respectively raised, &c., and when, &c., and the full share thereof, and of every particular and how he computes the same, and when and to whom and for what he has sold and disposed of the same, or so much thereof as, &c., and when and in whose custody or power the residue thereof remaining unsettled now is, and the costs and expenses of working the mines, and the clear profits made thereby, and how he computes the profits; a schedule to the answer setting forth a transcript of all the items in tradesmen's bills was held to be impertinent. (Norway v. Rowe, 1 Mer. 347). An answer to a bill for an account, setting out particulars in detail, although in some sense to be called pertinent, yet if manifestly not called for by the nature of the case, may be held impertinent, as being vexatious and oppressive. (Ib.) The Master is right in reporting that the whole schedule is impertinent, if he be right in saying that any part is impertinent. (Ib. 356). If a short description of letters be required, it is impertinent to state the short contents of them. Tastet, 2 Madd. Ch. Pr. 353).

v. De

A defendant is not bound to confine himself to an answer to the interrogatories in the bill, but may state circumstances in his defence, though if what is stated is immaterial, it would be impertinent. (Anon., MS. 2 Madd. Ch. Pr. 353). Hence, if a man's conduct be complained of in a bill, it is not impertinent to state in his answer the reasons of his conduct. (16.) In a suit for specific performance of an agreement for a lease, the defendant may, by his answer, put in issue any fact tending to show the in

H

solvency of the plaintiff, however it may impeach the plaintiff's respectability; but mere imputations on the moral character of the plaintiff are impertinent. (Pearson v. Knapp, 1 My. & Kee. 312). On a bill filed by a creditor against an executor, charging him with being constantly drunk; of being guilty of violent and outrageous conduct, and in a state of great poverty; and praying that the estate might be duly administered, a receiver appointed, and an injunction granted to prevent the executor from getting in the estate of the testator:-it was held, upon exceptions to the Master's report, that the charges in the bill as to the immoral character of the executor were not scandalous or impertinent, the Vice-Chancellor, Sir L. Shadwell, being of opinion that such charges were material to the decree asked. (Everet v. Prythergch, 6 Jur. 3). His Honor observed, "I think it is a most delicate part of the jurisdiction of the Court to determine how strong a plaintiff may be at liberty to make his case. The plaintiff frames his case, and, in order to support it, he states a great number of charges. The Court has not prevented him from doing so on the ground that some of the charges would have been sufficient. I refer to a case which occurred last term, where the only question was, whether a party was to be charged upon the ground of wilful default; and the plaintiff entered into a great many instances of default, for the purpose only of enabling the plaintiff to have a decree in that form where one or two instances would have been sufficient; it is not for me to limit the number of instances which a plaintiff is to be allowed

to adduce for the purpose of strengthening his case. Here the plaintiff filed his bill to have the estate of the deceased administered, so as to enable the creditors to be paid their debts; and he represents upon his bill that the Court should appoint a receiver: it states first, in a general way, that the husband and wife are persons of bad character, and in great poverty. Well then, in order to support that charge, a great number of instances are given to shew the drunken habits of the parties, their extreme poverty, and their bad character. A plaintiff, as I said before, has a right to make his case as strong as he can; and, in a question concerning the administration of assets, it is not unimportant to make out that the person who has the power over them, and the sole management thereof, is a person of violent conduct. His duty is to get in the assets, and to pay the debts, &c.; and it appears to me, that, if it were generally proved there was great violence and outrageous conduct on the part of an executor in cases where there ought to be peaceable demeanour, it is material to the plaintiff to enter into instances of that violent conduct. It is obvious that the assets cannot be safe in the custody of a person generally drunk." A bill was filed against A., to set aside a purchase made by him on the ground of fraud; A. died after filing his answer; the plaintiff then filed a supplemental bill against A.'s devisees, stating the allegations in the original bill, and several passages in the answer, some of which were stated by way of pretence, and charges were founded upon them: Held,

that the supplemental bill was not impertinent. (Woods v. Woods, 10 Sim. 197).

SECTION 5.

Scandal.

In a bill by a testator's son and heir-at-law impeaching a will, on the ground of undue influence exercised by a female defendant over the testator's mind, an allegation that she, at the time specified, was discovered to have engaged in a criminal connexion with the testator, and that she openly cohabited with him as if she had been his wife, is not scandalous or impertinent. (Anon., 1 M. & Cr. 78). A defendant after putting in his answer became bankrupt; plaintiff, before the assignees were brought be fore the Court, obtained an order to refer the answer for scandal and impertinence: held, that the order was regularly obtained. (Booth v. Smith, 5 Sim. 639). When a bill contains scandalous imputations on the character of the defendant, the defendant will not subject himself to the payment of costs by answering such imputations, although he objects at the same time to the introduction of the matters so answered, on the ground of irregularity in point of pleading. (Wray v. Hutchinson, 2 My. & Kee. 235).

CHAPTER XIX.

DISTRIBUTION OF BUSINESS AMONG THE SEVERAL COURTS OF CHANCERY.

In consequence of the increase in the number of courts exercising concurrent jurisdiction, it has become necessary to prescribe regulations for distributing among them the business which has to be transacted. This is now regulated by the General Orders of the 5th May, 1837, (App. p. xlvii.), and the 11th November, 1841, (App. p. lxxxvii.)

On the 12th Order of the 5th May, 1837, it has been determined that parties making applications after these Orders had come into operation, were bound to see that they were made in the proper court. (Tench v. Cheese, 9 Sim. 150). A suit was commenced previous to the Orders of 1837; a defendant afterwards filed a demurrer, and set it down at the Rolls: held, that the Orders of 1837 did not give to the plaintiff such a right of selecting his court as to render the proceedings of the defendant irregular. (Cane v. Martin, 2 Kee. 607). Where the decree was made by the Vice-Chancellor, and an order upon petition in the cause was afterwards made by the Master of the Rolls, reserving the costs of the petitioners, the reservation of costs does not give authority to the Master of the Rolls to hear a petition in the cause presented after the 20th of May, 1837, but such petition must, under these Orders, be heard by the Vice-Chancellor. (Senior v. Wilks,