3. Though at law you can examine only to general credit, yet it is otherwife in equity; for as the witnefs there cannot be prepared to defend every particular action of his life, not knowing to what they may intend to examine him; yet on an examination here he may be able to answer any particular charge, as he has time enough to recollect. 3 Atk. 522. June 1747. Gill v. Watfon.

Quere, whether there be any fuch distinction between the examinations here and at law, with regard to examinations to the credit of witneffes.

4. Plaintiff may ferve any two of defendant's commiffioners with notice of the execution of the commiffion, and is not tied down to fuch only as the defendant fhould choofe. 3 Aik. 633. April 1747. Anon.

5. The court will not allow articles to be exhibited against the competency of a witnefs after publication, becaufe this might have been objected to and inquired into upon the examination. 3 Atk. 643. April 1748. Callaghan v. Rochfort.

6. But the court allows fuch articles to the credit of a witness after publication, because the matters examined into in fuch cafes were not material to the merits of the caufe; though not when the commiffion is to go to foreign parts, on account of the delay, unless no person in England can fwear to the credit. Ibid.

7. Depofitions de bene effe, publifhed where there can be no examination in chief, as where the council in Sweden refufed to let the commiffion for the examination in chief be executed there.

2 Vef 325. July 1751. Gafon v. Wordsworth.-2 Vef. 336. S. C.; and Amb. 108. S. C.

8. Depofitions de bene effe where the witneffes are dead, and no opportunity to examine in chief, though after great length of time, publifhed; but without prejudice to exception at the hearing. 2 Vef. 497. July 1754. Anon.

9. Plaintiff, on his examination on interrogatories, charged and difcharged himself in the fame fentence, fufficient; but had they been in different fentences, he muft have proved the difcharge. Amb. 589. Oct. 1748. Kirkpatrick v. Love.

10. Interrogatories are exhibited of courfe to falfify an examination pro intereffe fus. 2 Bro. Ch. Ca. 15. Mich. 1785. Rowley v. Ridley.

11. Where a perfon is the only witnefs to a material fact, he may be examined de bene effe. 2 Bro. Ch. Ca. 611. July 1789. Hankin v. Middleditch.-Sec alfo Lord Cholmondely v. Earl of Oxford, 4 Bro. Ch. Ca. 157. Dec. 1792. S. P.

12. The examination of witneffes, who are foreigners, must be in Englife, and the interrogatories and their answers tranflated by fworn interpreters. 4 Bro. Ch. Ca. 90. July 1792. Lord Bel

more v. Anderfon.

13. A married woman, being in America, being entitled to a legacy, a commiffion for her examination would have been directed, but as he had been examined under a commiflion ifsued by the American

K 2

American Government, it was conficered fufficient. 3 Vefjun. 321. Feb. 1797. Campbell v. French.

14. Motion on behalf of one of the creditors who had proved (before the deputy remembrancer) his demand upon the estate in the caufe, for leave to exhibit interrogatories to the plaintiff, to difcover the demands due from him to the estate, refused, because each creditor might claim the fame privilege. Anftr. 361. 9 Dec. 1793. Bowen y. Webb.

15. In a fuit to obtain teftimony for defence of a fuit at law, the court will not grant a commiffion to examine witnefes abroad, unless on good grounds fhewn, although no injunction be moved for. Anftr. 880. Hil. 37 Geo. 3. Shidden v. Baring.

(D) Examined on new Interrogatories. In what Cafes.

I.

N OTICE must be given of a motion to add new interrogatories for the examination of a defendant, on the exa-. minations before put in being reported infufficient; and an order for that purpofe obtained upon a motion of courfe will be difcharged. 3 Atk. 511. May 1747.' Anon.

2. After the depofitions under a former commiflion had been feen, the court would not fuffer additional interrogatories to be exhibited under a new commiflion, but confined the defendant to proving exhibits, and crofs-examining a perfon already examined for the plaintiffs; but not to examine any new witneffes. 3 Atk. 593 Dec. 1747. Barnfly v. Powell.

3. On contradictory affidavits of the fame perfon, a perfonal examination is required. 2 Vef. 26. 08. 1760. Ex parte Lord. 4. Interrogatories and depofitions being fuppreffed, leave was given to exhibit new interrogatories for the examination of the fame witneffes. Amb. 585. March 1739. Lord Arundel v. Pitt.

5. Witneffes re-examined, where there was a mistake, and that mil ke apparent. 3 Bro. Ch. Ca. 3 Bro. Ch. Ca. 370. Mich. 1791. Sandjord v. Paul. Vefjun. 98. S. C.

6. Motion for leave to examine a witness before the examiner, after publication, who had been fworn before publication paffed, and all the interrogatories then given in. And this appeared to have been the practice, but the court difapproved of it, though, as the prefent party has been deceived by it, he was fuffered to examine his witnefs. 3 Anjir. 835. 17 Dec. 37 G. 3. Jenkin Jon v. Sir Lucas Pepys, Hart.

7. An interrogatory, which went to the very gift of the caufe, be ing fuppreffed as leading, the court gave leave to exhibit a fresh interrogatory. 3 Anfir. 923. 29 May, 37 G. 3. Mentill v. Payne

and others.

(G) Punishment for Refufal to be examined thereon. 14Vin 464.

UPON

JPON motion that Mr. Manley (a witnefs) be committed for a contempt of court, in not fubmitting to be examined before the Mafter, it was decided by the Chancellor, aflifted by the Mafter of the Rolls, that, after a decree, the Mafter may examine witneffes; but ought not to do fo by his clerk; the fame fubpoena iffues as to bring them before the exaniiner; which is the fame as a fubpand to answer: but the label expreffes the purpofe; upon an examination in the country, the body of the writ expreffes, that it is to testify. And it was faid that the decrees in the Exchequer exprefs, that the Mafter is armed with a commiffion to examine witneffes, and power to direct the fame to the country; and that it was fo formerly in Chancery. After a decree, if the Mafter fees caufe for a commiffion to examine witneffes in the country, he certifies that it is neceffary; and the depofitions, when returned, are filed by the Six Clerk; but depofitions taken before the Mafter are kept in their offices. 3 Vef. jun. 603. Dec. 1797. Parkinson v. Ingram.

