stat. 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125. s. 51., Blackburn J. allowed the following inter alias. 66 When, where, and at what place, and at what time and hour of the day, did you and Parsons, if at all, or if ever, meet to ascertain, settle, and assess the respective amounts of the claims and demands mentioned in your plea? "At the time of the alleged adjustment or settlement of the accounts respectively mentioned by you in your plea, state what particulars or bills of account or books were before you and Parsons, and whether or not the items of claim mentioned and comprised in the particulars of demand in this action, and the particulars of demand in the action of Parsons and another, executors, &c., against you, were before you and Parsons, and the subject of discussion and adjustment. If these items were not, state then what items, claims, or accounts were: what was the whole and joint amount allowed by Parsons, if at all, in your favour, upon the two accounts. "Was or was not the bill of exchange for 557. 18s. 3d. mentioned by you in your plea given and accepted by you upon, for, and on another and different account and demand than that mentioned by you in your plea, and, if so, on what other account, or in respect of what other demand? "Was not that bill accepted by you and handed to Parsons for money lent and advanced by him to you? And when was this, and what was the amount of the advance, and the discount allowed on such advance? And who procured, purchased, or paid for the stamp on the bill? And what has become of the bill? "When and where, and under what circumstances, and for what account and consideration, and why did you pay, as you have alleged in your plea, 30l. to Par 1865. HAWKINS V. CARR. PARSONS V CARR. 1865. HAWKINS V. CARR. PARSONS V. CARR. years sons, and deliver to him the bill for 251. 18s. 3d., payable three after date? State and set forth the particular place and time where you paid such sum and gave such bill, and the reasons and circumstances for paying such sum and giving such bill to Parsons, and why you paid the 307. during the currency of the first bill, and why so long a period as three years was chosen for the payment of the second bill? "Was not the 301. paid by you, and when, on account of a different transaction than that mentioned by you in the plea? State fully on what account the money was paid by you to Parsons. "Did you ever, and state when, draw, accept, or deliver the bill for 251. 18s. 3d. to Parsons as you have alleged in your plea, and, if so, where?" * The second action was by the plaintiffs as executors of Parsons, in which the pleadings were similar, and similar interrogatories were allowed. Rules having been obtained in each action to rescind the order of Blackburn J., they were argued on the 9th November. R. A. Fisher shewed cause.-Interrogatories are admissible, the answers to which may reasonably be expected to procure a discovery of what will advance the case of the interrogating party; and it is not an objection to them that the answers may be expected at the same time to disclose that of the party interrogated; Whateley v. Crowter (a), Bayley v. Griffiths (b) and Bellwood v. Wetherell (c) there referred to. [He also cited Moor v. Roberts (d).] That is precisely the case here. If the cause went to trial and the defendant were examined as (a) 5 E. & B. 709. (c) 1 Y. & C. Exch. 211. 216. (b) 1 H. & C. 429. a witness he might be questioned as he is proposed to be by these interrogatories; Zychlinski v. Maltby (a), Rew v. Hutchins (b). W. T. Barnard, in support of the rule.-The plea raises an issue the proof of the affirmative of which lies on the defendant, viz., whether there was a settlement of account between him and the deceased partner, and also between him and both the partners, and whether a bill of exchange was given for the balance. The interrogatories are directed to the proof of this, and consequently relate to the case of the defendant: they are really asking the defendant if his plea is not untrue. [Mellor J. If the deceased partner were alive you could have asked him whether the settlement did not relate to this account or to some different one. I have always understood the rule'to be that those interrogatories only cannot be allowed which relate exclusively to the case of the party interrogated.] These interrogatories are also objectionable as being fishing. [Mellor J. If the facts which the interrogatories seek to elicit contradict the plea, does not that shew that they relate to the plaintiffs' case?] THE COURT (consisting of Cockburn C. J., Mellor, Shee and Lush JJ.) said that the case raised a very important question, respecting which it would be necessary to lay down some general rule. For this purpose they would look into the authorities and inquire as to the practice in Chancery relative to admitting interrogatories like the present. (a) 10 C. B. N. S. 838. VOL. VI. 3 U Cur, adv. vult. (b) 10 C. B. N. S. 829. 1865. HAWKINS V. CARR. PARSONS V. CARR. 1865. HAWKINS v. CARR. PARSONS V. CARR. The judgment of the Court was now delivered by LUSH J., who said the Court had ascertained on inquiry that it was the practice in Chancery to allow such interrogatories as these, and as the Court were anxious not to abridge the powers conferred on them by The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125. s. 51., the present interrogatories should be allowed, and consequently the rules discharged. On a subsequent day, application having been made relative to the costs of the rules, PER CURIAM (Cockburn C. J., Mellor, Shee and Lush JJ.) The general, and almost universal, rule is, that when an application against a Judge's order is discharged it is discharged with costs, but every rule is subject to exception, and the point in the present case was a very nice one. Rules discharged without costs. INDEX. ABANDONMENT. Notice of. See Insurance, Marine, IV. ACCEPTANCE. c. 98., having by sect. 68 repealed Of goods. See Bankrupt, VI., VII., contained in any reservoir, river or stream, "in cases where any Company 1. That sect. 73 of stat. 21 & 22 Vict. |