be administered to the 
 defendant were partly as follows : 
 
 2. Did you in the month of August, 1852, receive 
 instructions from Messrs. R. B. and Co., of &c., to in- 
 spect and value certain estates of J. A., situate, &c., 
 and did you accept and act on such instructions? 
 
 5. After receiving the said instructions, did you 
 personally visit and inspect the whole or any and
 
 8 AN EXPOSITION, ETC. 
 
 what part or parts of tlie said estates, and wlien was 
 such inspection ? 
 
 6. Did you take any and what steps to ascertain the 
 amounts of the different rents payable hy the respective 
 tenants of the said estates for tlie premises in their 
 respective occupation ? 
 
 7. Did you apply to the said J. A. to know the 
 amount of the said several rents ? 
 
 8. Did you apply to the tenants of the said estates, 
 or to any and which of them, for the respective 
 amounts of the rents payable l)y them respectively 
 for the houses, farms, and lands held by them, and 
 when did you make such application ? 
 
 9. Did you, as part of the before-mentioned in- 
 structions, receive from the said ]Messrs, R. and Co. 
 a list of the various rents at which the several tenants 
 of the said estates were supposed to hold the same ? 
 
 10. Did you take any and what steps to ascertain 
 whether the said list contained a true account of the 
 rents, and state the result of such steps '? 
 
 11. Was one of the farms to which the said in- 
 structions applied called "The ^lill House Farm," 
 and was the same then in the possession and occu- 
 pation of R. S. ? 
 
 12. Did you take any and what steps to ascertain 
 at what yearly rent the said R. S. then held the said 
 farm, and state at wdiat rent did he then in fact hold 
 the same, and your means of knowledge as to the 
 amount of such yearly rent ? 
 
 13. Did you make any and what report to the said
 
 INTERKOGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 1) 
 
 Messrs. R. and Co. as to tlie amovint of the last-men- 
 tioned yearly rent, and upon what information was 
 such report founded? 
 
 The 3rd and 4th inteiTogatories were questions as to 
 what was or was not the duty of the defendant under 
 the instructions, and they were struck out by consent 
 during the argument, on the gi'ound that the informa- 
 tion sought by them was matter of law. Careio v. 
 Davis was an action ao-ainst attornies, for neijliffence 
 in not defendino- an action which was brouo-ht ascainst 
 the plaintiff on two bonds. The interrogatories Avere 
 to the same effect as those in Wliateley v. Craicford. 
 Lord Campbell, in deliverino- his ludome nt, said: ^^I 
 come to tlie concl usion tlint. the rnle n urlpv the 51st 
 section is, that the plaintiffnury- have discovery by 
 interrocfatories, the answers to w lu'ch ma y rpns pnnbly 
 be expected to advance the plaintiff's ca se, although 
 the answers may also disclose what the defendant in- 
 tends to set up by way ot detence. The object of the 
 section was to obviate the necessity of going for as- 
 sistance into a court of equity, which brought great 
 scandal on the administration of justice. But now, 
 by section 51, a party is empowered to deliver to his 
 opponent interrogatories in -writing upon any matter 
 as to which discovery may be sought. Wliat inter- 
 pretation are we to put upon those words ? I inter- 
 pret the meaning to be that interrogatories may be put 
 with reference to any matter as to which discovery 
 may be sought by any bill in equity. The rule is laid 
 down rather AA-idely by the Court of Exchequer, in
 
 10 AN EXPOSITION, ETC. 
 
 Osborne y. tJie London Dock Company, where it is 
 said that the interrogatories may be administered to 
 the same extent as if the party interi'ogated was a 
 witness under examination at the trial. I tliink the 
 true rule is, that such questions may be put as may 
 reasonably be expected to produce answers tending to 
 advance the case of the party who puts them. The 
 rule on this subject has been veiy clearly laid do'\^^l 
 by that great jurist, Sir James Wigram, and I concm- 
 in that rule in the very terms in which he has laid it 
 down. Whatsoever advances the plaintiff's case may 
 be inquired into, though it may at the same time bring 
 out matter which the defendant relies upon for his 
 defence, but you shall not inquii-e into that which is 
 exclusively matter of defence ; that which is common 
 to both the plaintiff and the defendant may be inqidred 
 into by either. That being the rule, the great bulk of 
 the questions in both the cases which have been argued 
 clearly fall within it, and the interrogatories are there- 
 fore lawful, and ought to be answered." After some 
 further remarks, which it is unnecessary to quote, his 
 lordship proceeded to add : " If this method of pro- 
 ceeding was likely to be abused we should certainly 
 have a discretion to exercise for the purpose of check- 
 ing such abuse, and preventing the vexatious use of 
 this mode of procedure ; but if there is no supposition 
 of this sort, and the case falls within the statute, we 
 are hound to grant the application." Wightman, J., 
 in his judgment, said : " The analogy, no doubt, is to 
 proceedings in equity, by which a discovery was sought
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 11 
 
 and oLtained in aid of proceedings at law." Erie, J., 
 concurred. 
 
 Flitcroft and others v. Fletcher, 25 L.J., 94 Ex., 
 was an action of ejectment, and the application was 
 on the part of the defendant to administer inter- 
 rogatories to the ])laintiff, the object of which was 
 to find out in what right the plaintiff claimed to be 
 entitled to the land in dispute, and also to discover 
 through what links he traced his pedigree. (See 
 post, p. 98, where the interrogatories will be found in 
 full.) These interrogatories were allowed, on the ex- 
 press gromid that they were such as would have been 
 allowed by a court of equity on the authority of the 
 Attorney- General v. Corporation of London, 2 M'N. 
 & G., 247, and, therefore, although it is not laid 
 down in the judgments that, the words in the sec- 
 tion have reference to bills in equity, still it may 
 be clearly inferred from them that such was the 
 opinion of at least two of the judges — Pollock, C.B., 
 and Piatt, B. 
 
 Edwards v. Wakefield, 6 E. & B., 462, is a very- 
 strong case in favour of the analogy to bills of dis- 
 covery ; enough of the facts are disclosed in the judg- 
 ment to make the meaning perfectly clear. The 
 judgment was delivered by Lord Campbell, after a 
 cur. adv. vult., in the following terms : 
 
 " This was an application by the defendant to be 
 
 allowed to deliver interrogatories to the plaintiff under 
 
 < the 51st section of the second Common Law Proce- 
 
 L dure Act. The action was in trover, by the assignees
 
 12 AN EXPOSITIOX, ETC. 
 
 of a bankrupt to recover property alleged to form 
 part of the bankrupt's estate, and the proposed inter- 
 rogatones were for the purpose of compelling the 
 plaintiffs to state upon oath what act or acts of bank- 
 ruptcy they intended to rely upon in support of the 
 title of the assignees. We think that the application 
 is not authorized by the enactment in question. From 
 the provision limiting the power of delivering interro- 
 gatories to persons only who could give evidence, and 
 from the subsecjuent sections referred to in the argu- 
 ment, Avhere provision is made as to depositions, and 
 statute 1 Will. IV. c. 22, as to evidence taken under 
 commissions is referred to, we are disposed to think 
 that the section now under our consideration is in- 
 tended to apply to cases only where the matter in- 
 quired into would be evidence in the cause, and that 
 it was not intended thereby to give one party the 
 power of aslving the other how he intends to shape his 
 case. Such an inquiry is a mode of requiring par- 
 ticulars on oath -without the party being obliged after- 
 wards to confine himself to the particulars. AVhen 
 the justice of the case requires such particulars to be 
 given, the court have generally the means of com- 
 pelling them to be given, mider such provisions as are 
 reasonable. We think that we ought, at all events, 
 to hold that the discovery under the 51st section is 
 limited by the words ' upon any matter as to Avhicli 
 discovery may be sought' to the cases where discovery 
 would be given in equity, and we think that the pro- 
 posed questions clearly fall within the rule, that a
 
 I 
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 13 
 
 party is not to make a fishing application as to the 
 manner in -which his adversary intends to shape liis 
 case and as to the evidence by which he intends to 
 support it. It has been conceded by the learned 
 gentleman who attended on this occasion from a 
 court of equity, that in answer to such questions as 
 the present in a discovery bill, the plaintiffs at law 
 would be entitled to say, ' I shall support my case by 
 any acts of bankruptcy which I can prove, and which 
 I shall be advised to rely on.' The danger into which 
 a defendant may be put by not knowing what acts of 
 bankruptcy may be relied on has long been felt, and 
 the Legislature has interfered to do away in some 
 cases Avith the hardships of the relation to prior acts 
 of bankruptcy, but we never hear of an application 
 to a court of equity to compel the assignees to state 
 upon oath what acts of bankruptcy they intend to 
 rely iipon. If that course could have been adopted, 
 it would, we think, have been frequently resorted to. 
 We were much pressed w^ith the recent case of Flit- 
 croft V. Fletcher in the Exchequer. (See ante, p. 11.) 
 If the court there meant to decide that the defendant 
 may always ask the plaintiff to declare on oath how 
 he means to shape his case, we are not prepared to 
 assent to it, and we should not feel ourselves bound 
 by a decision of this nature to the same extent as 
 where a decision can be reversed on error, even if the 
 case were precisely in point. Considerable part of the 
 discussion in that case must have been on the nature 
 of the action of ejectment, and we entirely agree 
 
 1
 
 14 AN EXPOSITION, ETC. 
 
 with the first resokition of the court, that the action 
 ' of ejectment is one in ^Yhich interrogatories under |! 
 ^ the 51st section of the act may be administered. 
 On the other point, the court rehed in some mea- P 
 sure on the nature of real actions, where it was said 
 the pedigree must be specially stated, a ground which, 
 were it well founded, would not apply to the present 
 case. They seem also to have relied on a decision of 
 a court of equity as to a disclosing a pedigree, and 
 not to have considered the case as one really asking 
 for the mode or manner of shaping the plaintiff's case 
 and for the evidence in support of such case. One 
 learned baron referred to the practice of granting 
 particulars, which does not seem to us a good reason 
 for the construction to be put upon the act. We are 
 of opinion that it is not competent for a defendant to 
 require the plaintiff to answer on oath how he in- 
 tends to shape his case by interrogating him as to the 
 acts of bankruptcy upon which he proposes to rely, 
 and we think, therefore, that the present rule should 
 be discharged." 
 
 Horton V. Bott, 26 L.J., 267 Ex. ; 2 H. & N., 249, 
 is a case of very great importance, and one which 
 will be found very strongly to support the doctrine 
 of analogy to a bill in equity; it came before the 
 court on an application to set aside an order made 
 by Coleridge, J., at chambers, requiring the de- 
 fendant, in the action of ejectment, to answer in- 
 terrogatories corresponding with those in Flitcroft 
 V. Fletcher (post, p. 98). Time ha\dng been taken
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 15 
 
 for consideration, the judgment of the court was de- 
 livered by Bramwell, B., and as the judgment con- 
 tains enough of the facts to expLiin the argument, we 
 shall here confine ourselves to giving the judgment : 
 " This is a rule to set aside an order of my brother 
 Coleridge, requiring the defendant to answer interro- 
 gatories. The facts deposed to in the affidavit were, 
 that the plaintiff was the heir-at-law of a person who 
 died in the early part of this century, seized in fee 
 of land, which went to his heir, and ultimately to a 
 lady who married, and died after having had some 
 children, when her husband took possession and occu- 
 pied until his death, last year ; that after his death 
 the plaintiff brought this action of ejectment, and ap- 
 plied to a professional gentleman, who acted on behalf 
 of the parties now in possession, to know what their 
 title was, and was told that it was under a settlement 
 executed by the lady before mentioned, and the inter- 
 rogatories ordered to be inserted were relative to this 
 alleged deed of settlement, and the title of the de- 
 fendants under it. It was insisted on behalf of the 
 defendant that there was no power to order such in- 
 terrogatories. The authority is given by the 51st 
 section of the Common LaAv Procedure Act, 1854, 
 which enacts tliat interrogatories may be required to 
 be answered upon any matter as to which discovery 
 may be sought ; of course this must mean according to 
 the rules existing in courts of equity ; and the question 
 was, whether the discovery sought was within those 
 rules ? We may be permitted to say that (perhaps
 
 16 AN EXPOSITIOX, ETC. 
 
 owing to our want of familiarity with the subject) the 
 remark of Lord Abinger seems well founded : ' Upon 
 looking at the cases, some of them appear extremely 
 embarrassed and contradictory, and no steady prin- 
 ciple is adopted ii^them.' {BeUwood v, Wetlierell, 
 1 You. & C, 211.)|jn Wigram on Discovery, the rule 
 is thus stated : ' The right of a plaintiff in equity to 
 the defendant's oath is limited to a discovery of such 
 material facts as relate to the plaintiff's case, and does 
 not extend to a discovery of the manner in which the 
 defendant's case is to be established, or to the evidence 
 which relates exclusively to his case.' Of course this 
 would not include the discovery sought by the plaintiff ; 
 but in page 285 of the same book, the author says ; 
 ' Lord Redesdale, however, in speaking of the pur- 
 poses for which discovery is given, says the plaintiff 
 may require a discovery of the case on which the de- 
 fendant relies, and of the manner in which he intends 
 /to support itl The first of these propositions, that a 
 plaintiff is entitled to a discovery of the case on which 
 the defendant relies— that is, that the plaintiff is en- 
 titled to know what the case is — admits of no doubt. 
 The common rules of pleading make it necessary that 
 the defendant should so state his case that the plaintiff 
 may know with certainty Avhat case he has to meet ; 
 and in the strict observance of those rules a plaintiff 
 is secure against surprise. It is at the peril of the 
 defendant if his pleadings are defective in this re- 
 spect, but this is quite independent of the law of dis- 
 covery.' The general rule, therefore, as to discovery 
 
 m 
 
 ho
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 17 
 
 seems qualified by the doctrine of Lord Redesdale, 
 sanctioned by Sir J. Wigram. But there are other 
 authorities. I n Bellioood v. W etherell, 1 You. & C, 
 211, Lord Abinger says: 'Now, the obvious hne to 
 be drawn is this : that though in general the defendant 
 has no right to a discovery of the plaintiff's title, yet 
 in certain cases he will be entitled to a discovery of 
 the nature, though not of the eviden ce, of that title. 
 Thus, where a party files a bill as rector, the de-" T 
 fendant may file a cross bill to see whether the 
 plaintiff in the original suit is entitled to have that 
 which he admits may be due to somebody. The de 
 fendant may allege that some other person is entitled, 
 and in such case he may file his bill of interpleader 
 If he does not go that length, he may suggest that he 
 has had notice that some other person is entitled, 
 paramount to the plaintiff, or that the plaintiff had 
 parted with his right to the tithes ; and in such case, 
 though there is no ground whatever to make the 
 party disclose the evidence of his title, still there is 
 ground to call on the party to discover the nature of 
 his title, so that the defendant shall not be harassed a 
 second time. That would apply to several cases ; as, 
 for instance, if the defendant to an original suit had 
 established a modus, and it then tm'ned out that the 
 plaintiff had parted with his interest, a person claim- 
 ing by a paramount title might say that he was not 
 bound by that decision. It is clear that in such case 
 the defendant would have a claim to discovery of the 
 nature of the plaintiff's title in order to protect him- 
 
 C
 
 18 AN EXPOSITION, ETC 
 
 self in that particiJar payment.' So In 1 Ves. jun., 
 249, Lord Hardwicke says : ' The question comes to 
 this, whether any person in possession of an estate, as 
 tenant or otherwise, may not bring a bill to discover 
 the title of a person bringing an ejectment against 
 him, to have it set out, and seen whether the title be 
 not in some other. I am of opinion he may, to enable 
 him to make a defence in ejectment, considering him 
 as a wrong-doer against everybody.' In Glegg v. 
 Leigh, Madd., 193, discovery of even the title was re- 
 fused. In Loiondes v. Davis, 4 Sim., 468, that and 
 more was granted to a person in possession, defendant 
 in a suit in equity, where he had filed a cross bill. 
 This case, however, is denied by Sir J. Wigram (Dis- 
 covery, p. 290). Flitcroft v. Fletcher, 25 L.J., 94 Ex., 
 was also a case where the person in possession sought 
 discovery of the title of the plaintiff suing him. Selb^/ 
 V. Selhy, 4 Bro. CO., 11, was determined on a point of 
 pleading. The Attorney- General v. the Corporation of 
 London, 18 L.J., 315 Chancery, was also decided on 
 the particular relation between the plaintiff and the 
 defendant. In the result we find no case in which a 
 plaintiff, as in the present case,,maldng a claim, thereby 
 gives himself a right to call on a person in posses- 
 sion to state by what title he is so. On the contrary, 
 the grounds of the decisions in the cases cited are 
 inconsistent with such a right. The case of an heir- 
 at-law claiming against a person deriving title by con- 
 veyance from one of the claimant's ancestors, must 
 have been of constant and continued occurrence year
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 19 
 
 after year, and the circumstance of no case existing 
 in Avliicli such discoveiy as that now sought for was 
 obtained, is, to our minds, strong to show there 
 is not a right to it. If such a right existed, it wouhl, 
 in an infinite number of cases, have been of the ut- 
 most importance to heirs-at-law to avail themselves of 
 it. It is impossible not to see that such a right to 
 discovery might have some most pernicious conse- 
 quences. If it is to be established at all, it had better 
 be in a com*t of equity familiar with these questions. 
 As at present advised, we think it does not exist, and 
 consequently make this rule absolute." 
 
 Adams \. Lloyd & another, 27 L.J., 499 Ex.; 3H. 
 tSTN. 351, is'a case of very great importance, and one 
 of the most instructive which has been decided under 
 these sections. The case came before the court on a 
 iTile to show cause why an oral examination of the 
 plaintiff should not be directed, or why the plaintiff 
 should not, "SAathin a reasonable time to be named 
 by the court, file a better answer to the interrogatories. 
 The action was for trespass, for digging in certain coal 
 mines. In their pleas the defendants claimed a right, 
 under one Richard Parkes, of ingress and egress to 
 work the mines. The questions were : 
 
 1. Have you in your possession power or control 
 any deeds or wa'itings relating to the lands mentioned 
 in the first and second counts of the declaration de- 
 livered in this cause or any of them, or any part 
 thereof ? If so, state the number of such deeds and 
 writings and the dates thereof, and the parties thereto. 
 c2
 
 20 AN EXPOSITION, ETC. 
 
 2. Have you in your possession or control any other 
 deeds or writings relating to the above-mentioned 
 lands, or any of them, or any part thereof, other than 
 the deeds and writings mentioned in your answer to 
 the first interrogatory ? 
 
