March 18.

April 12, 21.

stay proceed

Though a party may now

THE HE Defendant Galloway had effected assurances Practice under in the Phoenix Fire and Life Assurance Company, cases of inthe statute, in upon certain premises at St. Ubis in Portugal, and junctions to upon his stock in trade, consisting of large quantities ings at law. of cork. In 1852, a fire took place, by which, it was said, a considerable quantity of cork had been burnt, at law extogether with some part of the premises. The loss amine his opponent, he is was alleged to amount to about 9,000l. The com- still entitled to a discovery in pany instituted inquiries as to the circumstances of the case, and having ultimately refused to pay the claim, Galloway, on the 11th of December, 1852, brought an

action

equity in aid of his case at

law.

Where the Plaintiff in a bill of dis

covery in aid of a defence at law has a bona fide case, verified by affidavit, showing that information may be given by the answer, which may assist him in wholly or partially destroying the case made against him at law, he is entitled to that discovery and to an injunction until the discovery is given.

1853.

LOVELL

v.

action against them. The company pleaded fraud, and, in the name of their secretary, filed their bill against the Defendant for discovery in aid of their defence at GALLOWAY. law. The Plaintiffs stated, that they could not, as they were advised safely proceed, to defend the action without the discovery sought by the bill; and under the peculiar circumstances of the case, and having regard to the difficulty of investigating the accounts necessary to be investigated, in order to arrive at any satisfactory conclusion as to the correctness or otherwise of the Defendant's claims against them, such discovery could not be effectually obtained at law from the Defendant, and that they expected such discovery would be material to their defence at law. The bill stated, that the bill was filed bonâ fide and not to create delay, and prayed for discovery, and an injunction to stay the proceedings at law, until the answer should be put in. In support of the bill, the Plaintiffs filed affidavits, in which the statements submitted to the company by the Defendant were questioned, as regarded the quantity and quality of the cork, the state of the premises generally, and the truth and sufficiency of the books and accounts, which the company had sent over an agent to examine. The Defendant filed counter affidavits, and the motion for the injunction to stay the trial at law now came on to be heard.

Mr. R. Palmer and Mr. Druce, for the motion, referred to 15 & 16 Vict. c. 86. s. 58, and relied on Senior v. Pritchard (a).

Mr. Roupell and Mr. W. Hislop Clark, contrà. The Plaintiff at law (Galloway) will have to make out his

case.

(a) 16 Beav. 473.