course took place between him and the prisoner. ing just exceptions. Rex v. Pitcher, 1 C. & P. 85. [Hullock] After a witness has been told that he is not bound to disclose any matter which may tend to criminate himself, if he does answer a question of that description, he is bound to answer all questions relative to that transaction. Dixon v. Vale, 1 C. & P. 278. [Best] If a witness answers any questions on a matter rendering himself liable to forfeiture or punishment, he cannot afterwards claim his privilege, but must answer throughout. East v. Chapman, 1 M. & M. 47. [Abbott] If several defendants appear by different counsel, each of the counsel may cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses; but only one can examine their own joint witnesses in chief. King v. Williamson, 3 Stark. 162. [Abbott] (b) In Equity. If one party is examined by the other parties, his examination, though not used by those other parties, may be looked into by the Master, or the Court. Gilbert v. Wetherell, 3 Law J. Chanc. 138, s. c. 2 S. & S. 254. Any party to the cause may be examined in the prosecution of an inquiry directed by the decree. A defendant may be examined, saving just exceptions, as well after the decree as before. Hemmings v. —, 4 Law J. Chanc. 141. A witness will not be allowed to be examined de bene esse, on an affidavit that she labours under a cancer, but not stating that she is in immediate danger. Anon. 1 Law J. Chanc. 76. A party will not be allowed, on inquiries before the Master, to examine witnesses whom he has examined in the cause, except upon affidavit, setting forth special circumstances, and the points as to which they are to be re-examined, which points must not have been in issue in the cause. It must appear on the affidavit that these witnesses could not, as to the points proposed, have been examined on the interrogatories exhibited before the hearing. Campbell v. —, 1 Law J. Chauc. 70. Where a witness has been examined in the cause, to prove the loss of a deed, but has not been examined so as to let in secondary evidence of the instrument, and an inquiry has been directed before the Master, the Court will give leave to re-examine the witness before the Master. Hurlock v. Priestly, 1 Law J. Chanc. 212. A witness, who has been examined at the hearing only to prove exhibits, may be examined before the Master on interrogatories to prove other exhi bits, without a special order. The refusal of a witness to be cross-examined is no reason for suppressing his deposition, but the adverse party must at the time enforce such right of cross-examination as he has. Courteney v. Hoskins, 2 Russ. 253. If, after a defendant has been examined as a witness under the usual order, it is discovered that he has not effectually released his interest; and he afterwards release that interest, an order may be obtained for the suppression of his deposition, and his re-examination on the same interrogatories, sav Figes, 3 Law J. Chane. 134. (c) In the Ecclesiastical Courts. All letters which transpire between a solicitor and a witness relative to his examination, must, if required, be produced. Atkinson v. Atkinson, 2 Add. 468. The Court will compel a witness to answer explicitly, whether he is or is not responsible in some way, for the party's expenses in whose behalf he is examined. Hudson v. Beauchamp, 2 Add. 352. Where a witness has been repeated and dismissed long anterior, she cannot, as a matter of course, be examined upon articles of a plea which she has not been designed to at the time of her production. Wilkinson v. Dalton, 1 Add. 339. (F) INTERROGATORIES. [See PRACTICE, IN EQUITY.] On the trial of an ejectment, the Court will not grant a rule to examine a material witness upon in terrogatories, although the witness was so ill that he could not attend. Anon. 2 Chit, 199. It is not necessary to set forth the names of the witnesses whom it is wished to be examined on interrogatories. When the motion is made in term time, no costs are allowed; but when it is made at Nisi Prius, then the opposite party has the costs of the day. Anon. 2 Law J. K.B. 94. The Court will not, in general, give time to exa amine witnesses abroad, on interrogatories, in justi fication of a libel, but they will do it on terms, as, on the defendant admitting the fact of publication. Brown v. Murray, 2 Law J. K.B. 222, s.c. 4 D.& R. 831. A party who omits to cross-examine a witness under a commission at the usual period, will be allowed to exhibit interrogatories for that purpose on a subsequent day. Carter v. Draper, 2 Sim. 52. A witness who, had answered some of the interrogatories, but refused to answer the others, was ordered to answer those interrogatories within four days, or to stand committed. Austin v. Prince, 1 Sim. 348. (G) DEPOSITIONS. [See EVIDENCE, and PRACTICE, IN EQUITY.] The depositions of parishioners, tending to charge the defendant with costs on an information for money received by him for the use of the parish, are admissible in evidence, where the witnesses are not relators mentioned by name in the information. Attorney General v. Griffiths, 1 Ken, 126. WITNESSES (EXPENSES).