 3. Had you, or had, to your knowledge or belief, 
 any former owner of the said lands, or any of them, 
 or any other person, at any time, in his or their pos- 
 session or control, any deed or deeds, Avriting or 
 writings, relating to such lands or any of them, which 
 are not mentioned in your answers to the above inter- 
 rogatories ? or has any person now, to your knowledge 
 or belief, the possession or control of any deed or 
 deeds, writing or writings, relating to such lands or 
 any of them, which are not mentioned in such 
 answers ? If Yea, state where, according to the best 
 of your knowledge or belief, such deed or deeds now 
 are, or what has become of the same, and whether or 
 not such deed or deeds, or any such deeds, have been, to 
 your knowledge or belief, lost or destroyed by time or 
 accident or otherwise, and what are or were the dates 
 of, and who are or were the parties to, any deed or deeds 
 to which your answer to the interrogatory may refer ? 
 
 Baron Martin declined to make any order. The 
 application was renewed before Baron Bramwell, who 
 made an order on the ground that the proper course 
 was to allow the interrogatories to be exhibited, and 
 that the plaintiff's time to object to the questions was 
 when they were put to him and when they pinched 
 him. The interroo;atories were then exhibited, and
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 21 
 
 were answered by the plaintiff as follows : " I have 
 in my possession, custody, and control, divers deeds 
 and writings relating to the lands mentioned in the 
 first and second counts of the declaration delivered in 
 this cause, but I abstain from stating the number 
 thereof, the dates thereof, and the parties thereto, 
 being advised that I am not bound, and that the de- 
 fendants have no right to call upon me to state the 
 same, and being also advised that the first interro- 
 gatory itself is immaterial and irrelevant and merely 
 fishing, and is otherwise objectionable in point of law ; 
 and I humbly submit that I am not bound to make 
 any fm'ther answer thereto. I had not, nor, to my 
 knowledge or belief, had any former owner of the 
 lands, or any of them, or any other person at any 
 time in his or their possession or control, any deed or 
 deeds, writing or writings, relating to such lands or 
 any of them, other than those Avhich are now in my 
 possession, power, or control as aforesaid ; and no per- 
 son has now, to my knowledge and belief, the posses- 
 sion or control of any deed or deeds, writing or writ- 
 ings, relating to such lands or any of them saving 
 myself, who have such possession or control as afore- 
 said. I say that such deeds and writings so in my 
 possession, power, custody and control, as aforesaid, 
 are title-deeds, and evidences of my title to the lands, 
 and that they do not, nor do any, nor does either of 
 them, give to the defendants, or any of them, or show 
 in them, or any of them, any title to the lands or any of 
 them, or any part thereof, or furnish evidence of any
 
 22 AN EXPOSITION, ETC 
 
 title or right of tlie defendants, or any or either of 
 them, to the said lands or any part thereof, bnt the 
 same relate exclusively to my own case in the action, 
 and constitute my title to the lands and all the evidence 
 thereof. I further say that my title to the lands was 
 derived under persons who were purchasers of the 
 lands for valuable consideration actually paid, and who 
 had not, to the best of my belief, notice of the alleged 
 or any title or right of the defendants, or any or either 
 of them, or of any person or persons through whom 
 they, or any of them, claim or allege to claim." After 
 an elaborate argument the rule was discharged, the 
 learned barons delivering their judgments seriatim. 
 Pollock, C.B., Bramwell and Watson, B.B., deciding 
 on the gi'ound that, " The denial of the person inter- 
 rogated that he had in his possession, custody, or con- 
 trol, any deeds or documents which would have a 
 . tendency to prove the case of tlie party calling for 
 them was conclusive, and that he was the person to 
 judge, whether or not the deeds or documents had 
 such tendency." The judgments are too long to be 
 inserted here, but they will be found to be veiy in- 
 structive. Baron Martin's judgment was based on the 
 ground that the defendants never had a right to put 
 the questions at all ; and as his lordship founds his 
 opinion on the rule laid down by coiu'ts of equity, and 
 thoroughly adopts the views that the section has re- 
 ference to bills in equity, his judgment will be 
 given here. It is as follows : " I am of opinion that 
 the rule ought to be discharged : and that opinion is
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 23 
 
 founded upon tliis ; that I am fully satisfied the de- 
 fendants have no right to put a single question they 
 have put to the plaintiff that is contained in the inter- 
 rogatories, and that those interroo'atories oueht to be 
 disallowed. If they had been discussed in equity, I 
 have no doubt that on a deniiu'rer they would have been 
 held to have been wholly inadmissible. I am certainly 
 of opinion that, if the question was put which I think 
 might have been put, the answer given to it in the 
 answers of the plaintiff would have l5een evasive, and 
 would not have answered it properly. But, really the 
 question is not put ; and the questions which are put 
 are questions which, in my judgment, could not legally 
 be put at all. Now the question in this case turns upon 
 this : The defendants in answer to an action of tres- 
 pass, insist that they are entitlecl to the minerals below 
 certain land, the siu'face of which is admitted to belong 
 to the plaintiff. That is the defence to an action of 
 trespass brought by the plaintiff against them. They 
 say, fm'ther, that their title is derived from a person 
 named Parkes ; and for the purpose of this case they 
 sought to ask whether there are any documents in the 
 possession of the plaintiff which would be evidence to 
 show that they (the defendants) are entitled to these 
 minerals. According to the authorities which have 
 been cited to-day from IVIr. Wigram's book, and from 
 other boolvs which have been mentioned by the learned 
 counsel, it appears that they have a right to interro- 
 gate the plaintiff, wdiether, in the title-deeds which are 
 in his possession, as belonging to him, there is any-
 
 24 AN EXPOSITION, ETC 
 
 thing to afford evidence that these minerals belong to 
 the defendants. As far as I can collect from Mr. 
 Wigram's book, title-deeds stand on the same footing 
 as other documents ; and the question which I appre- 
 hend the defendants would have a right to 2:)ut would 
 be this : ' Is there anything in the title-deeds wliich 
 you hold with regard to the surface of this land, which 
 shows that the minerals do not belong to you but that 
 they belong to us, the defendants 1 ' I apprehend 
 that the plaintiff* would have been bound to answer 
 that question directly, and that he would have been 
 bound to give a plain and direct answer to it. But^ 
 if he does give a plain and direct answer to it, and 
 says, ' I am in possession of title-deeds relating to this 
 land, and I swear that there is not contained in those 
 title-deeds anything which shows or which has a ten- 
 dency to show that the defendant has a title to those 
 minerals,' then, upon the authorities cited by the 
 counsel for the plaintiff, and especially on the autho- 
 rity of Reynelly. Sprye, 1 De Gex, M. & G., 660, s.c, 
 21 L.J., 633 Chanc, where, although it appeared 
 that the answers were false, yet Lord Justice Knight 
 Bruce would not depart from the settled practice of 
 equity, but acted on the answers as final, leaving the 
 opposite party to seek such redress as he thought ad- 
 visable — it seems to me to put an end to the matter- 
 It appears to me that what the plaintiff has done in 
 this ease is, that he has rather evasively answered the 
 question, supposing the question to have been put; 
 but, in point of fact, he never is asked the question.
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 25 
 
 The three interrogatories are only general questions 
 respecting ' deeds in your hands relating to the lands,' 
 and the question which should have been put never is 
 put, and, therefore it is impossible to say that the 
 plaintiff has answered evasively a question which has 
 never been put to him at all. I do not mean to say 
 that there is not any other question that might have 
 been put to him. ' Is the date of the conveyance from 
 Parkes under which you claim, anterior to the date of 
 the deed vmder Avhich the defendants claim T That 
 is a question which, if it had been put, the plaintiff 
 would have been bound to answer. At present I am 
 not aware of any other question you could put besides 
 those two, and upon the ground that in my judgment 
 the questions which have been put by the defendants 
 to the plaintiff are questions which could not legally 
 be put, but which Avould have been subject to a de- 
 muiTer, I think that this rule ought to be discharged. 
 I own it appears to me that the proper course is to re- 
 quire parties to pvit their questions directly, so as to 
 compel the other parties to answer them clearly and 
 precisely ; Avhen that is done we know what we are 
 about." 
 
 We now come to the case of Bartlett v. Lewis, 12 
 C.B. N.S., 249, 31 L.J., 230 C.P. After reading the 
 decisions on the subject which have gone before it, 
 this case, at first sight, certainly takes one rather 
 by surprise, not so much on account of the point 
 actually decided in it, as on account of the opinions 
 expressed by Erie, C.J., and Willes, J., in the course
 
 26 AN EXPOSITION, ETC. 
 
 of their judgments. Further comment had, however, 
 be better reserved until we have reviewed the whole 
 of the authorities on the subject. The action was 
 brought to recover the amount due upon twelve bills 
 of exchange accepted by the defendant and endorsed 
 to the plaintiff. The defendant pleaded a discharge 
 under the Bankruptcy Act, and payment, upon which 
 pleas issue was joined. The application was on the 
 part of the plaintiff, and was accompanied by an affi- 
 davit of the plaintiff that the defendant had been in- 
 solvent in 1849 ; that in the month of January, 1853, 
 he Avas adjudicated a bankrupt on his own petition, 
 which banla'uptcy was afterwards annulled ; and that 
 he was again adjudicated bankrupt in June of the 
 same year, and in February, 1856, obtained a third- 
 class certificate. The affidavit also stated particulars 
 which went to show that shortly after his second 
 bankruptcy the defendant was in possession of a very 
 large sum of money. It was admitted on the appli- 
 cation for the rule that the plaintiff intended to dis- 
 pute the validity of the defendant's discharge under 
 the 12 & 13 Vic. c. 106, s. 201, Avhich renders the 
 discharge void if the bankrupt shall have concealed 
 any portion of his property. This is also felony under 
 section 251. The interrogatories, the object of which 
 was to show that the defendant had large sums of 
 money in his possession shortly after his second bank- 
 ruptcy, were as follows : 
 
 1. When, after yom' bankruptcy in 1855, did you
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 27 
 
 enter into or resume business ? What was the busi- 
 ness, and where did you carry it on ? 
 
 2. Did you not immediately, or soon after, obtaining 
 your certificate, and, if so, when, open or re-open an 
 account at Messrs. Eogers's bank, Clement's-lane, Lom- 
 bard-street, in the city of London ? Did you not then 
 lodge a considerable sum to your credit? Did you 
 deposit any and what security? State the date of 
 opening such account, and of the first deposit of money 
 and security. State the amount of the first deposit. 
 Were not other large sums of money or secimties 
 lodged to your credit in the said bank within the en- 
 suing three months ? State the entire amount of the 
 deposits or lodgements so made. 
 
 3. Did you soon after obtaining your certificate 
 open or re-open an account with the Unity Bank in 
 London? ^tate the date of opening or re-opening 
 the same, the amount of money or securities then 
 lodged to your credit, and also the gross amount of 
 the deposits or lodgements made during the ensuing 
 three months. 
 
 4. Have you not since youi' said bankruptcy opened 
 accoimts in other banks, and more particularly in 
 Messrs. Gurney and Overend's, in the Bank of Eng- 
 land, and in Messrs. Masterman & Co.'s bank ? State 
 the several banks in which you have so opened ac- 
 counts, the times at which they were opened respec- 
 tively, and the lodgements made to your credit on the 
 opening of each.
 
 28 AN EXPOSITION, ETC. 
 
 5. Did you not, on resuming business after your 
 bankruptcy, enter on large transactions requiring the 
 command of considerable sums of money, and did you 
 not, in point of fact, a short time before your bank- 
 ruptcy, advance large sums of money in caiTjdng on 
 your business I State the amount advanced by you 
 within six months after you obtained your certificate 
 in the said bankruptcy. 
 
 6. Wliat capital were you possessed of on so enter- 
 ing business after your bankruptcy ? 
 
 7. Did you not soon after your bankruptcy advance 
 a large sum of money on the bonds or other secuiities 
 of the Home and Frascati Railway ? When was such 
 advance made, and what was the amount ? AVas all 
 or any portion of this advance your omu money ? 
 
 8. Did you not at or about the same time pay to 
 the Swiss Bank a sum of £10,000, or some other sum, 
 to guarantee the said raih\ay securities or for some 
 other purpose? What amount did you so pay, and 
 where ? 
 
 9. Did you not in the year 1858, or at some other 
 time after your said bankruptcy, advance large sums of 
 money to the Cork and Youghal Railway Company ? 
 What amount did you so advance, and when ? Do 
 you not hold a large amount of stock, shares, deben- 
 tures, or other securities of the said company? Did 
 you not, on or about the 30th of August, 18f)l, at a 
 meeting of the said company, state that you were the 
 principal owner of the stock of the said company ? 
 
 10. Have you not recently bought from the Duke
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 29 
 
 of Devonshire an estate for the sum of £80,000, or 
 any other and what sum ? When did you buy the 
 same, and what purchase-money has been paid ? Was 
 it not paid out of your own monies and on your o^m 
 account ? 
 
 11. Were you, within three months of obtaining 
 your certificate, in possession of a sum of £10,000, or, 
 if not, of any sum exceeding £1000 ? If not, are 
 you now in possession of same, and at what period 
 after the allowance of the said certificate were you 
 first possessed of that amount ? 
 
 12. Did you not before your bankruptcy employ 
 one William Tingay to dispose of Westminster bonds 
 on your account? State as nearly as you can the 
 amount of bonds so disposed of by the said William 
 Tingay ? Was not the said William Tingay in the 
 habit of offering the said bonds for sale by advertise- 
 ment in the Times and other papers, and was not this 
 done by yom' direction, or by your sanction and con- 
 sent ? 
 
 13. Had you not in the interval between Jmie, 
 1852, and January, 1855, extensive dealings in bills 
 of exchange with one George Hennet? State as 
 nearly as you can the amount of acceptances of 
 Hennet which passed through your hands ? 
 
 14. Did you not receive from the said George 
 Hennet acceptances to the extent of more than 
 £40,000 for which you did not pay over to liim any 
 proceeds"? Did you not pass away such bills and 
 receive large sums of money on account of the same ?
 
 30 AN EXPOSITION, ETC. 
 
 Was not a dividend afterwards paid on tliem in the 
 bankruptcy of the said George Hennet ? 
 
 15. Did not tlie assignees of the said George 
 Hennet daim against you the sum of £53,000, or what 
 other sum on account of such transactions ? Did you 
 not in the interim between your first and second bank- 
 ruj)tcy compromise sucli claim for a sum of £1800, 
 or what other sum ? 
 
 16. State as nearly as you can the actual amount 
 received by you on account of the said bills of George 
 Hennet ? 
 
 17. Was not William Tingay extensively employed 
 by you in discounting bills and in disposing of se- 
 curities ? 
 
 18. Did not the same William Tingay, after your 
 banlvruptcy, hand you over several sums of money or 
 securities for money ? State fully the particulars of 
 same. 
 
 19. Did he not especially hand over to you several 
 acceptances of ^Messrs. Rowland and Evans ? AVlien 
 were such acceptances given to you ? What was the 
 gross amount of same ? How did you dispose of such 
 acceptances, and for what value ? 
 
 20. Were you at any time known by the name of 
 David Levi, or by any, and what name different from 
 that you bear noAv ? If so, upon M'hat occasion and for 
 what purpose, and when did you assmne the name of 
 David Leopold Lewis ? What name did your father 
 bear?
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 31 
 
 21. Has either of your sisters since the date of 
 your bankruptcy lianded over to you any money, 
 securities or property of any kind ? If so, when and 
 to what amount ? State all the particulars connected 
 with the same. 
 
 22. Have you since your resmnption of business 
 after yoiu' banla'uptcy kept full and accurate books ? 
 Have you any book showing the amount of money 
 employed by you in your business on its resumption ? 
 If so where is such book ? 
 
 23. Can you state the dividend actually paid to 
 yom' creditors under your bankruptcy ? 
 
 24. Did you not soon, or at some time after your 
 bankruptcy, pay to one C Bailey a sum in wdiich you 
 were so indebted to him previous to such bank- 
 ruptcy, or any other sum ? When did you pay 
 him? Give^dates particularly. 
 
 25. Did not the said 0. Bailey thereupon return to 
 you the secm'ities wliich he so held ? What was the 
 value of the secuiities so returned? How did you 
 dispose of same, and when, and for what amount ? 
 
 26. Did you soon, or at any time after your bank- 
 ruptcy, pay to John Pickersgill, or Messrs. Pickersgill 
 and Co., any and wdiat sum of money on account of 
 a debt due by you to him, or did you make any 
 arrangements with him relative to such debt ? Did he 
 give up to you any securities held by or deposited with 
 him ? State fully all the particulars of such papnent 
 or arrangement, and the date of same. State also the
 
 32 AN EXPOSITION, ETC 
 
 several securities handed over to you by liim ; the 
 vakie of same, and how and when and for what amount 
 you disposed of same. 
 
 27. Did you at any time say to one G. Burge, or 
 to any one else, that your sister lent you a sum of 
 £20,000, or any other sum ? If so, was that state- 
 ment true ? 
 
 28. Had you, previous to your bankruptcy, any deal- 
 ings with a German Jew named Krewiller, residing 
 in Red Lion-square, Holborn, or elsewhere? Did 
 you obtain from him any watches or other goods, and 
 if so to what amount? 
 
 29. Did you use or employ any other name in 
 carrying out this transaction ? If so, under what 
 name did you carry out the same? State fully all 
 particulars connected with such transaction. 
 