Vide Commiffion, Depofition, Examination, Hearing, &c.

Inventory.

[D]

(B) Neceffary; in what Cafes; and the Punishment 14 Vin 64. of not making it.

1.

XECUTORS made no inventory, but paid intereft for a legacy during their lives. Decreed, by Hardwicke L. C., that this is evidence of affets; and, he faid, nothing is more neceffary than to keep executors to deliver inventories. Corporation of Clergymen's Sons v. Swainson, 1 Vef. 75.

2. When the executor paid feveral legacies in full, and died, not having made an inventory, it was decreed by Sir J. Strange Master of the Rolls, that his reprefentatives having affets of the faid executor, fhall pay the reft. Not exhibiting an inventory, which every perfon ought to do. especially in a deficient estate, is an imputation upon him, and inclines the court to bear harder upon him, because he may at any time relieve himself by an inventory if he finds the eftate deficient. Orr v. Kaines, 2 Vef. 193.

I.

(C) Of what Things, and how.

·A Fire engine fet up for the benefit of a colliery by a tenant for life, is to be confidered as perfon leftate, and goes to his executor; for it is an acceflary to carrying on the trade of getting and vending coals, and is a matter of a perfonal nature. Lawton v. Lawton, 3 Atk. 13. Lord Dudley v. Lord Ward, Amb. 113.-Bull. L. N. P. 34. S. C.

2. But fait pans go to the heir, and not to the executor; for they are not acceffaries to carrying on a trade, but means of enjoying the inheritance. Lawton v. Salmon, 1 H. Black. 259.

I

3. With regard to things otherwife perfonal, which have been affixed to the freehold, the rule as to whom they shall go obtains with mot rigour in favour of the interitance, and against the right to difannex therefrom. Per Lord Ellenborough C. J. Elves v. Maw, 3 East, 51.

3. In deciding, whether a particular fixed inftrument, machine, or building, fhall be confidered as removable by the executor, as between him and the heir, the main ground is, that where fuch inftrument, engine, or utenfil (and the building covering the fame falls within the fame principle) is an acceffary to a matter of a perfonal nature, it fhall itfelf be confidered as perfonalty. Cod. Jud. Ib. 53.

14 Vin. 466. (D) Confidered how; and the Effect thereof when

See 2 Fonb. 418. n.

1.

exhibited.

T HE executor is admitted both at law on plea of plene adminiftravit, and in equity on account of affets, to fhew that the money for which, by folemn inventory on oath, he has charged himself, has by accident, as, perhaps, failure of fome great merchant, not come to his hands, fo that the inventory is not finally binding. Per Sir J. Strange, M. R. In Orr v. Kaines, 2 Vef. 193.

2. The fpiritual court has no jurifdiction to falfify, at the fuit of a creditor, an inventory exhibited by the executor. Cotchfide v. Ovington, 3 Burr. 1922, Bewick v. Ord, ib. n.

Intire Damages.

[G]

IN trefpafs and falfe imprisonment, the plaintiff declared that the defendant imprifoned him the 1st October, 9 W. 3., and detained him in prifon for four months, and after verdict for the plaintiff and intire damages, judgment was arrested, because the declaration being of Michaelmas term 9 W. 3., and the damages being intire, and given for the imprisonment of four months from the ift October, it appeared that the damages were given for inprifonment after the action was commenced. Brafsfield v. Let, iLd. Raym. 329.

2. A judgment in the Common Pleas was reverfed in the King's Bench, because the jury on the writ of inquiry had given damages for neceffaries provided after the action commenced, and to a time after the writ of inquiry was executed. Baker v. Bache, 2 Ld. Raym. 1382.

3. It is a fettled rule, that where there are feveral counts, and a verdict is entered generally on all the counts, and intite damages are given, and one count is bad, it is fatal, and judgment thall be arrested. Grant v. Aflle, 2 Doug! 730.

4. And it shall be arrested in toto, and no venire de novo awarded. Trevor v. Wall, 1 T. R. 151. Hancock v. Hayward, 3 T. R. 435. per Buller J. Holt v. Scholefield, 6 T. R. 691.

5. But, where a general verdict has been taken, and evidence been given only on the good counts, the court has permitted the verdict to be amended by the judge's notes. Eddowes v. Hopkinss 2 Dougl. 376.

6. So, where it appears by the judge's notes that the jury calculated the damages on evidence applicable to the good only, the court will amend the verdict by entering it on thofe counts, though evidence was given applicable to the bad count fo. Williams v. Breedon, 1 Bof. Pull. 329. Spencer v. Goter, 1 H. Bl. 78.

7. In Webb v. Turner, the declaration was of Michac 'mas term of an affault on the 18th of October, and an imprisonment from thence for 25 weeks, and after a verdict for the plaintiff, it was moved in arreft of judgment that the action was brought too foon, and it appeared damages had been given for an imprisonment long after the action was depending; and 2 Salk. 562. 2 Saund. 169. Cro. Fac. 618. 1 Vent. 103. Heb. 189. Carth. 386. were cited in fupport of the objection. But for the plaintiff it was argued that the continuando in this cafe was laid under a fcilicet, and therefore, according to All. 22. and Hob 171. 294., it will not vitiate what is properly laid in time, and that this differs from all the cafes where the time is affirmatively laid. And of this o pinn

K 4

t