—WORK AND LABOUR. (H) PROTECTION AND PRIVILEGES. [See ante, EXAMINATION.] A witness who has absconded from his bail, may be re-taken by the bail in court, although he is attending to give evidence in a court of justice, and has received a subpæna. Horn v. Swinford, 1 D. & R. N.P.C. 20. [Richards] The Court will restrain a plaintiff from the use of answers, in a penal proceeding, which may tend to criminate the witness. Jackson v. Benson, 1 Y. & J. 32. The counsel in a cause have no right to object, in favour of a witness, that the answer to a particular question renders him liable to punishment or forfeiture. Such objection belongs to the witness only. Newton, 1 M. & M. 48. [Tenterden] Thomas v. It is a sufficient reason for a witness's refusing to disclose his residence, that the defendant, at whose instigation the question has been put, he believes, has a bailable writ out against him. Watson v. Bevern, 1 C. & P. 363. [Abbott] In an action for criminal conversation, the executor of a deceased relation of the defendant is bound to state the amount of property which the defendant acquired under the testator's will. Peter v. Hancock, 1 Č. & P. 375. [Abbott] (I) EXPENSES. Where there is a reasonable doubt whether the evidence of a witness will or will not be admitted, the Master is justified in allowing the expenses of his attendance at the trial. Rushworth v. Wilson, 1 Law J. K.B. 113, s. c. 1 B. & C. 267. Although a Master, in the taxation of costs, had allowed for witnesses who were not called, yet the Court refused to direct him to review his taxation. Adamson v. Noel, 2 Chit. 200. Circumstances are the criterion which decide what witnesses are entitled to their expenses, since the fact of their being subpoenaed without being examined, has no influence. Bagnall v. Underwood, 11 Price, 510. Men of science were held not entitled to be allowed their expenses incurred by them in travelling from London to York to inspect a building erected by the plaintiff, although he could not safely proceed to trial without such inspection. Bayley v. Beaumont, 4 Law J. C.P. 191. A witness returning from a journey, which was intended before the subpoena, sooner than he otherwise would have done, is entitled to the expenses of that journey, though the trial is at the place of his abode. Vice v. Lady Anson, 1 M. & M. 96. [Tenterden] If the plaintiff subpoena the defendant's attorney to produce books, the latter is not entitled to receive anything from the plaintiff for expenses or loss of time in attending as a witness. Pritchard v. Walker, 3 C. & P. 212. [Vaughan] By the 53 Geo. 3, c. 71, (incorporated in 9 Geo. 4, c. 22,) a witness, summoned on behalf of the sitting member before an election committee, is entitled to his expenses, and to enter up judgment on the Speaker's certificate, in the same manner as wit 567 nesses summoned on behalf of the petition are entitled under that act. Magrane v. White, 6 Law J. K.B. 361, s. c. 8 B. & C. 412, s. c. 2 M. & R. 440. Under the 58 Geo. 3, c. 70, which empowers the Court to order the county treasurer to pay the prosecutor or witnesses, who shall appear to have been endeavouring to apprehend any person, and who shall give evidence against any person accused of grand or petit larceny, &c., the costs of prosecuting and appearing before the grand jury, and compensate them for their loss and trouble in such apprehension, it was holden that persons who had travelled many miles and expended a large sum of money in tracing and endeavouring to apprehend two horsestealers, and had succeeded in apprehending them, were not entitled to any compensation for money so expended. Rex v. Austin, 1 D. & R. N.P.C. 24. [Park] A judge, under the 58 Geo. 3, c. 70, has no power to allow witnesses their expenses, for going to identify stolen property. Rex v. Millington, 1 C. & P. 83. [Hullock] A seafaring man, a native and resident here, was subpoenaed as a witness before issue joined and notice of trial given. The Court held, that the master had acted properly in allowing him subsistence-money during that time. Berry v. Pratt, 1 Law J. K.B. 116, s. c. 1 B. & C. 276, s. c. 2 D. & R. 424. Where a plaintiff brought his witnesses too early to attend a trial: Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to the expenses. Anon. 2 Chit. 200. A gentleman residing in the country was subpœnaed to give evidence at the trial of a cause in London. He proceeded part of the way, and then being from illness unable to go on, he sent a special messenger to London to inform the parties that he could not attend. In his account of expenses, he demanded 51. for the messenger going to