 The ground of objection to these interrogatories 
 was, that they tended directly to charge the defendant 
 with a criminal offence, but this objection was over- 
 ruled by the judges. As the case is of very great 
 importance, at first sight appearing to alter materially 
 the aspect of the whole law on the subject, the judg- 
 ments will be here given in full. Erie, C.J., in the 
 course of his judgment, said : " The interrogatories 
 proposed to be delivered bear directly upon the matter 
 in issue, and the 51st section decidedly authorizes the 
 questions to be put. The spirit of the enactment is to 
 enable the party interrogating to get at the truth, and 
 to prevent a failure of justice from its undue conceal- 
 ment. These interrogatories bear upon what per-
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 33 
 
 haps may render the party interrogated Hable to be 
 proceeded against criminally, but though some of them 
 may he likely to lead up to it, none of them in terms asks 
 the party if he has been guilty of an indictable offence. 
 Taking the interrogatories as they stand, I do not 
 think they are rendered inadmissible by reason of any 
 statement contained therein. It is clear, and indeed 
 was almost conceded, that every one of the questions 
 might be put to the party if he were in the witness- 
 box ; and if he then chooses to swear that his answers 
 will render him liable to be criminally proceeded 
 against, he may protect himself from that dilemma 
 by declining to answer. But independently of that 
 privilege, the interests of truth and justice must be 
 allowed to prevail. I know of no principle of law 
 which should protect a man avIio has been guilty of 
 an indictable oifence from being placed in this predi- 
 cament, any more than one whose fraud and dis- 
 honesty just fall short of rendering him criminally 
 responsible. I entirely differ from the proposition 
 put forth by the counsel for the defendant, that 
 the inference which a jmy might natiu*ally be ex- 
 pected to draw from the party's refusing to answer 
 the interrogatories affords a reason why they should 
 not be permitted to be put. It is the proper pro- 
 vince of the law to bring all frauds to light ; and 
 I cannot think a man is more deserving of sympathy 
 and protection because his iniquities come up to the 
 indictable point. Nor do I infer from the language 
 of the 51st section, that it was intended that the prac- 
 
 D
 
 34 AN EXPOSITION, ETC. 
 
 tice of the coiu'ts of equity was to regulate us. It 
 provides that interrogatories may, by order of the 
 court or a judge, be deKvered as to any matter 
 upon which discovery may be sought. I think the 
 Legishiture has cautiously abstained from limiting the 
 power of administering interrogatories to cases Avhere 
 a bill for discovery will lie. The authorities, I think, 
 fully warrant us in going the length I propose to go 
 upon this occasion. Osborne v. London Dock Com- 
 pany, 10 Ex., 698, ante, p. 5, is precisely in point. 
 The application there was opposed on the ground that 
 if the plaintiff was a party to such fraudulent prac- 
 tices as those sought to be established by the answers 
 to the interrogatories, he w^ould be liable to be indicted, 
 and that the right to interrogatories under this section 
 was confined to cases where a discovery might have 
 been obtained in a court of equity." But Parke, B., 
 said : " The language of the 51st section is much 
 more extensive in its signification, and has no such 
 limitation as that contended for." The 50th section, 
 which empowers the court to order the production of 
 documents, says that it shall be done upon the affida\dt 
 of the party applying for the document, to the produc- 
 tion of which he is entitled for the purpose of dis- 
 covery or otherwise. And the 51st section says, that 
 the party may be interrogated upon any matter upon 
 which discovery may be sought. It does not say that 
 the power is limited to cases in which a bill of dis- 
 covery will lie. In Tripling v. Ward, 6 H. & N., 
 749, all that Martin, B., in delivering the judgment
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 35 
 
 of the com-t, says, is, " that without laying down any 
 general nile on the subject they think that in cases of 
 that kind it would be unjust to submit questions 
 wliich the party clearly was not bound to answer, the 
 object being either to compel him to answer when not 
 bound, or to refuse, and so create a prejudice against 
 him. What precise limitation the court meant to im- 
 pose upon the rule laid down in Osborne v. The Lon- 
 don Dock Company, I know not, but I think they did 
 not intend to overrule it. Osborne v. The London 
 Dock Company was acted upon by this com-t in 
 Chester v. Worthy, 17 C.B., 410, and I am disposed 
 to act upon it likewise. Upon the whole, I think the 
 interrogatories in question may proj^erly be delivered." 
 Willes, J. : "I am of the same opinion. It is only 
 necessary to look at the frame of the 51st section to 
 see that it was intended that this new jm'isdiction 
 should be administered in the courts of law by analogy 
 to their own proceedings, and not to the practice of 
 the com'ts of equity. The framers of the act evidently 
 did not intend that we should be fettered by the rules 
 of equity ; upon a careful consideration of its language, 
 I think the 51st section will be found expressly to ex- 
 clude the difficulties w^hicli it appears, from tlie treatise 
 on the Law of Discovery by Sir James Wigram and 
 IVIr. Hare, so frequently arose in coui'ts of equit}-, as to 
 whether an objection of this natm-e should be made on 
 demmi'er or come by way of answer. The party in- 
 teiTogated is by the very terms of the section placed in 
 the position of a witness. Now, if such questions as 
 d2
 
 3G AN EXPOSITION, ETC. 
 
 these were put to a witness, the witness, m order to 
 excuse himself from answering them, must make out 
 to the satisfaction of the court that he would be in 
 peril of a criminal prosecution if he was compelled to 
 answer them. Upon this ground it appears to me, 
 that even admitting that the interrogatories are put 
 for the purpose of extracting answers which may 
 crimiifate the party, or of prejudicing him in the esti- 
 mation of the jury if he declines to answer them, they 
 ought to be allowed to be put. I must own that I have 
 no sympathy with a witness who is compelled, in order 
 to protect himself from answering, to admit that his 
 answer would tend to criminate him. This view of 
 the law was acted upon by the Coml of Exchequer, 
 in the case of Osborne v. The London Dock Com- 
 pany, 10 Ex., 698 ; and again by this court in Chester 
 V. Worthy, 17 C.B., 410. But it is said that these 
 cases have been overruled by the recent case of Tup- 
 ling V. Ward, 6 H. & N., 749. I apprehend, how- 
 ever, that this is not so. If that case proceeded upon 
 the notions that the courts of equity Avill not allow 
 disco\>ery in the case of a libel, it is not well warranted. 
 In Hare on Discovery, 116, it is said: ' It is no ob- 
 jection to a bill for discovery that the matter in ques- 
 tion might' have been the subject of an indictment or 
 information.' An action for damages having been 
 brought against the author of a libel, a bill was filed 
 for the discovery of evidence in support of a plea of 
 justification. It was objected that the bill admitted 
 the authorship of the libel, that whether true or false
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 37 
 
 it Avas an indictable offence, and the plaintiff therefore, 
 by his own showing, came to the court to protect him- 
 self against the consequences of his crime. But it was 
 held that if the plaintiff at law thought fit to treat the 
 conduct of the defendant as a civil injury only, it was 
 but just that the same course of defence should be 
 open to him which was open to other defendants in 
 civil suits. It is no objection that the action pfoceeds 
 ex delicto. No such limitation of the jurisdiction as 
 to discovery is hinted at in any book of practice, or 
 by the dictum of any judge. Courts of equity exer- 
 cise a direct jurisdiction in matters of waste and pub- 
 lic nuisance which are ex delicto. I am not, there- 
 fore, prepared to say that a court of equity will refuse 
 its ordinary aid to the parties in any action at law- pro- 
 ceeding for a civil remedy, per Sir John Leach, 
 V.C, in Ihorpe v. Macaulay, 5 Madd., 230. The 
 same principle was affirmed by Lord Eldon in 
 Macaulay v. Shakel, 1 Bligh, N.S., 96. The com! 
 could only consider it as an alleged libel, and what- 
 ever might be the character or nature of such an 
 alleged libel, the court must assist a plea of justifica- 
 tion. It was observed by Lord Eldon that in the 
 Exchequer it was the practice with underwriters, when 
 policies of insui'ance were found to be ' effected with 
 gross frauds, to bring the assured into court and com- 
 pel them to answ^er by pleading frauds which would 
 have been indictable. I entirely agree with my lord, 
 that we must proceed under this statute according to 
 our own practice, and are not to be governed by that of
 
 38 AN EXPOSITION^ ETC. 
 
 the courts of equity. All that Tupling v. Ward amounts 
 to is this, that under the pecuHar circumstances of the 
 case, the court did not consider it one in which the 
 interrogatories should be allowed. I think that is to 
 be treated as an exceptional case." The other judges 
 concurred. 
 
 In Bayley v. GriJJitJis, 31 L.J., 477 Ex., post, p. 45, 
 Bramwell, B., said, during the arguments : " I very 
 much doubt whether you cannot search a man's con- 
 science as to his own case," which remark, by impK- 
 cation, would tend to show that the learned baron Avas 
 disposed to doubt whether the wording of the section 
 had reference to the proceeding by bill in equity. 
 
 Blyih V. L^ Estrange, 3 F. & F., 154, was a summons 
 at chambers before Blackburn, J., who, in his deci- 
 sion, said : " As the word discovery is used, I cannot 
 disregard the decisions of courts of equity on this sub- 
 ject." 
 
 An attentive perusal of the authorities above 
 quoted will, it is thought, at once indicate what 
 course the coui'ts will follow in deciding the proper 
 meaning to be put on the words " any matter as to 
 which discovery may be sought." It will be seen 
 that in many of the cases it has been distinctly laid 
 do\^^l that the case must be one which would be 
 proper for discovery in equity ; and although this 
 proposition has been disputed on several occasions, and 
 at first sight may seem to liave been entirely disre- 
 garded in the case of Bartlett v. Lewis, ante, p. 25, it 
 is submitted that a closer examination of that case,
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 39 
 
 and of Avliat it really decided, will show that it does 
 not contravene the principle contained in the proposi- 
 tion laid down in other cases, but only decides that in 
 the exercise of the new jurisdiction under this section, 
 the courts of common law will be guided by their 
 men practice, and not by that of the courts of equity. 
 Bartlett v. Lewis, and all the other cases in which the 
 courts have refused to be guided by the rules of the 
 courts of equity, were cases where the real question 
 was, shall questions, the answers to which would have 
 a tendency to criminate the party interrogated, be en- 
 tirely disalloAved, or shall it be left to the party in- 
 terrogated to take the objection on oath when the 
 questions are put to him, and when they pinch him ? 
 Now it appears that the practice of the courts of 
 equity, in cases of this kind, is, that if it manifestly 
 appears on the face of the bill that the tendency of 
 the discovery sought would be to criminate the de- 
 fendant, the bill would be held bad on demurrer ; 
 but if something had to be alleged by the defendant 
 in order to show the vicious tendency of the questions, 
 then the defendant must take the objection on oath 
 by way of answer. On the other hand, in the com- 
 mon law courts, the question is always put, and the 
 wtness must then make out on oath, to the satisfaction 
 of the judge, that if he were to answer the question 
 he would be in danger of a criminal proceeding, so 
 that the only difference would seem to be merely one 
 of practice, and not of principle. In equity procedure, 
 the objection in extreme cases does not require to be on
 
 40 AN EXPOSITION, ETC 
 
 oath, whilst in the common law courts it must ahcays 
 be so. And in this one instance the judges have de- 
 clined to be governed by the equity practice, and 
 have almost always alloAved the questions to be put, 
 saying that the objection is premature. This, how- 
 ever, must not be taken as an absolute rule ; for 
 in the course of his judgment in Bartlett v. Lewis, 
 Erie, C.J., said : " None of these interrogatories in 
 terms asks the party if he has been guilty of an in- 
 dictable offence," thereby implying that had they done 
 so they would not have been allowed — see also Tup- 
 ling V. Ward, 30 L.J., 222 Ex. If the view of this 
 class of decisions is the correct one, then it follows 
 that in no single case has the proposition been dis- 
 puted, and that it must be considered law, that " the 
 case must be one which would be a proper subject for 
 discovery in equity." A perusal of the following 
 part of this little book will show that all the rules laid 
 down by the coau'ts are directly taken from those in 
 use m the equity courts, thus strengthening in a very 
 great degi'ee the proposition contended for.
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 4i 
 
 CHAPTEE II. 
 
 RULES AVHICH HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE COURTS 
 AS TO WHAT INTERROGATORIES MAY BE ADMINIS- 
 TERED. 
 
 The first proposition laid down by Sir J. Wigram, 
 in his book on Discovery in equity, is, that " The 
 pleadings in a cause and rules of practice, uncon- 
 nected Avith the laws of discovery, determine a j^^'iori 
 Avhat question or questions in the cause shall first 
 come on for trial. And the right of a plaintiff to dis- 
 coveiy is in all cases confined to the question or ques- 
 tions in the cause, which, according to the pleadings 
 and practice of the courts, is or are about to come 
 on for trial." — Wigram 07i Discovery, p. 17, 2nd ed. 
 This proposition has been adopted by the courts of 
 common law vmder the form, that the interrogatories 
 sought to be administered under the 51st section must 
 be relevant to the matter in dispute, and the learning
 
 42 AN EXPOSITION, ETC 
 
 contained in that chapter of the work above men- 
 tioned which discusses that proposition, will be found 
 of great assistance in considering this branch of the 
 subject. In the first case which was decided on the 
 section, Martin v. Fleming, 10 Exch., 478, 24 L. J., 3 
 Ex., Parke, B., said : " We must be satisfied of the 
 relevancy of the interrogatories," and since then the 
 rule has never been doubted. It will be found to 
 have been acted upon in Rohson v. Cooke, 2 H. & N., 
 766; Adams v. Lloyd, 3 H, & N., 351; and Zycli- 
 linshi V. MaWby, 10 C.B., 839. The soundness of the 
 rule is so apparent that it seems scarcely necessary to 
 discuss it further. 
 
 The object of the enactment is clearly to enable the 
 court to come to a correct decision on matters in dis- 
 pute between the parties to the action, and "the 
 right" (says Sir J. Wigram, p. 25) "is limited by the 
 purpose with reference to which alone it is conferred, 
 and will not extend beyond the exigencies of the 
 question or questions about to be tried. To deter- 
 mine what such question or questions may be, the 
 ordinary rules of practice (unconnected with the laws 
 of discovery) must- be separately consulted. If an 
 issue or issues of fact be raised by the defence (as by 
 plea), the point to which the attention of the pleader 
 will then be directed must be — what question or 
 questions in the cause will first come on for trial — for 
 to such question or questions alone will the object of 
 the court in compelling discovery apply." 
 
 Sir J. Wigram's second and third propositions will
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 43 
 
 also be found to have been adopted by the courts of 
 common law as the foundation for the rules -svhich 
 they have laid down for regulating the interrogatories 
 which may be administered under this act. These pro- 
 positions are : 
 
 2. ^^ It is the right, as a general rule, of a plaintiff in 
 equity to exact from the defendant a discovery upon 
 oath as to all matters of fact, A\hich being well pleaded 
 in the bill, are material to the plaintiff's case about to 
 come on for trial, and which the defendant does not, 
 by his form of pleading, admit." 
 
 3. " The right of a plaintiff in equity to the benefit 
 of the defendant's oath is limited to a discovery of 
 such material facts as relate to the ^ijlaintiff^s case,' 
 and does not extend to a discovery of the manner in 
 which the ' defendant'' s case ' is to be exclusively estab- 
 lished, or to tlie evidence which relates exclusively to 
 his case." — Wigram on Discovery, p. 15, 2nd ed. 
 
 In Whateley v. Craivford, 25 L.J., 163 Q.B., ante, 
 p. 7, Lord Campbell lays down the rule that if the 
 case falls mthin the statute the judges are bound to 
 grant the application, thus adopting the first part of 
 Su' J. AVigi'am's second proposition, which alleges that 
 it is " the right of a plaintiff" &c. 
 
 By far the most important rule which can be laid 
 doAvn on this subject will be found in Lord Campbell's 
 judgment in Careiv v. Davis, 5 E. & B., 709, ante, p. 
 7, in the following words : " Whatever advances the 
 plaintiff's case may be inquired into, though it may at 
 the same time brinff out matter which the defendant
 
 44 AN EXPOSITION, ETC 
 
 relies upon for his defence ; but you shall not inquu'e 
 into what is exclusively matter of defence ; that which 
 is common to both the plaintiff and the defendant 
 may be inquired into by either ;" and Wightman, 
 J., in his judgment in the same case, states the rule 
 to be : " That the plaintiff is entitled to ask questions 
 the answers to which will advance his own case, but 
 not questions the effect or tendency of which would be 
 to elicit answers relating exclusively to the case to be 
 set up on the other side." 
 
 In Moor v. Roberts, 2Q L.J., 246 C.P., Cockburn, 
 C.J., in his judgment, says : " We shall find the object 
 of the act to be this, that when either party to an action 
 has a specific case which he desires to set up, but the 
 materials formaking it out are not in his possession, but 
 in that of the other side, he should have a right to in- 
 terrogate his adversaiy in order to establish his own 
 case ; but he is not entitled to find out how his oppo- 
 nent is going to shape his case, or to see whether there 
 be any defects in it." The other judges concurred, 
 and Williams, J., said : " The endeavour of the de- 
 fendant is to discover what evidence is intended to be 
 relied on upon the other side. If that were allowed, 
 it would only increase the expense, and make the 
 action more harassing." 
 
 This rule, as laid down in the judgments above 
 quoted, will be found to be supported by the cases of 
 Tliol V. Leashe, 10 Exch., 704 ; Horton v. Batt, 2 H. 
 & K, 351, 26 L.J., 267 Ex. ; Adams v. Lloxjd, 3 H. 
 & N., 351, 27 L.J., 499 Ex. ; The London Gaslight
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 45 
 
 Company v. Chelsea Vestry, 28 L.J., 275 C.P. ; and 
 Bayley v. Griffiths, 31 L.J., 477 Ex. In the last 
 case it was decided that, " if the interrogatories relate 
 to the case of the party interrogating, as well as to 
 that of the party interrogated, they must be answered, 
 although the answers may discover that latter's case." 
 See also Goodman v. Harvey, 3 N.R., 512, where this 
 doctrine is affirmed; but this proposition, it will at 
 once be seen, is contained in the rule as laid down in 
 the earlier cases. In Bayley v. Griffiths will be found 
 the only instance in which any doubt has been thrown 
 on the soundness of the rule now mider consideration. 
 Bramwell, B., during the argument, said : " I very 
 much doubt whether you cannot search a man's con- 
 science as to his own case." But as his lordship gave 
 no reasons for this view, and as he has expressed him- 
 self on several X)Ccasions as holdingthe opposite opinion, 
 it is submitted that the observation cannot be treated 
 as of any weight when opposed to the large amount of 
 authority which has been quoted. From what has 
 been said it is at once evident that the rule which is 
 now contended for is identical with the third proposi- 
 tion laid down in Wigram on Discover}', and that . 
 book having been much referred to in all the discus- 
 sions which have arisen under this section, great 
 respect, moreover, being due to the opinion of the 
 learned author, it may not be thought amiss if some 
 of the reasons which he gives for this proposition arer 
 noticed here. At p. 265, in speaking of the reasons 
 for the rule, he says : " Experience has shown — or (at
 
 46 AN EXPOSITION, ETC 
 
 least) courts of justice in this countiy act upon the 
 principle — that the ])ossible mischiefs of surprise at 
 a trial are more than counterbalanced by the danger 
 of perjury which must inevitably be incurred where 
 either party is permitted, before a trial, to know the 
 precise evidence against which he has to contend ; and 
 accordingly by the settled rules of courts of justice in 
 the country (approved as well as acknowledged) each 
 party in a cause has thrown upon him the onus of 
 supporting his own case, and meeting that of his ad- 
 versary, without knowing beforehand by what evi- 
 dence the case of his adversary is to be established or 
 his own opposed." And he tiien proceeds to notice a 
 number of cases in support of his assertion and of his 
 proposition. As our business is only with the deci- 
 sions of the courts of common law, those on which he 
 founds his opinions will not be reviewed here ; but to 
 any one desiring to thoroughly understand this sub- 
 ject, a careful study of the valuable work above cited, 
 and of the authorities therein referred to, will be found 
 most instructive. 
 
