fourteen days from the putting in of the answer to set down the cause on the objection for want of parties, it is obvious that no time should be lost after the answer is filed in bringing this question before the consideration of counsel.

CHAPTER XVI.

Against a de

fendant hav

of parliament.

MODE OF ENFORCING AN ANSWER.

IF the defendant fail to put in his answer within the time limited by the Court, the plaintiff can then proceed to enforce an answer, by resorting to the process of contempt. Against a defendant free from legal disability, and not having privilege of parliament, this process is by attachment. If he cannot be apprehended and brought to the bar of the Court upon this writ, the plaintiff may then proceed to take the bill pro confesso against him, in the manner explained in the next chapter.

Where the defendant has privilege of parliament, ing privilege the proceeding is by the plaintiff obtaining orders for a sequestration nisi and for a sequestration absolute, in the same manner as has been before explained to enforce appearance in the case of a defendant having privilege of parliament; except that in moving to make the order nisi absolute, the plaintiff, in addition to the affidavit of service and certificate of no cause, should also produce the Six Clerk's certificate of the answer not having been filed.

On obtaining the order absolute, the plaintiff moves that the clerk in court may attend, at the hearing of the cause, with the record of the plaintiff's bill, in order that it may be taken pro confesso against the defendant; the cause is then set down for hearing and the bill taken pro confesso accordingly. When the bill is for discovery only, and consequently the cause is not set down to be heard, the Court, on the motion of plaintiff, will order the bill to be taken pro confesso against such defendant, unless, within eight days after being served with the order, he shew good cause to the contrary: (1 W. 4, c. 36, s. 13): if taken pro confesso, such bill, or an examined copy thereof, shall be received in any court of law or equity as evidence of the facts, matters, and things therein contained, as fully as if the same were admitted by the defendant. (Id. s. 14).

The Attorney-General not having answered the Against the Attorneybill within a reasonable time, the Court ordered that General. he should put in his answer within a week after service of the order, or that the bill should be taken pro confesso against him, and that service on his clerk in court should be good service. (Groom v. AttorneyGeneral, 9 Sim. 325).

poration ag

When the defendants are a corporation aggregate, Against a corthe plaintiff proceeds to a pluries distringas in the gregate. same manner as for want of appearance, upon which he obtains an order for a sequestration, and then applies that the clerk in court may attend at the hearing with the record of the bill, that it may be taken pro confesso; the cause is then set down, and the bill taken pro confesso accordingly.

G

Against an infant.

Against a feme coverte.

When the defendant is an infant, an attachment must be sealed but not executed. A messenger is then moved for to apprehend and bring the infant to the bar of the Court, upon which the senior Six Clerk is appointed his guardian, to answer and defend the suit. A messenger having been ordered to bring an infant defendant into Court to have a guardian assigned for putting in his answer, his return stated that the infant was secreted by his mother. The Vice-Chancellor ordered the serjeant-at-arms to go, and said, that on the return of the serjeant-at-arms he would order the senior Six Clerk to be appointed the guardian, without the infant being produced. (Steed v. Calley, 7 Sim. 148).

Husband and wife defendants, and the wife neglecting or refusing to answer, an attachment issues of course against her husband. If the husband wish to avoid this process, the Court, on his application with notice, and supported by affidavit that he does not collude with her, and is unable to compel her to answer, will allow him to answer separately, and discharge him from liability in respect of her contempt in not answering. (Barry v. Cane, 3 Madd. 472; Gareyv. Whittingham, 1 Sim. & Stu. 163). In the latter case, the application was supported from a passage in the husband's answer. After the husband has obtained this order, the plaintiff cannot issue an attachment against the wife until he has obtained an order for her to answer separately, which is granted of course after the husband has obtained an order exempting him from process for her contempt. When the

husband is abroad and not amenable to the jurisdiction, the plaintiff may obtain the order for the wife to answer separately; (Garey v. Whittingham, 1 Sim. & Stu. 163); but as to whether it be necessary in this case to have the order, see Bushell v. Bushell, (Id. 164). On the principle of Jackson v. Haworth, (1 Sim. & Stu. 161), it would appear, that, notwithstanding any previous lapse of time, the wife, after an order to answer separately, is entitled to the full time allowed by the Court for answering.

person of

mind.

Where the defendant is of unsound mind, but not Against a found such by inquisition, the plaintiff may either unsound issue an attachment and procure the same to be returned specially, and then, upon plaintiff's application, supported by the affidavit of a medical man or other competent person, the Court will order the senior Six Clerk towards the cause to be appointed his guardian to answer and defend the suit, or he may have a similar order on special application in the first instance. In Miles v. Lingham, (7 Ves. 229), the sheriff having returned cepi corpus to an attachment for want of appearance, but that in consequence of extreme infirmity he had not taken the defendant, the Court, after some consideration, or dered a messenger.

Where the defendant is in custody under sentence on a charge for felony, itseems that nothingcan be done till the term of his imprisonment has expired. (Moss v. Brown, 1 Ves. & Bea. 78, 306; Rogers v. Kirkpatrick, 3 Ves. 471, 573).

CHAPTER XVII.

SECTION 1.

Taking Bill pro confesso against a Defendant, who has appeared.

By the Orders of the 11th April, 1842, which have just been issued, the practice has been entirely changed. It appears, nevertheless, to be desirable still to retain some short account of the former practice.

Where the defendant had entered an appearance but did not answer, on the sheriff's return of non est inventus, the Court, by the 1st of Sir Ed. Sugden's Rules (App. p. xcix.), upon the affidavit therein required, was empowered to order the serjeantat-arms to go, "and the same proceedings might be thereupon had as if such order had been made in manner theretofore in use," (that is to say), upon his return of non est inventus an order for a sequestration, and upon that an order to take the bill pro confesso. By the 9th Order of 26th Aug., 1841, this rule is superseded, the Court being empowered upon the sheriff's return of non est inventus to an attachment, and the affidavit, which is required to be made in the same terms as those used in Sir Ed. Sugden's Rule, to order a sequestration at once. This affidavit being the same as that required by Sir Ed. Sugden's 1st Rule, the decisions upon the latter are of course applicable to the new order. Upon the former it has been determined, that the Court will