London; at the trial of an action for the amount of his expenses incurred, the jury gave him 101. including the 51. The Court refused to grant a new trial on the ground of excessive damages. Bryan's case, 1 Law J. K.B. 157. A witness from the country, subpoenaed there by the defendant, without receiving sufficient for his expenses, and afterwards, when in London, subpœnaed by the plaintiff, and called by him on the trial, is bound to give his evidence both in chief and on cross-examination, and must seek to obtain his expenses in some other way than by objecting to be examined. Edmonds v. Pearson, 3 C. & P. 113. [Gaselee] An attorney who takes witnesses to an inn, is prima facie liable to the innkeeper for the expenses incurred. Cariss v. Richardson, 1 Law J. K.B. 11. WORK AND LABOUR. If a mechanic represents himself as an efficient and skilful workman, and undertakes to perform a particular work, which he does not accomplish, and thereby prevents his employer from deriving any benefit from his labour, the mechanic is not entitled to any compensation. Duncan v. Blundell, 3 Stark. 6. [Bayley] Where the owner of unwrought materials bestows his work and labour upon them, to form them into a vendible commodity, at the instance of an intended buyer, the owner cannot maintain an action for the work and labour, unless there has been a specific appropriation of the commodity to the buyer. Atkinson v. Bell, 6 Law J. K.B. 258, s. c. 8 B. & C. 277, s. c. 2 M. & R. 292. WRECK. Royal and manorial franchises considered, with reference to that subject. Augusta, or Eugenie, 1 Hag. 16. The grantee of the privileges and royalties of the crown, is empowered to take possession of property wrecked, only until a claim is made; and when s claim is given in with a reasonable prospect of proof, his right of custody ceases, and be has no further interest in the property. Augusta, or Eugenie, 1 Hag. 20. AFFIDAVIT. TO HOLD TO BAIL. An affidavit of debt on a bill of exchange, which stated it to be over-due, without setting forth that it is unpaid, was held by the Court to be sufficiently certain that a debt existed. Morgan's case, 1 Law J. K.B. 156. An affidavit of debt stating that RS, HA, RR, and BS, were jointly indebted to the plaintiff on a bill of exchange, "accepted (in the name and firm of AC & Co.) by the said RS, HA, R R, and BS, or one of them :" Held, insufficient. Harmer v. Ashby, 10 B. Mo. 323. It is sufficient if an affidavit of debt, made by one of the assignees of a bankrupt, state that the defendant is indebted, &c., as appears by the books of the bankrupt, and as the deponent verily believes; without alleging that the books are in the deponent's posHatton v. Bristow, 11 B. Mo. 504. session. ATTORNEY AND SOLICITOR. Where a solicitor detained deeds, &c. and refused to deliver his bill of costs,-the Court ordered him to deliver up the deeds, together with his bill of costs, notwithstanding there were no costs incurred in respect of an action at law or suit in equity. In re Murray, 1 Russ. 519. The solicitor of an administratrix receiving money belonging to the estate of the intestate, is not a trustee for the estate; and if he makes payments out of it for the use of the administratrix, which are either previously directed, or subsequently adopted by her, he will be charged only with the balance actually in his hands. Watkins v. Maule, 1 Law J. Chanc. 82. An attorney, who has in that character received papers from a client, cannot be called to produce them in a cause, although he does not act therein as attorney of the party. Parker v. Yates, 12 B. Mo. 520. AMENDMENT. A party had obtained a verdict in an action of ejectment. The opposite party obtained an injunction to stay execution, and nothing was done in the suit for many years; during which time the term specified in the declaration expired. The Court would not amend the declaration by enlarging the term, because it was not shewn, that by so doing DIGEST, 1822-1828. BANKRUPT. In an action by the assignees of a bankrupt, the production of the assignment to the plaintiffs, duly enrolled, is sufficient without proof of its execution, unless notice has been given that it is to be disputed. Tucker v. Barrow, 1 M. & M. 137. [Tenterden] Whether a particular payment has been made by a trader in contemplation of bankruptcy, is purely a 4C L GUARANTIE. A garantie was given by the defendant, in conweron of the plaintiff's giving A a current credit, me good, upon the event of his failure, any Cescrency not exceeding a certain sum. A short uber the guarantie was given, a bill which had Jeen previously given by A to the plaintiffs, was disamuured, and the plaintiffs permitted him to renew I minuut giving any notice of the transaction to bezetendant: Held, that this was not such a failure te rincipal as to entitle the surety to a notice of the renewal of the bill. Carr v. Browne, 12 B. No. 记 |