 The third rule which has been laid down on several 
 occasions, and the soundness of which has never been 
 questioned, is, " that fishing interrogatories shall not 
 be allowed." The meaning of this rule is not at first 
 sight quite clear, but a very slight examination of the 
 authorities for it will show its meaning as well as its 
 reasonableness. In Moor v. Boherts, 26 L.J., 247 
 C.P. ; 2 C.B., 671, Cresswell, J., said that, " Interroga- 
 tories of a fishing kind, proposed for the purpose of
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 47 
 
 enabling the defendant to set np some defence," were 
 inadmissible ; fromAvlnch it Avould seem that the mean- 
 ing of the ride is, that the inquiry must be directed to 
 some particular state of fact whicli is Avithin the 
 knowledge of the party to be interrogated, and must 
 not be a mere attempt to find out by a variety of 
 searching questions if there may by chance exist some 
 ch'cumstances of which the party making the applica- 
 tion may take advantage to support his case. When 
 the ajjplication is not made until after issue has been 
 joined, the court or judge can see enough of the case 
 to be able to decide whether or not the questions are 
 tainted with this fault ; but if the application is made 
 on the part of the plaintiff before declaration, or by 
 the defendant before plea, it must be supported by a 
 special affidavit showing some ground for supposing 
 that the answers to the interrogatories are likely to 
 advance the case of the party making the application. 
 In further explanation of this, see Jones v. Hargreave, 
 29 L.J., 368 Ex. ; Atter v. Willlson, 7 W.E., 265 ; 
 Stern v. Sevastopulo, 2 N.R., 329 ; and Hustle}' v. 
 Freelnnd, 2 N.R., 396. 
 
 The f om'th rule which has been laid down for regu- 
 latintT interroo-atories was first stated as follows : " It 
 is no objection to interrogatories that the answers to 
 them would tend to criminate the person interrogated, 
 that objection must be taken by the person himself on 
 oath when the interrogatories are put." This rule 
 was laid down in these terms in Oshorne v. London 
 Dock Company/, 24 L.J., 140 Ex. ; 10 Exch., 698 ; it
 
 48 AN EXPOSITION, ETC. 
 
 was affirmed in Chester v. Worthy, 25 L.J., 117 C.P. ; 
 17 C.B., 410, and remained undisputed until it came 
 before the court in the case of Tupling y. Ward, 30 
 L.J., 222 Ex. ]\Iartin, B., in dehvering the judg- 
 ment of the court in that case, said : " This action Avas 
 for a libel contained in a book called ' The Diary of 
 an Ex-Detective,' and it was alleged that there was 
 an imputation cast upon the plaintiff by the defendants, 
 in saying that he had committed some grave offence. 
 It was proposed to ask a number of questions with 
 respect to who was the author of the work, and 
 whether it had been printed in combination with him, 
 and also whether or not the defendants were not 
 guaranteed or indemnified, and a variety of other 
 questions of that sort. We are all of opinion that in 
 the exercise of the authority and discretion given to 
 us by the Common Law Procedure Act, such questions 
 ought not to be allowed. It was scarcely contended 
 that the defendants were bound to answer the ques- 
 tions ; but it was pressed on us that it should be put 
 to them to refuse to answer. Without laying down a 
 general rule on the subject, my brothers all thought, 
 and I quite agree, that in cases of this kind it would 
 not be fair to submit to the defendants questions which 
 they are clearly not hound to answer at all ; the object 
 being to put them to answer the questions which they 
 are not bound to answer or to refuse to answer, and 
 so create a prejudice against them. We, therefore, 
 think, without laying down any general rule on the 
 subject, that in the exercise of that discretion which
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 49 
 
 the statute gives us, we should not permit these inter- 
 roofatories to be asked." This question was again 
 very fully discussed m Bartlettx. Lewis, 31 L.J., 230 
 C.P., wliicli case Avill be found noticed, and the in- 
 terrogatories, which were the subject of the argu- 
 ment, given in full in an earlier part of this work, 
 ante, p. 26 ; that case was decided on the authority of 
 Osborne v. London Dock Company, ante, p. 5 ; but 
 in the com'se of his judgment, Erie, C.J., said: "No 
 one of these questions directly charges the defendant 
 Avith having committed an indictable offence," pro- 
 bably implying that had any one done so it would 
 not have been allowed, and coupling this remark 
 with the case of Tupling v. Ward, ante, p. 48, it 
 would seem that the rule, as laid down in Osborne v. 
 London Lock Compani/, must be somewhat modified 
 by adding to it a condition that the questions shall 
 not be such that the answers to them must tend to 
 criminate the person interrogated. 
 
 We find, then, that all questions which can be 
 legally put must conform to f om' general rules : 
 
 1. Interrogatories must be relevant to the matter in 
 issue. 
 
 2. Interrogatories must be confined to matters which 
 relate to the case of the party seeking to administer 
 them, and must not extend to matterswhichj:aUte 
 exclu sively to the case of the opposite pa rty ; but they 
 may inquire iiito__nn y matters whicb are common to 
 the cases of both the contending parties. 
 
 E
 
 50 AN EXPOSITION, ETC 
 
 3. Interrogatories must have reference to some 
 state of circumstances wliich the j)ai*ty making the 
 application has good ground for beKe\dng to exist, 
 and must not be put for the purpose of fishing out 
 information to enable the party to make out some 
 case. 
 
 4. Interrogatories may be administered, the answers 
 to which mm/ have a tendency to criminate the per- 
 son interrogated, and he must take the objection on 
 oath when the interrogatories are put to him ; but it 
 would seem that if the tendency of the answers must 
 be to criminate him, the interrogatories are not ad- 
 missible. 
 
 In addition to these general rules, which we have 
 deduced from all the decisions on the subject, various 
 points have been from time to time decided in indi- 
 vidual cases, which \^dll be found useful to a complete 
 understanding of the law by which this branch of 
 practice is governed, and which must, consequently, 
 be examined here. 
 
 1. In Flitcroft v. Fletcher, 25 L.J., 94 Ex., it was 
 decided that interrogatories may be administered to the 
 plaintiff in an action of ejectment, the object of which 
 is to discover the character in wliich he claims, and 
 the pedigree upon which he relies. See post, Appendix, 
 p. 98, where the interrogatories lohich were allowed will 
 he found given in full. The actual authority of this 
 case, as far as it goes, has never been disputed, but 
 the courts have carefully avoided carrying the doc-
 
 INTEKROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 51 
 
 trine contained in it furtlier tliau it is carried by 
 the decision itself ; in Horton v. Bott, 2 H. &, N., 
 249 ; 29 L.J., 267 Ex., it was decided that inter- 
 rogatories corresponding with those in Flitcroft v. 
 Fletcher, coidd not be administered to the defen- 
 dant in an action of ejectment; and in Stoate v. 
 Rew, 32 L.J., 160 C.P., the court refused to allow 
 the defendant in an action of ejectment to admi- 
 nister such questions, on the ground that he was 
 not entitled to do so without showing some special 
 cu'cnmstances by which it would appear that the de- 
 fendant was entirely ignorant on what title the plain- 
 tiff relied. 
 
 2. In The Wolverhampton New Waterworks Com- 
 pany V. Eaioksford, 28 L. J., 198 C.P. ; 5 C.B. N.S., 
 703, it was decided that interrogatories were admissible 
 which asked for the contents of a lost written docu- 
 ment, a condition being added to the order, that the 
 answers should not be used unless the parties on 
 whose behalf the application was made, laid a founda- 
 tion at the trial for giving secondary e\'idence of the 
 contents of the document by proving to the satisfac- 
 tion of the judge that it was lost. See Appendix, 
 p. 108, where the interrogatories which were allowed 
 will be fomid in full. 
 
 3. In Tetley v. Easton, 18 C.B., 643 ; 25 L.J., 293 
 C.P., it was decided that it was not ground for re- 
 fusing leave to administer interrogatories that the 
 answers would expose thu*d parties to actions. See 
 
 e2
 
 52 AN EXPOSITION, ETC 
 
 Appendix, post, p. 99, "wliere the interrogatories which 
 were allowed will be found. 
 
 4. In Moor v. Boberts, 26 L.J., 246 C.P. ; 3 C.B. 
 N.S., 671, Cresswell, J., said that interrogatories were 
 not admissible the object of which was to contradict a 
 written document.
 
 INTERROGATOKIES UNDER THE ACT. 53 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 1. WHAT AFFIDAVITS ARE NECESSARY IN SUPPORT OF 
 THE APPLICATION TO ADMINISTER INTERROGATORIES. 
 — 2. WHEN ORAL EXAMINATION OF THE PARTY IN- 
 TERROGATED WILL BE ALLOWED. 
 
 The 52nd section enacts that : " The application for 
 sucli order shall be made upon an affidavit of the party 
 proposing to interrogate, and his attorney or agent ; or 
 in the case of a body corporate, of their attorney or 
 agent; stating that the deponent or deponents believe 
 or believes that the party proposing to interrogate, 
 whether plaintiff or defendant, will derive material 
 benefit in the cause from the discovery which he 
 seeks, and that there is a good cause of action or de- 
 fence upon the merits ; and if the application be 
 made on the part of the defendant, that the discovery 
 is not sought for the purpose of delay ; provided that, 
 where it shall happen from unavoidable circumstances 
 that the plaintiff or defendant cannot join in such
 
 54 AN EXPOSITION, ETC 
 
 affidavit, the court or judge may, if tliey or lie tliink 
 fit, upon affida^dts of such circumstances, by which 
 the party is prevented from so joining therein, allow 
 and order that the interrogatories may be delivered 
 without such affidavit." 
 
 If the application be made on the part of the 
 plaintiff to deliver interrogatories either with the 
 declaration or after it, or by the defendant with the 
 plea or after it, the ordinary affidavit in accordance 
 wdth the terms of the section, will be sufficient. James 
 V. Barnes, 25 L.J., 182 C.P. ; 17. C.B., 596. For fonii 
 of affidavit, see post, Appendix, pp. 65, Q)Q. 
 
 In May v. Hawkins, 11 Exch., 210, it was argued 
 that under the wording of the section, the plaintiff 
 was not compelled to swear to the merits, but, as will 
 be readily supposed, the court held that he was as 
 much bound to do so as the defendant. When the 
 application is made by the plaintiff before declaration 
 or by the defendant before plea, a case of special 
 urgency must be made out by the affidavits, disclosing 
 enough of the applicant's case to enable the judge to 
 decide whether the interrogatories are proper to be 
 administered. Martin v. Henning, 10 Exch., 478, 
 ante, p. 42 ; Croomes v. Morrison, 5 E. & B., 984 ; 
 James v. Barnes, 17 C.B., 596. 
 
 In a recent case in the Common Pleas the court re- 
 fused to allow the defendant in an action of ejectment 
 to administer interrogatories to the plaintiff corre- 
 sponding with those in Flifxroft v. Fletcher, post, p. 
 98, unless they were supported by a special affidavit
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 55 
 
 showing that the defendant was wholly ignorant on 
 what title the plaintiff relied, Stoate v. Reiv, 32 
 L.J., 160 C.P., so that for the future the common 
 affidavit wtM not be considered sufficient when it is 
 desired to administer inteiTogatories of that kind. 
 
 The 53rd section enacts that : " In case of omission 
 without just cause, to answer sufficiently such -wTritten 
 interrogatories, it shall be lawful for the court or a 
 judge, at their or his discretion, to direct an oral 
 examination of the inteiTogated party, as to such 
 points as they or he may direct before a judge or 
 master ; and the court or judge may, by such 
 rule or order, or any subsequent rule or order, 
 command the attendance of such party or parties 
 before the person appointed to. take such exami- 
 nation, for the purpose of being orally examined 
 as aforesaid, or the production of any writings or 
 other documents to be mentioned in such rule or 
 order, and may impose therein such terms as to such 
 examination, and the costs of the application, and of 
 the proceechngs thereon and otherwise, as to such 
 com't or judge shall seem jvist." The application on 
 behalf of the party Avho complains of the insuf- 
 ficiency of the answers must be made promptly, or 
 the judges ^\ill decline to make the order for the oral 
 examination of the party whose answers are com- 
 plained of. Chester v. Wortley, 18 C.B., 239. From 
 the same case it also appears that the answers must 
 follow the questions categorically. The question. 
 What constitutes " just cause" within the meaning of
 
 56 AN EXPOSITION, ETC 
 
 this section ? will be found discussed in the cases of 
 Turk V. Si/7ie, 27 L.J., 54 Ex. ; Bendery. Zimmerman^ 
 29 L. J., 244 Ex., in the latter of which cases the court 
 said that, " considering that the answers were on the 
 whole in substance sufficient, construed in the plain 
 sense in which a jury Avould be siu'e to construe them 
 against the party interrogated, and considering there 
 was no reason to believe (but the contrary) that the 
 omission was intentional or designed to mislead or em- 
 barrass, and that any verbal amendments necessary 
 might have been more properly made on a summons at 
 chambers, they were of opinion that the order should 
 not be made." Coupling the above remarks with those 
 made by the coui't in Swift v. A\m, 26 L.J., 365 Ex., 
 it would seem that the judges are disposed to use con- 
 siderable caution in the exercise of this branch of 
 their jurisdiction. See further, as to what will be con- 
 sidered just cause, Geary v. Btuvton, 29 L.J., 280 
 Ex. It seems the application should be made first at 
 chambers. Bender v. Zimmerman, uhi supra ; Meadoios 
 V. Kirhnan, 36 L.J., 251 C.P. When a party has 
 admitted by his answers that he has certain docu- 
 ments in his possession, he is not bound to set them 
 out under the 51st section, but the opposite party 
 must make an application under section 50 for this 
 discovery. Scott v. Zygomelas, 24 L.J., 129 Q.B. 
 By far the most important questions to be considered 
 under this section are what answers will be considered 
 sufficient to questions which have a criminatory ten- 
 dency ; and what to questions which affect the title to
 
 INTERKOGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 57 
 
 real property of the person interrogated. The whole 
 subject is so elaborately discussed and explained 
 in the judgment of Pollock, C.B., in Achwis v. 
 Llo^d, 3 H. & N., 351 ; 27 L.J., 499 Ex., that it 
 has been thought advisable to quote largely from it 
 here. " I certainly," said his lordship, " have always 
 considered the interpretation of the law upon the 
 subject by the late Mr. Justice Maule to be the cor- 
 rect one : that you cannot ask either of an accused 
 party himself, or of a person not already accused, but 
 who may become the subject of criminal charge, any 
 question that has a tendency to show his guilt. This 
 is considered so sacred a principle, that the right of 
 any civil plaintiff or defendant gives way to the 
 exigency or sacredness of this rule, and however 
 important the testimony may be, however it might 
 decide the right to an estate, or to a large property, 
 all persons are agreed upon this : that if the witness 
 can satisfy the judge that the answer may have a 
 tendency to criminate him, he is not bound to answer 
 it, however large and deep an interest a suitor in 
 a civil case may have in the answer to the question. 
 Doubts certainly have arisen as to the extent to 
 which the doctrine may be carried, and whether 
 there are to be auy limits set to the protection to be 
 given to a witness. The only exception that I would 
 make would be this : that if the circumstances dis- 
 closed to the court made the judge perfectly certain 
 that the witness was trifling with the authority of the 
 court, and availed himself of a rule of law with a
 
 58 AN EXPOSITION, ETC 
 
 view to keep back the truth, ha^dng no ground what- 
 ever for the excuse he was making for not answering, 
 then it woukl be the duty of the judge to insist on 
 his answering the question. But I think it woukl be 
 very inconvenient to Lay down anything like a limit 
 to that rule, by going to the extent of saying that the 
 party questioned is bound to go so far as to satisfy 
 anybody that he could not go fiu'ther without tending 
 to disclose his guilt, because the whole mischief might 
 be done. It is impossible for anybody but the man 
 himself to know what is the danger of his answering 
 a particular question ; and it may be that his dis- 
 closing that danger may put him in the very peril 
 which it was the object of the rule of law to prevent. 
 It appears to me, therefore, that the law on this subject 
 is as it was pronounced by Mr. Justice Maule ; and 
 although in one or two cases some doubt may have 
 been expressed on the subject, I cannot learn that 
 there is any coiitrary decision. Really, one has, I 
 think, but to put the question in any shape in which 
 it can be propounded, to see that it is impossible to 
 make any human being the judge of the answer that 
 should be given to the question but the man himself. 
 It is impossible that he can have to satisfy any one 
 but the judge. But if he is to satisfy the judge, it 
 may well be that he cannot satisfy the judge without 
 at the same time satisfying everybody else in court, 
 and exposing the whole matter; but it does not 
 follow that the man must be guilty. A man may be 
 placed in such circumstances in respect of the com-
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 59 
 
 mission of a crime, that if lie were to disclose a 
 certain fact connected Avitli it, he would be instantly 
 fixed on as the guilty person, by a train of circum- 
 stances to which he could give no answer. This rule 
 of law is not always the j^rotection of guilt, it may be 
 the protection of perfect innocence. Although I 
 think it very likely that the rule was originally intro- 
 duced from very humane considerations that belong 
 to our law, and which are embodied in the maxim, 
 Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare, cases may arise in 
 which it may serve, not as a shield, but as an honest 
 protection to innocence." His lordship then, after 
 stating that he thought these rules might be applied 
 •wdth advantage to the question what interrogatories 
 may be administered with the object of finding out 
 the contents of a man's title-deeds, continues : " The 
 distinction between title-deeds and all other deeds 
 appears to me to be, in a great measure, founded 
 upon the doctrine which makes every Englishman's 
 house his castle — upon the sort of value which 
 attaches to property in land — to the distinctions 
 which the law at all times niakes between what is 
 called real property and personal property. The dis- 
 tinction, in part, may have ansen from this : that, in 
 the case of land, a man is considered as hokUng 
 as tenant under the crown — he is considered as 
 holding under a grant from tlie crown ; almost every 
 other species of property he holdsj either directly or 
 indirectly, by means of some contract. Now, it is 
 admitted on all hands, and it is almost within my
 
 60 AN EXPOSITION, ETC. 
 
 recollection, that it was tlioroughly and finally es- 
 tablished, that a man shall not refnse to answer a 
 question because his doing so may subject him to a 
 civil suit. As far as liability to a contract, or to 
 make recompense for a wrong is concerned, you have 
 no right to say, ' I Avill not answer that question, be- 
 cause if I do I shall let out that I am liable to an action.' 
 The doctrine of not accusing yourself, or not render- 
 ing yourself liable to a suit or prosecution, applies ex- 
 clusively to crime, and not at all to a civil action. There 
 was a considerable difference of opinion upon the 
 subject, but at last the law was finally settled, and 
 the broad distinction established between civil suits 
 and criminal proceedings. Well, then, to apply 
 these remarks to the question, whether a man is 
 bound to produce a title-deed — for it must be a 
 title-deed. I cannot imagine that it was ever in- 
 tended by these later acts to introduce a new rule, 
 by which a title-deed should be treated as being of 
 no more value than a bill of exchange, or should be 
 considered to be of no more importance. I do not 
 think that that was at all intended. I think that a 
 man's title-deed is still his own property, to be used 
 for his own benefit, unless it proves the case of the 
 opposite party ; and if it does not prove the case of 
 the opposite party, it is, for the purpose of the 
 inquiry, irrelevant. It may be very important to the 
 suit, and veiy relevant to the matter ; but it is iri'ele- 
 vant unless it has a tendency to prove the case of the 
 party who calls for it. If it has, he may call for it,
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 61 
 
 and, I should presume, liave so much (and, I should 
 have thouo'lit, not more than so much) as has such 
 tendency extracted. Well, then, does the recent 
 change in the law of evidence, by which, no doubt, 
 the mode of ascertaining the truth has been very 
 much enlarged, and by which justice has been done 
 more largely than formerly, give any power such as 
 that which is here sought? I think substantially it 
 comes to this : ' Have you any documents that I have 
 a right to see ? If you have, state what they are, and 
 let me know who are the parties, and so on, and then 
 I will call for them, and ask to see them more dis- 
 tinctly and more at length.' If the party who holds 
 them can say distinctly, ' I have no such documents ; 
 I will not tell you all the documents I have ; it would 
 be injurious to me ; you have no right to know the 
 penury of my iron chest ; you have no right to know 
 how little parchment I have to sustain my right to 
 the position I hold ; and you have no right to laiow 
 what other documents that do not belong to me I 
 have got into my possession, unless they belong to 
 you ; but I swear that I have no document which has 
 any tendency, either directly or indirectly, to advance 
 your case.' If a man states that, I think you cannot 
 inquire any further about it, or say, 'What docu- 
 ments have you ? who are the parties T or to inquire 
 anything about them that natui'ally accords with the 
 right of search in other cases. Suppose you want to 
 see a man's books ; he has been yoiu' partner, and is 
 in possession of the partnership books. They were
 
 62 AN EXPOSITION, ETC. 
 
 large, bulky volumes, "with a great deal of blank 
 paper in them, and he has used them for purposes of 
 his own, in a totally different business, with which 
 you had nothing to do. In such a case as that, you 
 have a right, no doubt, to call for your own books ; 
 but he has a right to seal up those parts of the books 
 which do not concern you, or to show the books to 
 you in such a manner as that you cannot get at those 
 pages with which you have nothing to do, and in 
 which you have no interest. Who is to settle that ? 
 It is always settled by the oath of the party. He 
 produces on oath the books, and is then allowed to 
 fasten them up, so that you cannot see all those parts 
 of the books which he swears have entries in them 
 relating to matters in which you have no interest, and 
 as to which you have no right to inquire." 
 
 The 54th section enacts that : " Such rule or order 
 shall have the same force and effect, and may be pro- 
 ceeded upon in like manner, as an order made under 
 the said hereinbefore mentioned act passed in the 
 first year of the reign of his late Majesty King 
 William the Fourth." See 1 Will. IV. c. 22, ss. 4 
 & 5. 
 
 By the 51st section, ante, p. 2, any party who, 
 without a just cause, omits sufficiently to answer in- 
 terrogatories, is deemed to have committed a con- 
 tempt of court, and is liable to be proceeded against 
 accordingly, and the object of this section is merely 
 to make the process more rapid and easy. It seems 
 that the courts will exercise a considerable amount of
 
 INTERROGATORIES UNDER THE ACT. 63 
 
 caution in gi'anting rules for attachment. In Von Hoff 
 V. Hoerster, 27 L.J., 299 Ex., the rule was refused 
 when the party against whom the attachment was 
 sought, was a foreigner and resident abroad; and 
 Pollock, C.B., said : " That the words must be con- 
 strued reasonably, and did not apply where the party 
 had not been guilty of neglect." 
 
 In Curran v. Elphinstone, 4 W.K., the coui*t refused 
 the rule when the party interrogated had not answered 
 the interrogatories within the time allowed, but had 
 done so before the application for the rule.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Common affidavit in support of application on the 
 part of the plaintiff to administer interrogatories 
 to the defendant, with the declaration or after it. 
 
 In the Q.B., C.R, or Ex. 
 
 Between A. B., plaintiff, and C. D., defendant. We, 
 A. B., of , the above-named plaintiff, and 
 
 E. F., of , attorney (or agent) in this 
 
 cause of the said plaintiff, severally make oath and 
 say as follows : 
 
 1. This action is brought to recover £ 
 {State briefly the nature of the cause of action.) 
 
 2. We believe that the plaintiff will receive mate- 
 rial benefit in this action from the discovery which 
 he seeks by the interrogatories desired to be adminis- 
 tered herein. 
 
 3. We believe that the plaintiff has a good cause 
 of action on the merits sworn, &c.
 
 66 APPENDIX. 
 
 Common affidavit in support of application on tlie 
 part of the defendant to administer interrogato- 
 ries to the plaintiff with the plea, or after it. 
 
 Commence as in the preceding form. 
 
 1. We believe that the defendant will derive ma- 
 terial benefit in this action from the discovery which 
 he seeks by the interrogatories desired to be adminis- 
 tered herein. 
 
 2. We believe that there is good defence to this 
 action on the merits. 
 
 3. The discovery sought by the said interrogatories 
 is not sought for the purpose of delay. 
 
 Commencement and conclusion of interrogatories to 
 be answered by plaintiff, or defendant. 
 
 In the Q.B., C.P., or Exch. of Pleas. 
 
 Between A. B., plaintiff, and C. D., defendant. 
 
 InteiTogatories to be answered by the plaintiff (or 
 
 defendant) by affidavit in writing, to be sworn 
 
 and filed in the ordinary way, pursuant to the 
 
 order of the Honourable Mr. Justice (or Baron) 
 
 , made herein, dated 
 
 (Here follow the interrogatories, each being in a sepa- 
 rate paragraph, and numbered.) 
 
 (^Conclude tvith the folloioing notice:) The plaintiff 
 (or defendant) is within ten days to answer the above 
 interrogatories by affidavit in writing, to be sworn
 
 APPENDIX. &7 
 
 and filed in the ordinary way, pursuant to tlie statute 
 in that behalf. 
 
 Dated, 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
 E. F. plaintiff's (or defendant's) 
 attorney (or agent). 
 
 To the above-named plaintiff (or defendant), and Mr. 
 , his attorney (or agent). 
 
 Interrogatories to plaintiff in an action by indorsee 
 against acceptor of a bill of exchange. 
 
 1. When did you first become the indorsee of the 
 bill of exchange declared on in this action ? 
 
 2. Was A. B. the holder of the said bill at the time 
 when it was indorsed to you, and did you take it from 
 him I If not, who was the holder from whom you 
 took the said bill ? 
 
 3. What, if any, was the value or consideration 
 for which the said bill was indorsed to you; and 
 what were the circumstances under which, and the 
 reason why, it was indorsed to you ? 
 
 4. What, if any, was the value or consideration for 
 which you held the said bill at the commencement of 
 this suit ? 
 
 5. Before, or at the time when the said bill was in- 
 dorsed to you, did you know, or had you notice of, 
 or had you any, and what reason to suppose or be- 
 lieve any, and which of the following matters, that is 
 
 f2
 
 68 APPENDIX. 
 
 to say: 1. That the defendant accepted the said bill 
 for A. B.'s accommodation. 2. That there was no 
 consideration or value for the said acceptance. 3. 
 That A. B. never was a holder of the said bill for 
 value. 4. That the defendant had revoked A. B.'s 
 authority to negotiate the said bill. 5. That A. B. 
 had been requested to return the said bill to the de- 
 fendant. 6. That A. B. negotiated the said bill with- 
 out the defendant's authority or consent. 7. That 
 A. B. had promised the defendant that he would re- 
 tuni the said bill to the defendant. 
 
 6. Did you commence, and do you prosecute this 
 suit for your own sole benefit, or for the benefit, in 
 whole or in part, of any other person, and whom? 
 and if you answer that in any respect you sue for the 
 benefit of any other person than yom-self, what is the 
 interest which such person has in the said bill or in 
 this action? 
 
 7. Did you commence this action at your own cost 
 and risk, or in whole, or in part, at the cost and risk of 
 some other, and what person ? and if you answer that 
 you did so in any respect at the cost and risk of any 
 other person than yourself, how, and why, is it that 
 such person is to bear or participate in such cost or 
 risk? 
 
 8. Have you ever been, and are you now, indem- 
 nified by any, and what person, against the cost of 
 this action, or any part thereof? If yea, why did he 
 so indemnify you ? 
 
 (If you took the hill, not from A. JB., hid from some
 
 APPENDIX. 69 
 
 other holder J then, and not otherwise, cmsioer the follow- 
 ing interrogatories.) 
 
 9. Wlien did such other hohler become the holder 
 of the said bill, and from whom did he take the 
 same? 
 
 10. What, if any, was the value or consideration 
 for which the said bill was indorsed to such holder ; 
 and what were the circumstances under which, and 
 the reason why, it was indorsed to him ? 
 
 11. l\niat, if any, was the value or consideration 
 for which he held the said bill at the time when he 
 transferred it to you ? 
 
 12. Before, and at the time when it was indorsed 
 to you, did you know, or had you any and what rea- 
 son to suppose, or believe, that such other holder be- 
 fore, or at the time when he became the holder of the 
 said bill, knew or had notice of any, and which, of 
 the matters above specified in the fifth interrogatory ? 
 
 Interrogatories to plaintiff in an action by indorsee on 
 a bill of exchange, where it has been pleaded 
 that the acceptance was obtained by fraud, and 
 the bill indorsed to the plaintiff when overdue, 
 and without consideration, he having notice of 
 the fraud. 
 
 1. Are you the holder of the bill of exchange men- 
 tioned in the declaration ? 
 
 2. Were you the holder of it, and was it in your 
 possession at the time of the issuing of the writ 
 herein ?
 
 70 APPENDIX. 
 
 3. On, or al)out, what day did you first become 
 holder of the said bill ? Did you become such holder 
 before it became due ? 
 
 4. From whom did you get the said bill ? 
 
 5. Did you get it from A. B., the drawer? 
 
 6. Did he indorse it to you ? 
 
 7. When did he indorse it ? Was it before or after 
 the said bill became due ? 
 
 8. Was there any, and what, consideration or value 
 for the indorsement of the said bill to you by the 
 said A. B.? State fully and particularly what the 
 consideration or value was, and the whole of it, and 
 when it was given or made, and the parties to it, and 
 the names and addresses of all the said parties, and 
 how it was given or made, whether in cash or how 
 otherwise, and the names and addresses of all the par- 
 ties present when it was given, or when it was agreed 
 to be given, or made, to the best of youi' knowledge, 
 remembrance, information, and belief. 
 
 9. Under what circumstances did you become the 
 indorsee and holder of the said bill 1 State fully and 
 particularly those circumstances. 
 
 10. Did you know the circumstances under which 
 the defendant parted with the said bill ? 
 
 Interrogatories to defendant in an action on a bill of 
 exchange; plea, the general issue; and the defence 
 set up that the acceptance is forged. 
 1. Do you not know that about the early part of 
 
 the year 18 , P. P. was in the habit of pm'chasing
 
 APPElsDIX. 71 
 
 goods of the plaintiff iii this action, for the purposes 
 of his trade ? 
 
 2. Do you not know that shortly before the month 
 of July, 18 , the said P. P. had fallen behind in his 
 payments for certain goods sold to him by the plaintiff, 
 and that about that time the plaintiff refused to supply 
 him with any more goods ? 
 
 3. Did not the said P. P. about the month of July, 
 18 , apply to you to become security for him for the 
 pa^anent of the price of such goods ? 
 
 4. Did you not about the time in the third interro- 
 gatory mentioned, consent to the said P. P.'s di'awing 
 bills upon you to be mdorsed by the said P. P. to the 
 plaintiff as a secmity for the price of goods to be de- 
 hvered by the plaintiff to the said P. P. ? 
 
 5. Have you at any time since the month of 
 July, 18 , accepted bills drawn on you by the said 
 P. P. ? If yea, what number of bills have been so ac- 
 cepted by you, and when were they so accepted ? 
 
 6. Have you ever authorized any person to accept 
 in your name bills drawn upon you by the said P. P.? 
 
 7. Did you not, either by yourself or by yoiu' agent, 
 accept the bill mentioned in the first count of the de- 
 claration for £ , and dated the day of 
 
 ,18 , drawn upon you by the said P. P.? 
 
 8. Have you not from time to time since the month 
 of July, 18 , received notice from the plaintiff of 
 the dishonour of certain bills drawn by the said P. P. 
 upon you and accepted by you ? 
 
 9. Did you not in the beginning of the month of
 
 72 APPENDIX. 
 
 March, 18 , receive notice from the phiintiff of the 
 dishonour of the bill mentioned in the declaration'? 
 Did you not on the day of March, 18 , or 
 
 some other, and what day, in ans\Yer to a letter 
 received by you from the plaintiff containing notice 
 of dishonour of the bill in the said first count men- 
 tioned, ^\Tite and send to the plaintiff a letter of 
 which the following is a copy ? 
 
 March ,18 . 
 Sir, 
 In answer to your letter received yesterday, I beg 
 to state that I am very sorry to find that the bill has 
 been dishonoured. I am aware that my friend, P. P., 
 is rather hard up for cash at present, as he cannot get 
 his money from his customers, being next week their 
 rent-day. I sincerely hope you will wait for a month 
 for the balance due. Will you be so kind as to send 
 tea as usual to P. P., and I will sign another bill for 
 the same. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 To jMi'. . J. O. 
 
 10. Did you not, on the day of March, 18 , 
 
 or some other, and what day, \ATite and send to the 
 plaintiff a letter, of which the following is a copy ? 
 
 March, ,18 . 
 Sir, 
 If the tea is sent as usual, you may depend that the 
 bill will be cashed when due. P. P. desires me to ask
 
 APPENDIX. 73 
 
 you to send him good tea ; the balance will be settled, 
 that is, if you will be kind enough to wait for a 
 month hence. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 To Ml'. . J. O. 
 
 11. Was there, or is there, or were there, or are 
 there, any document or documents relating to the 
 acceptance by you of any bills drawn on you by the 
 said P. P. since the month of July, 18 , and if 
 yea, state what such document, or documents, is, or 
 are, and whether it, or they, are in your power, 
 custody, or control ; and if you ever had the posses- 
 sion of the same, when did you have it, and to whom, 
 if at all, did you part with such possession, and wlien ? 
 
 12. Have you had any communications with the 
 said P. P. since the commencement of this action, 
 and Avhat were they ? 
 
 Interrogatories to plaintiff in an action on promissory 
 note : 
 
 1. Is it, or is it not, a fact that before the indorse- 
 ment to you of the notes declared on, or one and 
 which of them, you kncAv, or had been informed, that 
 the said notes or one of them, had been paid or satis- 
 fled in whole, or in part; and if in part only, how 
 much according to such your knowledge or informa- 
 tion, has been paid, or satisfied ? 
 
 2. Is it, or is it not, the fact that there was no con- 
 sideration or value for the indorsement of the said
 
 74 APPENDIX. 
 
 notes to you respectively in whole, or in part only, 
 and if in part only, for liow much was there no con- 
 sideration ? 
 
 3. When were the said notes respectively indorsed 
 to you 1 
 
 4. Is it, or is it not, the fact that before the indorse- 
 ment to you of the said notes, or of one, and of which 
 of them, you knew, or had been informed, that the de- 
 fendants, C. and F., w^ere only sureties on the notes, 
 or on one, and onwdiich of them, for the defendant S., 
 and that the payees of the notes were trustees for a 
 money-club, and that the club or the said payees had 
 given time to S. for payment of the money secured 
 by the notes, or of some, and what part thereof ? 
 
 5. Is it, or is it not, the fact that you sue for the 
 benefit of the payees of the notes, or for that of a 
 money-club ? 
 
 6. Is it, or is it not, the fact that the notes were in- 
 dorsed to you, because it was supposed that you would 
 have a better chance of recovering, or would have a 
 chance of recovering more in the action, than the 
 payees of the notes would have had if they had 
 sued ? 
 
 7. Is it, or is it not, the fact that before the indorse- 
 ment to you of the said notes, or of one, and of which of 
 them, you knew, or had been informed that there was 
 some objection to suing in the names of the said 
 payees, and what was that objection which you so 
 knew, or were informed of ?
 
 APPENDIX. 75 
 
 Inten'ogatories to defendant to discover wlietlicr lie 
 entered into contract (on which the action was 
 brought) as principal or agent. {Taken from 
 Thai V. Leashe, 24 L.J., 143 Ex.) 
 
 1. Did you enter into the contract in the declara- 
 tion mentioned, as agent, or as principal ? 
 
 2. If you entered into the said contract as agent, 
 for W'hom, and In' what authority, did you enter 
 into it? 
 
 3. Are there any entries in your books which 
 show who was the principal for whom you acted in 
 entering into the said contract, or is there any entiy 
 in your contract-book to that effect ? 
 
 4. Has any money paid to you in respect of the 
 contract in the declai'ation mentioned been paid over 
 to such principal ? If yea, when, and how ? 
 
 5. Have you any entry, or entries, in your pass- 
 book, or other book, or books, which show such pay 
 ments ? 
 
 Inten'ogatories to plaintiff in an action on a guarantee. 
 
 1. At the date of the guarantee sued on in this 
 action was not C. R., who is named in the said gua- 
 rantee, indebted to you in £ , or some other, and 
 what, sum of money, and was any, and what part of the 
 debt secured, and how ? 
 
 2. Had you not, before the date of the said gua- 
 rantee, required the said C. R. to make cash pay-
 
 76 APPENDIX. 
 
 ments for goods sold by you to him, and particularly 
 in the months of , 18 ? 
 
 3. Had not the said C. R., in fact, paid you in 
 cash, less a discount of 25 per cent., for the goods 
 which you supplied to him in the months of , 
 18 , before the date of the said guarantee, and for 
 some, and which of such goods, or for the amount due 
 for such goods within a pound or two ; were not 
 such payments, or some, and which of them, made 
 because you required the said C. R. to make them, or 
 because you declined to give him credit for the said 
 goods, or some of them ? 
 
 4. Did you ever infonn the defendant, before the 
 said g\iarantee was given, of any, and of which, of the 
 facts mentioned in your answers to the above inter- 
 rogatories ? 
 
 5. Did you not, after the said guarantee was given, 
 sell and deliver goods to the said C. E. on credit, and 
 if so, on what credit, and for what terms as to time and 
 mode of papnent ? Were not the goods in respect of 
 which this action is brought, sold to him on some, and 
 on what, terms as to credit ? 
 
 6. Did you not, on or about the day of , 
 18 , take some, and what, bill of exchange from the 
 said C. E. for £ , and was not that amount due 
 from him on account of goods which he had had of 
 you in the previous months of , and at what 
 dates in those months ?
 
 APPENDIX. - 77 
 
 Interrogatories to plaintiff in action against merchants 
 for commission on sales of goods alleged to have 
 been effected by the plaintiff for the defendants, 
 to show that the plaintiff was not employed by 
 the defendants in the matter, bnt that if he acted 
 at all, he did so as the agent of the purchaser. 
 {TMh e.rample is taken from Reio v. HutcMns, 
 10 C.B., and is of great authority, as the interroga- 
 tories loere alloiced hy the full court.) 
 
 1. Ai'e you a merchant carrying on business in 
 London ? 
 
 2. Have yon occasionally, for several years past, 
 and as far back as 1852, or for what time, acted as 
 mercantile agent in London for the firm of Girona 
 Brothers, merchants, of Barcelona? 
 
 3. Li or about August, 1858, had you communi- 
 cations Avith !Mr. Scudamore, the secretary of the 
 Rhymney Iron Company, upon the subject of some 
 iron rails required by Messrs. Girona Brothers, of 
 Barcelona ? And had you a discussion, or conversa- 
 tion with him respecting the price paid by the com- 
 pany ? 
 
 4. Did you, in the course of the said communica- 
 tion, state to the said Mr. Scudamore, or give him to 
 understand, that you got two per cent, commission 
 from Girona Brothers, which would be an addition to 
 the price to be paid by Girona Brothers'? 
 
 5. Did you, on or about the 30th of August, 1858, 
 on behalf of Girona Brothers, of Barcelona, effect a
 
 78 APPENDIX. 
 
 contract with tlie Rhymney Iron Company for the 
 sale of iron rails and other articles ? 
 
 6. Were iron rails, tie bars, saddles, and rivets, 
 from time to time, and at many different times, 
 shipped and forwarded under this contract from 
 Newport and Cardiff to Girona Brothers, at Bar- 
 celona ? 
 
 7. Were there not in the whole about 12,500 tons 
 of iron at different times shipped in performance of 
 the said contract ? And did not such performance of 
 the said contract extend over nearly twelve months ? 
 
 8. In the course of the performance of the said 
 contract had you occasion at chfferent times to com- 
 municate with the Rhpnney Iron Company respect- 
 in <t their performance of the said contract ? And did 
 vou not in such communications act for and on be- 
 half of tlie said Messrs. Girona Brothers ? 
 
 9. Did you, in the course of November, 1859, have 
 an interview with Mr. Scudamore, the secretary of 
 the Rhymney Iron Company ? And had you tlien a 
 conversation mth him respecting the contract for sale 
 of the 20,000 tons of iron by the company to Girona 
 Brothers, mentioned in the particulars of demand in 
 this action? 
 
 10. Did you, upon that or any other occasion, men- 
 tion to ]Mr. Scudamore that you had heard that the 
 Rhymney Iron Company had sold 20,000 tons of iron 
 to Girona Brothers direct, and that you could hardly 
 believe it, or words to that effect ? 
 
 11. Did vou also sav to Mr. Scudamore that of
 
 APPENDIX. 79 
 
 course the company liad protected you In the way of 
 commission, or words to that effect ? And did he not 
 answer that they had not done so, or to that effect ? 
 
 12. Previously to the above-mentioned interview 
 had yoti any communication with the Rhymney Iron 
 Company (or witli any one on tlieir behalf) on the 
 subject of the sale by them of the said iron, or con- 
 tract for 20,000 tons of iron, mentioned in the parti- 
 culars of demand? 
 
 13. Beyond the 12,500 tons of iron supplied by 
 the Rhymney Iron Company to INIessrs. Girona 
 Brothers, under the contract of the 30th of August, 
 1858, as before inquired after, had you, after the date 
 of the last-mentioned contract, and before the date of 
 the contract for 20,000 tons, mentioned in the parti- 
 culars of demand, any communications with the 
 Rhymney Iron Company respecting the supply by 
 the company to Messrs. Girona Brothers of any 
 further iron ? 
 
 14. Had you any personal communications with 
 Messrs. Girona Brothers iipon the subject of the 
 contract for the purchase by them of the 20,000 tons 
 of iron from the Rhymney Iron Company, men- 
 tioned in the particulars of demand (relating to your 
 remuneration or commission upon that sale) ? Aiid, if 
 80, state when, and to what effect. 
 
 15. Had you another interview with ISh'. Scuda- 
 more on a subsequent occasion to that above refen'ed 
 to in interrogatory nine, upon the subject of the said 
 sale of 20,000 tons of iron ? And did you then say
 
 80 APPENDIX. 
 
 that jou felt quite sure tliat the company must have 
 provided for you? And did you then produce an 
 account of your claim for commission, and did Mr. 
 Scudamore then say that you must know you liad no 
 claim against the company, that Messrs. Girona had 
 come chrect to the company, and that they had done 
 so in order to save the commission which they would 
 have to pay? And did he advise you to withdraw 
 that account or claim, or to the above effect ? 
 
 16. Did you, upon the occasion last mentioned, 
 take your said account back with you ? And did you 
 afterwards adch'css a letter on the subject to the said 
 company, dated the 29th of November, 1859? 
 
 17. Has any correspondence or communication 
 passed between you and Messrs. Girona Brothers, of 
 Barcelona, or with any one on their behalf, either by 
 letter or telegrams, upon the subject of your giving 
 orders, or effecting contracts for them for the pur- 
 chase of iron, and as to the mode of remuneration to 
 you for such services (which would be applicable to 
 the relation in which you stood to them in the years 
 1858 and 1859 upon the above subjects) ? And if so, 
 state the respective dates of the same, and by, and to 
 whom, and to, or from, what places, the same were 
 sent, sufficiently to identify them. 
 
 18. Was there at any time any written contract 
 between you and the said Messrs. Girona upon the 
 subject of the last interrogatory, and extending to 
 the same period? If so, state when, and who the 
 parties to the same were, and where the same now is.
 
 APPENDIX. 81 
 
 19. Have you since the date of the contract for 
 20,000 tons of iron, mentioned in the particulars 
 of demand, given the Rhymney Iron Company 
 an order for a h\rge quantity of iron for the said 
 INIessrs. Girona Brothers ? And was not the said 
 order accepted and executed? And were you not 
 remunerated exclusively by Messrs. Girona Brothers 
 for your ser\'ices in the transaction ? And is it not 
 true that nothing was ever said by you to, nor any 
 claim made upon, the Ilh>Tnney Iron Company for 
 commission, or other remuneration ? Was it not 
 agreed, or understood, between you and Messrs. Girona 
 Brothers, that you were to receive no commission, or 
 remuneration from the parties with whom you dealt 
 on their account, and that you were to look to them, 
 ^lessrs. Girona Brothers, for your remuneration or 
 commission *? 
 
 Interrogatories to defendant in an action against an 
 agent for not accounting to his employer for 
 goods sold on his account. 
 
 1. Did you not, on or about the month of , 
 18 , or at some other, and what time, receive from 
 the plaintiff, or on his account, a cargo of , 
 by the ship , or otherwise, and how was the 
 same invoiced to you by the plaintiff ? 
 
 2. Did you not receive the said goods in the first 
 interrogatory above mentioned for the pui'pose of 
 sale on the plaintiff's account, or for some other, and 
 what, purpose ? 
 
 G
 
 82 APPENDIX. 
 
 3. Have you sold any, and what part, or parts of 
 the said goods ? If yea, on what day, or days, did you 
 sell the same, and for what sum, or sums, and what 
 are the names, and addresses of the person, or persons 
 to whom you sold the same 1 
 
 4. Have you received from those persons, or from 
 either, or any, and Avhich of them, any, and what, sums 
 as, or on account of, the price, or prices, of the said 
 goods ? If yea, when did you receive the same ? 
 
 5. If you have not sold the whole of the said goods, 
 have you otherwise, and when, and how, disposed of 
 any portion of the residue which you have not sold ? 
 
 (3. Have you any, and what, portion of the said 
 goods now in your possession, or control, unsold or 
 otherwise ? If yea, where is it ? 
 
 Interrogatories to plaintiff in an action against a 
 partner who has retired from a firm, for the 
 price of goods supplied to the firm, to discover 
 whether the goods were supplied on his credit. 
 
 1, Were not the goods, the subject-matter of this 
 action, ordered and bought of you by, and were they 
 not invoiced to the firm of , carrying on 
 business at , or to some other and what firm ? 
 
 2. Did you, at or before the dates of the orders for 
 and purchases of the goods, or any of them, know 
 who were the persons who composed the firm to whom 
 you sold the said goods ? Did you not know that the 
 defendant was not a member of it ? Did you then 
 believe liim to be a member of it, or had you not
 
 APPENDED. 83 
 
 reason to Lelievc that lie was not then a member 
 of it? 
 
 3. Did you at the time when you accejited the 
 orders for supplying the goods in question, or any of 
 them, really give any credit whatever to the defendant, 
 or to the firm to Avliom you sold the said goods, on the 
 supposition, and belief, that the defendant Avas a 
 member of such firm ? 
 
 4. Did you at any, and at what time, before the 
 orders for, and supplies of, the goods in question, make 
 any, and what, inquiries of any, and of what, person 
 or persons, as to the connexion of the defendant 
 with the firm to whom you sold the said goods ? If 
 yea, state the result of such inquiries. 
 
 Interrogatories to officer of a railway company in an 
 action against the company for the loss of a 
 passenger's luggage, to discover whether the 
 company worked the line on which the loss oc- 
 cmTed, either alone or jointly with some other 
 company. 
 
 1. Do the defendants carry, and did they not, on 
 the day of , 18 , carry for hire, 
 passengers and their luggage by railway, from 
 
 to ? 
 
 2. Do they, and did they then, do so, alone, or in 
 conjunction with any other, and with what, company, 
 or persons ? 
 
 3. Have the defendants, and had they on the 
 
 day of , 18 , a railway station at , 
 
 g2
 
 84 APPENDIX. 
 
 alone, or in conjunction with any other, and with 
 what, company, or persons ? 
 
 4. Were the defendants on, and prior to the 
 
 day of , 18 , in the habit of issuing 
 
 tickets at the station in the second interrogatory 
 mentioned, to persons applying for the same, in order 
 to enable them to travel by railway from 
 to ? 
 
 5. Did any other, and what, company, or companies, 
 or person, either, alone or in conjunction witli the 
 defendants, on that day issue tickets at that station 
 for passengers travelling by railway from 
 
 to ? 
 
 6. Did not the defendants, either alone, or in con- 
 junction with some other, and with what, company, or 
 persons, issue tickets at the station in the second in- 
 terrogatory above mentioned, to persons applying for 
 the same in order to travel by a train starting, or 
 advertised by the defendants as starting, from the said 
 station at , to arrive at at ? 
 
 Interrogatories to defendant in an action against a 
 surveyor for neghgence in sm'vepng and valuing 
 certain estates. (^TahenfromWhateley\. Craiv- 
 ford, ante, p. 7.) 
 
 1. Did you in the month of , 18 , re- 
 
 ceive instructions from A. B., to inspect and value 
 certain estates of C. D., situate at , in the 
 
 county of , and did you accept, and act on 
 
 such instructions ?
 
 APPENDIX. 85 
 
 2. After receiving the said instructions, did you 
 personally visit and inspect the whole, or any, and 
 what part, or parts, of the said estates, and where was 
 such inspection '? 
 
 3. Did you take any, and what, steps to ascertain 
 the amounts of the different rents payable by the 
 respective tenants of the said estates, for the premises 
 in their respective occupation ? 
 
 4. Did you apply to the said C. D. to know the 
 amount of the said several rents ? 
 
 5. Did you apply to the tenants of the said estates 
 or to any, and to which of them, for the respective 
 amounts of the rents payable by them respectively 
 for the houses, farms, and lands, held by them, and 
 when did you make such application '? 
 
 0. Did you, as part of the before-mentioned in- 
 structions, receive from the said A. B. a list of the 
 various rents at which the several tenants of the said 
 estates were supposed to hold the same ? 
 
 7. Did you take any, and what, steps to ascertain, 
 whetl\er the said list contained a true account of the 
 said rents ? And state the result of such steps. 
 
 8. Was one of the farms to which the said instruc- 
 tions applied called , and was the same 
 then in the possession and occupation of E. F. ? 
 
 9. Did you take any, and what, steps to ascertain 
 at what yearly rent the said E. F. then held the said 
 farm ? And state at what rent he did then in fact hold 
 the same, and your means of knowledge as to the 
 amount of such yearly rent.
 
 86 APPENDIX. 
 
 10. Did you make any, and wliat, report to tlie said 
 A. B. as to the amount of the last-mentioned yearly 
 rent, and upon what information -was such report 
 founded ? 
 
 Interrogatories to defendant in action for price of a 
 business. (This example loill he found useful 
 ivhenever interrogations are required to he adminis- 
 tered to tlie defendant in an action of deht.) 
 
 1. Did you not, in or about the month of , 
 18 , purchase, or agree to j)urchase, of the plaintiff, 
 certain stock in trade, materials, and fixtures, and the 
 good Avill of his business as a , at , 
 in the county of ; and also the lease of 
 the premises where the said business was carried on, 
 and, if so, for what smn, or sums, of money did you 
 agree to purchase, or purchase, the same, or any part 
 thereof ? 
 
 2. Was not the draft of an agreement for the said 
 purchase prepared, and is not the same in your pos- 
 session, custody, or power, and if not, where is it ? 
 
 3. Did you not take possession of the said stock in 
 trade, materials, and fixtm'es, and of the said business, 
 and of the said premises, and afterwards carry on the 
 said business as the purchaser thereof ? 
 
 4. Have you not paid some, and, if yea, what sum 
 or sums on account of the said pui'chase-money ? 
 
 5. Have you in your ]:)Ossession, power, or control, 
 any letters, papers, writings, or other documents, re- 
 lating to the purchase by you of the above-mentioned
 
 APPENDIX. 87 
 
 business, other than the draft agreement in the second 
 interrogatoiy above mentioned ? If yea, give a com- 
 plete list of such letters, papers, Avritings, and other 
 documents. 
 
 Interrogatories to defendant in an action for money 
 lent, and on an account stated. 
 
 1. Did not the plaintiff on or before the day of 
 
 , 18 , advance and lend to you, or did you 
 not have from him, and on what accoiuit, and for what 
 purpose, a loan of £ , or sums of money amount- 
 ing to £ , or any other, and what, sum or sums ? 
 Did you give him, or did he have any, and what, se- 
 curity for the repayment of the same? State the 
 Avhole of the monies so lent to, or had, by you. 
 
 2. Did he not lend to you, or did you not have 
 from him on some, and on what account, or for what 
 pm'pose, £ , on the day of , 18 ? 
 
 3. Did not the plaintiff to your knowledge have 
 an account with, and monies deposited at 
 
 bank, and did you not have at various times and 
 when, his bank pass-book, showing his account at. the 
 said bank ? For what purpose did you have it ? 
 
 4. Did you at any, and at what, time, or times, 
 receive from the said bank any, and what, sum, or 
 sums, of money on the plaintiif s account, or by his 
 order, or authority ? 
 
 5. Did you ever, and at what time, or times, 
 pay any, and what sum, or sums, of money on the
 
 88 APPENDIX. 
 
 plaintiff's account at the said bank, and, if so, to whom 
 did the monies so paid belong ? 
 
 6. Have you, or have you not, at any, and at what, 
 time or times paid any, and Avhat, smn, or sums, of 
 money to the plaintiff, or to the said bank, or to any, 
 and to what, person, or persons on the plaintiff's ac- 
 count in payment of any of the monies lent by him 
 to you, or had from him by you, or as interest for the 
 forbearance of the same ? 
 
 7. Have you made any, and what, admissions at 
 any, and at what, time, or times, to any, and to what, 
 persons, of your having borrowed, or owing any, and 
 what, monies of, or to, the plaintiff ? 
 
 Interrogatories to plaintiff in an action by an architect 
 for commission, &c. 
 
 1. Did the defendant, in or about the month of 
 July, 18G2, enter into a verbal agreement with you 
 relating to the preparing by you of plans, designs, 
 and specifications, and the preparing, or taking out, by 
 you of quantities, for or in respect of a mill, shed, stair- 
 case, chimney, engine-house and engine, or of other, 
 and of what, works, situate near , in the parish 
 
 of , in the county of ; and did 
 
 the said agreement with you include the measuring 
 of by you of the work to be done by one A. B., the 
 contractor for the said works, and include your check- 
 ing off the bill or charges of the said A. B., under 
 the contract between the defendant and the said A. B. 
 f(jr the said works ; and what was the commission
 
 APPENDIX. <S9 
 
 agi'eed to be paid to you in respect of the premises, 
 and upon Avhat amount was it to be paid ? 
 
 2. Was it not expressly agreed by and between you 
 and the defenchant that such commission was to cover 
 all your charges for the several matters agreed to be 
 done by you, and for whatever was to be done b}- you, 
 in relation to the said contract of the defendant with 
 the said A. B., or how otherwise ? 
 
 3. Did not the defendant at the time of the making 
 of such agreement with you as aforesaid, or at some 
 other, and at what time, expressly stipulate, and did 
 you not then or at some other and at what time, agree 
 with the defendant that you would not accept from the 
 said A. B. or any other person engaged, or to be en- 
 gaged, in the erection of the said works, or in any way 
 supplying labour or materials for the same, any com- 
 mission, fee, reward, or gratuity, for or in respect of 
 any plans, specifications, quantities, measuring off, 
 checking accounts, or anything that should be done 
 by you in relation to, or pertaining to, the said 
 works, or the said contract of the defendant with the 
 said A. B. ? If it was not expressly so stipulated and 
 agreed, is it not the usage in your profession or trade 
 that a person employed as you were by the defendant 
 in relation to the said works, ought not, and would 
 not, receive any commission, fee, reward, or gratuity, 
 for or in respect of any of the matters before men- 
 tioned, from the contractor, or any person, or persons, 
 acting under him in the execution of the contract? 
 
 4. Is not a commission of £5 per cent, to an archi-
 
 90 APPENDIX. 
 
 tectj or surveyor in the case of a contract of such an 
 amount as the amount of the said contract of the 
 defendant with the said A. B., and of the kind of 
 buikhngs to be erected, such a commission as, accord- 
 ing to the general usage and understanding in your 
 profession or trade, would be considered amply suffi- 
 cient to cover all charges of, and relating to, such 
 matters as were to be done by you, and to exclude the 
 taking of any commission, fee, reward, or gratuity, 
 from the contractor ? If not, state what amount 
 would be so. 
 
 5. Did you not at some, and at what time, give some, 
 and what, authority to the said A.B., and, if so, was it in 
 writing, or how otherwise, to deviate from the contract, 
 specification, and bill of quantities, and, if yea, did you. 
 receive any, and what, instructions from the defendant, 
 authorising you in that behalf ? Were any such in- 
 structions ever given to you in writing, and, if so, are 
 such writings in your possession or control ? If you 
 allege that such instructions were given to you verb- 
 ally, state what these instructions were, and upon 
 what occasion you received the same. 
 
 6. Did you ask for, or receive, from the said A. B., 
 or from any person acting on his behalf, or from any 
 other, and what, person or persons, directly or indi- 
 rectly, any commission, fee, or per-centage, or any 
 other, and what, rcAvard, or gratuity, for, or in respect 
 of, taking out quantities, or for furnishing, or deliver- 
 ing the same to the said A. B., or any other person on 
 his behalf, or for, or in respect of, the measming off of
 
 APPENDIX. 91 
 
 the said work clone, or to be done nnder the said con- 
 tract of the defendant with the said A. B., or other- 
 wise in relation to the said contract, or any claim, or 
 claims, of the said A. B. in relation to the said works ? 
 If yea, state the amomit thereof. 
 
 7. Did not the defendant give you dimensions, and 
 written, or other, and what, instructions for or in re- 
 spect of the mill, and other buildings of the defendant 
 which have been erected and built ; and did you at 
 any, and at what tune, receive any such instructions in 
 respect of plans, or other documents, for any addition 
 to the said mill, and buildings, or for the building of 
 any other mill ? If yea, state what these instructions 
 were. 
 
 Interrogatories to plaintiffs in an action on a bond 
 given to secure payment of subscription, fines, 
 interest, &c., due to a loan society, where pay- 
 ment has been pleaded. {From this e.vample a 
 form may readilii he framed ichenever payment is 
 pleaded to the common or other counts.) 
 
 Were any, and what, payments made by the said J. 
 S. in the declaration mentioned, and by any, and by 
 what, person, or persons, on his behalf to any, and to 
 what, officer or officers, agent or agents, of the society, in 
 the condition of the bond in the declaration mentioned^ 
 on account of any, and of which, of the subscriptions, 
 fines, interest, or other payments in the condition of the 
 said bond mentioned. State fully the amounts, dates.
 
 92 APPENDIX. 
 
 and all particulars of the money so paid by the said 
 J. S., or by any other person or persons on his behalf. 
 
 Interrogatories to defendant, executor, &c. 
 
 1. When did you first act as the executor of the 
 above-named testator ? 
 
 2. What goods, chattels, and effects, or other assets, 
 belonged to the said testator at the time of his death? 
 
 3. What goods, chattels, and effects, or other assets, 
 belonging to the said testator at the time of his death, 
 have come to your hands as his executor to be ad- 
 ministered ? 
 
 4. Have any, and what, goods, chattels, and effects, 
 or other assets, belonging to the said testator at the 
 time of his death, not come to your hands to be ad- 
 ministered ? 
 
 5. Did you make, or cause to be made, any inven- 
 tory or statement of the goods, chattels, and effects, 
 or other assets, of the said testator belonging to him at 
 the time of his death ; or was any such inventory, or 
 statement made ? If yea, by whom, and on whose be- 
 half, AA^as it made, or caused to be made ? 
 
 6. If such an inventory, or statement was made, 
 when, and in whose possession, custody, or control 
 is it? 
 
 7. Did you, or any other person on your behalf, or 
 otherwise, make any, and what, statement, either by 
 oath, or by affidavit, or otherwise, at any, and at what, 
 time, of the value of the goods, chattels, and effects, 
 or other assets of the said testator belonoino; to him at 
 the time of his death ? 
 
 \
 
 APPENDIX. 95 
 
 8. Plave you now, or have you at any otlier, and at 
 what time, had in your possession, custody, or control, 
 any, and what goods, chattels, and effects, or other 
 assets, of the said testator belonging to him at the time 
 of his death ? 
 
 9. Has or have any, and what, person or persons on 
 your behalf as such executor, or otherwise, had in his, 
 or their, possession, custody, or control, at any, and at 
 what, time, any, and what, goods, chattels, effects, or 
 other assets, of the said testator belonging to him at 
 the time of his death ? 
 
 10. Were any, and what, debts, claims, or demands 
 owing to the said testator at the time of his death, 
 and have any, and which, of such debts, claims, or de- 
 mands, or any, and what, part, or parts thereof, been 
 had, or received on yoiu' behalf as such executor, or 
 otherwise ? 
 
 11. Did any, and what, leaseholds, or estates for 
 terms of years, or other chattels real, belong to the 
 said testator at the time of his death ? 
 
 12. Did any other, and what, property, at any, and 
 what time, belong to you as such executor as afore- 
 said, and where is such property ? 
 
 13. Have you now, or have you at any other, and at 
 what time, had in your possession, custody, or control, 
 any ledgers, books, accoimts, or other papers, books, or 
 documents containing any entries relating to the 
 goods, chattels, and effects, or other assets or property 
 of the said testator at the time of his death ? 
 
 14. Had the testator, at the time of his death, any.
 
 94 APPENDIX. 
 
 and what, sum or suras, amount or amounts, of pro- 
 perty, in any and in which of the Government or other 
 public stocks ? 
 
 15. Was there'any other, and what, property, estate, 
 interest, claim, or demand, not included or referred to 
 in the prececHng questions, wdiich, at the time of the 
 death of the said testator, belonged to him, or to 
 which he was then entitled, or in respect of which he 
 then had any, and what, claim, or demand, belonging 
 to you as his executor, or to which you, as his executor, 
 would be or have been, at any, and at what time, or 
 now are entitled? 
 
 Interrogatories to defendant, executor, &c., who has 
 pleaded '^plene administravit." {These interro- 
 gatories have heen often allowed at chambers, and 
 have heen also sometimes considerably curtailed; 
 doubtless some of them contravene rules ivhich 
 have been laid down in decided cases ; but, as 
 they have been sometimes allowed, and are very use- 
 ful if leave can be obtained to administer them, such 
 questions are often attempted.) 
 
 i 1. Say what monies you have received from the 
 real or personal estate of the testator, specifying as to 
 each receipt the follow^ing particulars, viz. the amount 
 received, the person from whom received, and the date 
 of its receipt; and in case of debts received, the 
 amount of the debt, and the name of the debtor, and 
 in case of property sold, realized, or converted into 
 money, the nature of such property, the date or dates
 
 APPENDIX. 95 
 
 of such sale or sales, and the person or jiersons to 
 whom sold. 
 
 2. What debts, if any, were contracted by the tes- 
 tator and left unpaid at the time of his death, or 
 afterwards became payable? State the names and 
 addresses of the persons with whom they were con- 
 tracted, or the persons who, at his death were or after- 
 wards became, creditors in respect of the same, and 
 entitled to the payment thereof out of the personal 
 estate and effects of the said testator. State the 
 amount of each of sucli debts payable at or before 
 his death and when contracted, and whether the same 
 are simple contract, or specialty debts, or debts of 
 record. 
 
 3. Have you paid, or satisfied, the same debts in the 
 second interrogatory mentioned, or any, or either, and 
 which of them ? 
 
 4. State what property of the testator has been dis- 
 posed of otherwise than by conversion into money, 
 and to Avhom, and when, and on what accomit, and 
 what is the value of such property. 
 
 5. State what property of the testator remains un- 
 realized and undisposed of, and the nature and value 
 of such property, and what, if anything, prevents the 
 realization thereof. 
 
 6. State what, if any, amount you have paid for 
 the testator's funeral expenses. 
 
 7. State what probable duty was paid on the testa- 
 tor's will ; and whether any, and what, legacy-duty has 
 been paid in respect of any legacy contained therein,
 
 96 APPENDIX. 
 
 and whether a residuary account of the testator's estate 
 has been furnished to the Commissioners of Inland 
 Revenue, and when, and whether you have a copy of 
 such account. 
 
 Interrogatories to defendant in an action of eject- 
 ment as to whether he is defending on his own 
 responsibiHty. (^Taterrogatoiies may readily he 
 framed from this example, lolienever their object is 
 to discover ivhether the defendant is the real or only 
 the nominal defendant. The a2?plication loould 
 have to he supjyorted hy a somewhat specicd affi- 
 davit, settlnrj lip some ground for the supposition, 
 that the person appearing as defendant teas not in- 
 terested in the action, or loas indemnified against 
 the cost, otherwise the interrogatories ivould he 
 '^ fishing r See Moor v. Roherts, 26 li.J., 246 
 C.P.) 
 
 1. Is not A. B., of London, the real defendant in 
 this action, defending it in your name to protect his 
 own interest ? {If you ansiver the above question posi- 
 tively in the afiirmatlvc without qualification, you need 
 not ansiver any of the following interrogatories.^ 
 
 2. Was the copy of the writ by which this action 
 was commenced ever delivered to you, or to any one 
 on your behalf ? If not, when, as near as you can 
 remember, did the fact that the said writ had been 
 issued, or that this action was commenced against 
 you, first come to your knowledge. 
 
 3. Did you ever, and when, as near as you can re-
 
 I 
 
 APPENDIX. 97 
 
 member give, or instruct, or authorize, any one, and 
 whom, to give, notice of the said writ, or of the said 
 action to A. B., or to any one on his behalf ? If 
 yea, did you do so because you considered the said 
 A. B. to be your landlord ? Where does the said 
 A. B. reside? Did you instruct, or authorize, Mr. 
 C. D. to appear for you in this action ? 
 
 4. Is there any agreement, arrangement, or under- 
 standing, according to which you are not to pay, and 
 the said A. B. is to pay, the said Mr. C. D. the costs 
 of defending this action, or any part thereof. If yea, 
 what is it ? 
 
 5. Did tlie said A. B., or any one on his behalf, 
 and who, do any, and which, of the things mentioned 
 in the following paragraphs, numbered from 1 to 6, 
 both inclusive? 
 
 (1. Apply to you for leave for the said C. D. to 
 enter an appearance in your name in this action. 
 
 2. Apply to you for leave for the said C. D. to de- 
 fend this action in yoiu' name. 
 
 3. Agree that the said A. B. should indemnify you 
 against the plaintiff's costs in this action, or some part 
 thereof. 
 
 4. Agree that the said A. B. should indemnify you 
 against the costs of the defence of this action, or some 
 part thereof. 
 
 5. Employ the said C. D. to defend this action. 
 
 6. Agree to pay the said 0. D. the costs of the 
 defence of this action, or some, and what, part 
 thereof.) 
 
 H
 
 98 APPENDIX. 
 
 6. Have you any, and wliat, reason to suppose, or 
 believe that the said A. B. will indemnify you against 
 the plaintiffs costs in this action, or any, and what, 
 part thereof ? 
 
 7. Have you any, and what, reason to believe that 
 the said A. B. will pay the costs of the defence of 
 this action ? 
 
 8. Have you any, and what, reason to suppose, or 
 believe, that the said A. B. claims to be entitled to 
 the rents of the said premises, or any of them ? 
 
 9. Have you paid rent for any part of the said 
 premises to the said A. B., or to any one, and whom, 
 on his behalf, and for how long have you done so ? 
 
 10. Have you in yom' possession any receipts for 
 rent paid by you in respect of the said premises 
 dm'ing the last six years, and what are the dates of 
 those receipts ? 
 
 Interrogatories to plaintiff in an action of ejectment. 
 (Taken from Flitcroft v. Fletcher, 2o L.J., 
 94 Ex.) 
 
 1. In what character, or in what right, do you, and 
 each of you, claim to be entitled to the possession of 
 the premises claimed by you in this action ? 
 
 2. Do you, or any of you, claim to be entitled to 
 the same as heirs at law of H. F. deceased "? 
 
 3. If so, how do you allege that you, or any of you, 
 are his heirs at law, and through what links do you 
 claim such heirship ? 
 
 4. Do you, or any of you, claim to be entitled as
 
 APPENDIX. 99 
 
 grantees from, or trustees for, any person, or persons, 
 claiming to be heirs at law of the said H. F. ? 
 
 5. If so, who is, or are, the person, or persons, whose 
 grantees or trustees, you, or any of you, claim to be, 
 and how do you allege that such person, or persons, is, 
 or are the heirs at law of the said H. F., and through 
 what links do you trace such heirship ? 
 
 6. Have you, or any of you, any right to, or interest 
 in, the said premises except as aforesaid, and, if so, 
 what is the nature of such right or interest 1 
 
 Interrogatories to defendant in an action for the in- 
 fringement of a patent. {Taken from Tetley v. 
 Easton and Another, 25 L.J., 293 C.P.) 
 
 1. Did you manufactui'e the centrifugal pump now 
 in, or being erected m, the Crystal Palace, at Syden- 
 ham, upon wliich the name of your firm is inscribed ? 
 
 2. Did you exliibit that pump at the late Exhibi- 
 tion in Paris, in 1855 ? If not, for whom did you 
 manufacture it, and to whom did you sell or lend it? 
 and if you have since made any variations in its con- 
 struction, state what those variations are. 
 
 o. Did you manufactui'e the centrifugal pump 
 erected now, or late in use at the Tottenham sewage 
 works, in the county of JNIiddlesex? And, if so, by 
 whose order did you manufacture it, and when, and 
 where, was it manufactured, and delivered ? and 
 state the names, and addi-esses, of the persons, or 
 person, to w^hom you sold it, and at what price. 
 
 h2
 
 100 APPENDIX. 
 
 4. How many centrifugal pumps have you made 
 and sold between the 21st of April, 1855, and the 
 5th of May, 1856 ? And state whether any, and vfhich 
 out of the whole number so made and sold between 
 those dates, had or had not, foot valves, or retaining 
 valves. 
 
 5. Distinguish how many of these were sold and 
 delivered previously to the first-mentioned pump being 
 exhibited in Paris, and how many since. 
 
 6. State the names and addresses of the several 
 persons to whom the said pumps respectively have 
 been sold within the said periods, and the prices at 
 which they were respectively sold, together with the 
 diameter of the apertures into the pans of such pumps 
 respectively. 
 
 7. TVHiere are, or were, the said pumps respectively 
 in use, or sent to be used ? And are any of them, 
 and which, now under your control ? Mention those 
 especially which to your knowledge now are, or within 
 the last three months have been, in use within fifty 
 miles of liondon. 
 
 InteiTogatories to plaintiff in an action for a malicious 
 prosecution, on a charge of having obtained 
 money by false and fraudulent pretences. The 
 alleged false pretences consisted in representa- 
 tions made by the plaintiff that he had disbursed 
 sums of money for tlie defendant's wife and 
 daughters at Eome and at Paris. {Taken from 
 Zi/ehUnski v. i/fl/%, 10 C.B., 839.) 
 1. Did you, in or about the month of March, 18 ,
 
 APPENDIX. 101 
 
 at Rome, become acquainted with Mrs. ]\I., the wife 
 of the above-named defendant, the Rev. H. M., and 
 his two daughters ? 
 
 2. Did you at any time, and when, at Rome, re- 
 ceive from the said !Mrs. M. the sum of 1000 Roman 
 scudi, or some other and what sum? And, if yea, 
 for what purpose or pui'poses did you receive such 
 money ? 
 
 3. Did you at the time when you received such 
 money from her, or at any other time, know that C. A. 
 had lent her a sum of 1000 scudi, or some other and 
 what sum? 
 
 4. Did you receive such money from her for the 
 purpose of pajdng for her, or on her accomit, debts 
 contracted or owing by her at Rome ? 
 
 5. Did you pay any and what sum or sums of 
 money, at Rome, for or on account of the said ]Mrs. 
 M.? And, if so, state particularly all the sums which 
 you so paid, and to whom respectively, and when. 
 
 6. Did you at any time, and when, pay a sum of 
 152 scudi, or some other and what sum, for or on ac- 
 count of the said ^Ii's. M., to the brothers S., confec- 
 tioners at Rome ? 
 
 7. How much money in all did you pay for or on 
 account of the said ^Irs. M. at Rome ? And if on any 
 other account than in pa^onent of the debts specified 
 by you in answer to the fifth interrogatory, on what 
 account or accounts, and to what amount, and in what 
 sums, and to whom paid ? 
 
 8. Did you receive at Rome from the said jSIrs. M. 
 and her daughters, or from any or either of them, a
 
 102 APPENDIX. 
 
 sum of 340 francs, or thereabouts, for tlie purpose of 
 the same being deposited by you, on their account, or 
 on the account of any of them, in the ISIonte di Pieta, 
 or some bank, at Rome? If yea, did you so de- 
 posit the said sum ? And if so, in what name did you 
 so deposit it ? And, if you did not so deposit it, what 
 did you do with such money ? 
 
 9. Did you receive from or on account of the said 
 Mrs. M., at Paris, in or about July, 1860, the follow- 
 ing sums, or any and which of them, -vaz. the sum of 
 £15 from Mr. A. B., £17 from the proceeds of the 
 sale of some jewelry, £25 from !Mi'. ^I., £7 from 
 Mi's. M., and, in September, 1860, £60 from Mrs. M., 
 or some other, and what sum or sums, from the said 
 persons respectively, or any and which of them '? 
 
 10. Did you make any and what payment or pay- 
 ments for or on account of the said Mrs. M., at Paris, 
 or on the jom'ney from Pome to Paris, or on the 
 journey from Paris to England ? And, if so, state 
 particularly the sum or sums you so paid, and on 
 what account, and when. 
 
 11. Did you at any time, and when, in 1860 or 
 1861, remit from Paris to one Koll, a banker at 
 Rome, or to any other and what person at Rome, a 
 sum of 4000 francs, or any other and what sura, for 
 the pui'pose of paying debts contracted and owing by 
 the said Mrs. M. at Rome ? 
 
 12. Were you ever, and when, a captain in the 
 Cavaliy Guards, or the Guards of Alexander the 
 Second, Emperor of Russia ? And did you ever hold
 
 APPENDIX. 103 
 
 any and wliat rank, or ever serve, in the Russian army? 
 And did you ever represent to jSIrs. M. and her 
 daughters, or to any of them, that you had been or 
 were a captain in the Cavahy Guards, or the Guards 
 of the said Emperor of Russia? 
 
 13. Are you, and when did you become, a knight 
 or chevaher of any and what order or orders ? And 
 did you ever represent to IVIrs. M. and her daughters, 
 or to any of them, that you were a knight or chevaher 
 of any order or orders ? 
 
 14. Did you ever serve in the Russian army, or in 
 any other and what aiiny, m the Crimea dming the 
 siege of Sebastopol ? And were you wounded Avhilst 
 in the Crimea ? And did you ever make any repre- 
 sentation or representations to that or the hke effect 
 to Mrs. M. and her daughters, or to any of them ? 
 
 15. Did you ever, and when, serve in the Prussian 
 army as a vohmteer or otherwise ? And when and for 
 Avhat reason and under what circumstances did you 
 leave such army ? Were you not, and were you not 
 adjudged to be, a deserter from the Prussian army ? 
 
 16. Had you, on or about the 18th of September, 
 1860, an interview at Nottingham with the defend- 
 ants and others? And did you on that occasion 
 bring a person with you who acted as interpreter 
 between you and the defendant on that occasion? 
 Was that person then in yom' employ or service as 
 your secretary or otherwise ? And is he so still ? Or, 
 if not, when did he cease to be your secretary or ser- 
 vant ? Wliat is his name, and wliere is he now, and
 
 104 APPENDIX. 
 
 when last did yon see liim, and when last did you 
 hear from or of him, and where was he when you 
 last saw him and last lieard from or of him ? 
 
 17. Was the said person with you in the Crimea 
 during the siege of Sehastopol ? And had his father 
 been secretary to your father ? And did you authorize 
 the said person to make, or did he with your know- 
 ledge and consent make, a representation to that 
 eifect at the said interview at Nottingham ? 
 
 18. Did you at that inten"iew state or represent 
 that you had advanced to and for Mrs. M. monies to 
 the value and amount of £400, or thereabouts? 
 
 A reference to tlie report will show what interroga- 
 tories were struck out, the objection to them being 
 that they were irrelevant. 
 
 Interrogatories to officers of railway companies in 
 an action against the company for injuries sus- 
 tained by a passenger, as to the cause of the 
 accident by which the injuries were caused. 
 
 1. What are the names and addresses of the guard, 
 or other servant or servants of the defendants, who was 
 or were attached to the train of the defendants Avhich 
 was to have left the L. station on the day of 
 
 last, at about o'clock, and of the porters 
 and other servants of the defendants wdio were at the 
 said station at that time ? 
 
 2. Did a truck run against the said train whilst the 
 said train was stopping in the said station, and did 
 you see a truck, not being part of the said train,
 
 APPENDIX. 105 
 
 close to the said train, wliere tlie said truck ought not 
 to have been ? And did you hear a noise as if the 
 said truck or something else had run against the said 
 train ? And did tlie said truck belong to the defend- 
 ants, and was it under the care of any servant or 
 servants of the defendants, and what is or are the 
 name or names, addi'ess or adch'esses, of such servant 
 or servants ? 
 
 3. Did the said truck run against the said train 
 Avith so much violence as to cause a sudden shock to 
 the said train, or to cause the said train to be sud- 
 denly moved ? 
 
 4. What caused the said truck to run against the 
 said train ? 
 
 5. What put the said truck in motion ? At what 
 distance from the said train was it when first put in 
 motion ? 
 
 6. Was it or was it not attached to an engine 
 when it ran against the said train ? 
 
 7. Had it been moved by an engine ? And when 
 it ran against the said train, was the motion given to 
 it by the engine still continuing ? 
 
 8. At what distance from the said train was the 
 said truck at the time when it became separated from, 
 or ceased to have motion imparted to it by the engine 
 which had put it in motion ? 
 
 9. At what rate, as near as you can judge, was the 
 said truck moving when it ran against the said train ? 
 And what is the highest rate of velocity which you 
 will swear it did not exceed ?
 
 106 APPENDIX. 
 
 10. Had tlie said truck any break or other ap- 
 pliance annexed to it for stopping it, or retarding its 
 velocity, when moving? 
 
 11. Have the defendants ever had in their posses- 
 sion any report or reports, letter or letters, writing or 
 writings, relating' to the said collision between the 
 said truck and the said train, and to the claim of the 
 plaintiff against the defendants in respect thereof, or 
 to either, and which of those matters ? If yea, how 
 can they be respectively described, and if they or 
 any of them are not now in the possession or custody 
 of the defendants, what has become of them re- 
 spectively ? 
 
 Interrogatories to female defendant who has pleaded 
 covertm'e in abatement. (Interrogato7ies such as 
 these have been allowed at chambers on several oc- 
 casions, but have never been before the court, and 
 it is thought that if such an apjjlication ivere re- 
 sisted, they must be disallowed as asking matter 
 ivlnch relates exclusively to the case of the other 
 party.) 
 
 1. Wlien and where were you married to your 
 present husband F. P., in the pleadings in this cause 
 mentioned, and what are his names, occupations or 
 businesses ? 
 
 2. Wliere does yom' said husband now reside, and 
 how long has he resided there ? 
 
 3. Has your said husband ever resided with you at 
 your present place of business. No. , Street,
 
 APPENDIX. 107 
 
 in the city of , and, if so, when did he last 
 
 do so ? 
 
 4. Have you ever been divorced or judicially sepa- 
 rated from your said husband ? 
 
 Interrogatories ^to defendant in an action by widow 
 to recover dower from the heir of her late hus- 
 band. 
 
 1. Were you at the commencement of this suit in 
 the receipt of the rents or profits, or of any and of what 
 part thereof, of certain lands and premises, situate, 
 &c., called, &c. ? If so, how long had you been in 
 receipt of such rent or profits, and what is the total 
 amount of such rents or profits received by you or on 
 your account? 
 
 2. Do you receive or claim such rents or profits as 
 heir to the late A. B. ? And, if not, under and by virtue 
 of what title do you claim or receive the same ? 
 
 3. HaA^e you a freehold in, or have you any and 
 what estate in the said lands and premises, or in any 
 and in what part thereof ? 
 
 4. Wliat is the net rental of the said lands and 
 premises, and who are the tenants and occupiers 
 thereof ? 
 
 5. Have you ever, or has any one on yom' behalf, 
 at any and what time, paid any and what sum to the 
 plaintiff on accomit of her claim for dower, out of 
 the rents and profits of the said lands and premises, 
 or of any part thereof ?
 
 108 APPENDIX. 
 
 Interrogatories to discover the contents of a lost 
 written document. {Taken from Wolverhampton 
 Waterworks Company v. ITaicksford, ante, p. 51.) 
 
 1. Did you subscribe or authorize any one to sub- 
 scribe for you for £6000 to the undertaking of tlic 
 said company, and did you sign or execute, or autho- 
 rize any one to sign or execute for you a subscription, 
 contract, or document, as the subscription contract 
 required to be made before the company could go to 
 Parliament to obtain their Act of Parliament ? 
 
 2. Did you know Robert Baker, who was a clerk 
 to Messrs. Corser and Underbill ? Did you execute 
 the contract in his presence ? 
 
 Interrogatories to defendant in action by indorsee, 
 against maker of a promissory note. Plea — that 
 defendant had executed a deed of arrangement 
 under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, 
 1861. Replication — That divers of the debts of 
 the majority in number of the creditors who 
 assented to the deed were contracted by the de- 
 fendant fraudulently, and for the sole purpose of 
 creating a body of creditors, of small amount, 
 who should make up the majority in number 
 required by the Act to assent to the deed ; and 
 that many of the debts were contracted to clerks 
 and servants of the defendant by letting their 
 wages become In arrear, It being Intended to pay 
 them, and they having been paid, in full after
 
 APPENDIX. 109 
 
 the registration of the deed; and that without 
 tlie creditors in the rephcation mentioned, there 
 would have been no such majority as in the plea 
 mentioned. {Taken from Bayley v. Gtijiths, 31 
 L.J., 477 Ex., the authority of which case as to 
 such interrogatories has been expressly recog- 
 nized in Goodman v. Harvey, 3 N.R., 512.) 
 
 1. What business did you carry on prior to the 
 20tli of February, 1862 ; and where was your office 
 or place of business, and where were your manufac- 
 tories ? 
 
 2. Who first suggested the deed mentioned and set 
 forth in the plea in this action ; who named the trus- 
 tees therein, and applied to them to act ? Are they, 
 or is either and which of them creditors ; and, if so, 
 for what amount or amounts? Were they, or was 
 either of them, in your employ prior to the 20 th of 
 Februar)^, 18 62, and are they, or is either and which 
 of them now in your employ ? 
 
 3. Set out when and where you executed the deed, 
 and when and where it was executed by such trus- 
 tees. 
 
 4. Was there any meeting of your creditors held 
 prior to the 20tli of February, 1862 ? If you allege 
 that there was any such meeting, set out by whom it 
 was called, when and where it was held, and by whom 
 it was attended, and what passed at such meeting. 
 
 5. Who applied to the creditors for their consent 
 or approval of the deed? Set out the names, ad-
 
 110 APPENDIX. 
 
 dresses, and occupations of the persons who have as- 
 sented to or approved of the deed, the date of each 
 approval or consent, and the amount of each debt, dis- 
 tinguishing those persons who held security, and set- 
 ting out the nature of the security held by each. 
 
 6. Have you paid to any, or either, and which of 
 the persons who assented to and approved of the deed, 
 the whole or any part of the debts in respect of which 
 they proposed so to assent or approve ? If so, set out 
 the date and amount of each such payment. 
 
 7. Have any or has either, and which of the persons 
 who consented to or approved of the deed, and at 
 that time held security for their debts, realized or 
 received the secmities held by them, or him, or other- 
 wise been paid the amount of their, or his, debts ? If 
 so, set out the amounts received by each such creditor, 
 and the date of such receipt. 
 
 8. Have any or has either, and which of the creditors 
 who assented to and approved the deed, received from 
 any som'ce whatever the whole or any -pai't of the 
 debts in respect of which they, or he, so assented or 
 approved ? If so, set out the name, or names, of the 
 person, or persons, who have so received, and the date 
 and amount of each receij)t. 
 
 9. Set out a full list of the debts and liabilities due 
 or incun-ed by you prior to the 20tli of Febniary, 
 1862, with the names, addi'esses, and occupations of 
 each of yom' creditors, the amount of the debts due to 
 each, and the securities held by each. 
 
 10. Had you, prior to the 20th of February, 1862,
 
 APPENDIX. Ill 
 
 and have you now in your custody, possession, or 
 power, or in the custody, power, or control of your 
 attorney, solicitor, or agents, any books, ledgers, papers, 
 letters, documents, memorandums, or writings relating 
 to your business transactions prior to the 20tli of 
 February, 1862 ? If so, set out a full and perfect 
 list of such books, ledgers, papers, letters, documents, 
 memorandums, or wiitings, and if you allege that you 
 had any of such matters prior to the 20th of February, 
 1862, but have since parted with them, or either of 
 them, set out when you last saw such document, 
 where, why, and to whom you parted with it, and in 
 whose possession it now is. 
 
 11. Set out a list of the papers or writings by which 
 the creditors assented to, or approved of, the deed re- 
 ferred to in the plea.
 
 INDEX. 
 
 ACTION, 
 
 questions, answers to which may expose to action, admissible, 60. 
 
 AFFIDAVIT, 
 
 required in support of application for interrogatories, 53, 
 
 by whom to be made, 53. 
 
 form of, 54, 65, 66. 
 
 in actions of ejectment, 5-1. 
 
 ARCHITECT, 
 
 interrogatories in action by, 88. 
 
 ATTACHMENT, 
 
 for not sufficiently answering interrogatories, 62. 
 
 granted with caution, 62. 
 
 not granted where there is no "neglect" to answer, 63.^ 
 
 or where party has answered sufficiently before application made, 
 
 63. 
 
 BILL OF EXCHANGE, 
 
 interrogatories in action on, 67, 69, 70. 
 
 BOND, 
 
 interrogatories in action on, 91. 
 
 BUILDING SOCIETY, 
 
 interrogatories in action on bond given to, 91. 
 
 COMMENCEMENT AND CONCLUSION, 
 
 of interrogatories, 66. 
 
 COMMISSION, 
 
 interrogatories in action for, 77. 
 
 COISIMON LAW PROCEDURE ACT, 1854, 
 section 51, 1. 
 to be construed liberally, 2. 
 
 I
 
 114 INDEX. 
 
 CONFLICTING AUTHORITIES, 
 
 apparently, discussed, 38. 
 
 CRIMINATORY QUESTIONS, 32, 33, 57. 
 answers to, 57. 
 
 DEED OF ARRANGEMENT, 
 
 form of interrogatories to a defendant where deed under Bankrupt 
 Act, 1861, pleaded, 108. 
 
 DISCOVERY. 
 In Equity, 
 
 rule in, 16, 43. 
 of title, 18, CO, CI. 
 in libel, 36. 
 
 practice of Court of Equity not followed in Common Law Courts, 
 39. 
 
 EJECTMENT, 
 
 interrogatories in ejectment, 2, 14, 50, 98. 
 
 FORMS, 
 
 Affidavit, 
 
 for leave to deliver interrogatories to defendant, C5. 
 the like for interrogatories to defendant, 66. 
 commencement and conclusion of interrogatories, G6. 
 Interrogatories to plaintifti 
 
 in action on bill of exchange, 67, C9. 
 
 on i)romissory note, 73. 
 
 on guarantee, 75. 
 
 for commission, 77. 
 
 against a retired partner for goods supplied to the part- 
 nership, 82. 
 
 by an architect for commission, 88. 
 
 on bond given to a building society, 91. 
 
 of ejectment, 99. 
 
 for malicious prosecution, 101. 
 Interrogatories to defendant, 
 
 in action on bill of exchange, 70. 
 
 to discover whether defendant entered into contract as 
 principal, or agent, 75. 
 
 against an agent for not accounting, 81. 
 
 against a railway company for loss of luggage, 83. 
 
 for injuries to passenger, 104. 
 
 where deed of arrangement under Bankruptcy Act, 18G1, 
 pleaded, 108. 
 
 against a surveyor for negligence, 84. 
 
 for money lent, and due on accounts stated, 87. 
 
 against an executor, 92, 94. 
 
 of ejectment, 96. 
 
 for infringing a patent, 99. 
 
 where coverture pleaded, 106. 
 
 of dower, lu7.
 
 INDEX. 115 
 
 GOODS SOLD, 
 
 interrogatories in action for, 82. 
 
 GUARAXTEE, 
 
 interrogatories in action on, 7o. 
 
 IXTERROGATORIES, 
 
 courts bound to permit in cases within the statute, 43. 
 may be delivered by leave of court, or judge, 1. 
 
 In what actions allowed, 2. 
 in ejectment suits, 2, 14, 50. 
 in interpleader issues, 3. 
 where answers may affect third parties, 51. 
 as to lost documents, 51. 
 
 When not allowed, 
 
 to contradict written instruments, 52. 
 
 At what time to be applied for, 3. 
 
 not before declaration, unless a case of inquiry shown, 3. 
 generally after issue joined, 4. 
 
 What allowed, 4. 
 
 allowed only as to matters on which " discovery may be sought," 4. 
 
 Construction of this phrase, 4. 
 
 governed by rules ])revailing in equity, 4, 5, 0, 12, 15, 22, 38. 
 
 see, however, per Erie (J.), in Iiartlett (•. Lewis, 34. 
 
 per Cur., in Osborne v. London Delivery Company, 6. 
 
 and per Bramwell (B.), in Bayley ». Griffiths, 38. 
 
 tending to criminate, G, 7, 20, 33, 47, 49. 
 
 must tend to advance case of party putting them, 10, 44. 
 
 must not inquire into matter exclusivelv relating to opponent's 
 
 case, 10, 12. 44, 49. 
 must not be fishing, 13, 4G, 50. 
 must be relevant to matter in dispute, 41, 49. 
 
 Form of (see Forms), should put questions directh', 25. 
 
 LORD MAYOR'S COURT, 
 
 interrogatories in, see Preface. 
 
 LOST DOCUMENTS, 
 
 interrogatories may inquire as to contents of, 51. 
 conditions upon which allowed, 51. 
 form of interrogatories as to, 108. 
 
 OATH, 
 
 of party interrogated, when conclusive, 22, 24, Gl, C2. 
 
 OMISSION TO ANSWER, 
 
 consequence of, 2, G2. ,
 
 116 INDEX. 
 
 ORAL EXAMINATION, 
 
 In what case, 55. 
 
 application for. -when to be made, 55. 
 effect of rule, or order for, 62. 
 
 answers to questions having a criminatory tendency, 56. 
 as to title, 61. 
 
 PEINCIPAL AND AGENT, 
 
 interrogatories in action against an agent for not accounting, 81. 
 
 PROMISSORY NOTE, 
 
 interrogatories in action on, 73. 
 
 RULES 
 
 governing Courts in allowance of interrogatories, stated, 41-50. 
 
 TITLE, 
 
 ansAver to questions as to, 5G, 59. 
 
 TITLE-DEEDS, 59-61. 
 
 right to interrogate as to, 20-22. 
 
 answers as to contents of, conclusive, 24, 61. 
 
 THIRD PARTIES, 
 
 interrogatories that may affect, 51. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 C. WHITING. EEArrOKT HOUSE, STISAXD.
 
 LAW IJBFARY 
 
 UNTVEl^^rrY OP V "^IFOJINIA 
 LOS ANG-LiLiuS
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 869 313