1844. March 8. The 17th Order of August 1841 was intended to apply to cases in which there are several Defendants answering separately. The only two Defendants required to answer, joined in one answer. It was found insufficient, and the Plain. THIS BATE v. BATE. HIS bill was filed for the settlement of disputed partnership matters, against three Defendants, Thomas Bate, William Robins, and Frances Bate. The interrogatories were properly numbered from one to twenty-two, according to the exigency of the 17th Order of August 1841. (a) By the note at the foot, the Defendants Thomas Bate and William Robins "were respectively required to answer all the above interrogatories." No subpœna was asked against nor answer required from Frances Bate, but it was prayed, that she being served with a copy bill, might be bound by all the proceedings. The two Defendants Thomas Bate and William Robins put in a joint answer, which having, upon exceptions taken thereto, been found insufficient, the Plaintiff obtained an order to amend, and that the Defendants might answer the exceptions and amendments together. The Plaintiff accordingly amended the bill to such an extent as to require a new engrossment, and he paid to the Defendants 20s. for the costs of such amendment. Several of the old interrogatories had been slightly altered, and some entirely new ones introduced, thereby increasing the number of interrogatories from twenty-two to thirty-seven. The division of the old interrogatories was left without any variation in the ants to answer amended bill, but their numbers were altered, in conse tiff obtained an order to amend, and that the De. fendants might answer the exceptions and amendments together. Some of the original inter rogatories were altered, and new ones added; but the note to the amended bill required the Defend all the interro gatories, with out excepting those pre (a) Ord. Can. 169. viously answered. Held, that there was no irregularity. quence A Plaintiff, unless he specifically offers to do so by the bill, or is required to do so by a cross-bill, is not bound to produce, previous to the Defendant being compelled to put in his answer, documents admitted to be in his (the Plaintiff's) possession and alleged as proving his case. quence of the introduction of the new interrogatories. The note at the foot remained the same, and required the two Defendants Thomas Bate and Robins respectively to answer "all the above interrogatories." These facts gave rise to the first question now before the Court. A second question arose out of the following cir cumstances. The bill, among other things, charged, that certain indentures of the 28th and 29th of September 1826, "were in fact prepared from instructions given by the Defendants Thomas Bate and William Robins, or one of them, unknown to and without any communication with the Plaintiff and John Hezey Bate and George Bate, or any or either of them, and the said Thomas Bate and William Robins, or such of them as gave instructions for the same, caused the same to be prepared in such way as they or he thought best for their or his own views and purposes, and they always refused to produce or shew the conveyance of the said premises or the draft thereof to the Plaintiff and the said John Hezey Bate and George Bate, or any or either of them, although the Plaintiff frequently applied by letter, and otherwise for an inspection thereof, as by reference to the correspondence in the Plaintiff's possession when produced will appear." The corresponding interrogatory, after asking if inspection had not been refused, and why, proceeded, "and whether your orator has not frequently or how often applied, and whether or not by letter, and otherwise, for an inspection thereof." The bill also, after charging a pretence on the part of the Defendant Thomas Bate, that the Plaintiff and Frances 1844. BATE บ. ВАТЕ. 1844. BATE v. Frances Bate had given an authority, dated the 5th of September 1838, to Thomas Bate to act for them, proceeded, "and your orator charges that the said De-· BATE. fendant Thomas Bate has, on several occasions, stated by letter to your orator since the month of September 1838, that he had done nothing under the said alleged authority, save and except the signing, on behalf of your orator and the said Frances Bate, the deed relating to the sale to the said new joint-stock company; and particularly your orator charges, that on or about the 5th of March 1842, the said Thomas Bate wrote and sent to your orator a letter [stating it] as by the said letter to which for greater certainty your orator craves leave to refer, when produced to this honourable Court will appear." The Plaintiff, in his bill, stated two letters of the 26th of August 1826 and the 7th of September 1826, which had been sent to him; he did not, however, admit them to be in his possession, though he referred to them in these terms," as by the said letters to which for greater certainty your orator craves leave to refer, when produced will appear." These matters were interrogated. It was now moved, on behalf of the Defendants Thomas Bate and Robins, that they might have a month's time to put in their answer to the said complainant's amended bill, after the interrogatories, contained in the interrogating part thereof, should have been so conveniently divided from each other, and the note at the foot of the bill so framed, as that the said Defendants should not be required to answer, or compellable to take an office copy of, such of the said interrogatories contained in the said amended bill, as were contained in the same words in the original bill, and had been fully answered by the said Defendants, and and also such other of the said interrogatories con- alleged 1844. ВАТЕ v. BATE. 1844. BATE V. BATE. alleged by the said bill," the said Defendant Thomas Bate has stated to the said complainant since the month of September 1838, that he had done nothing under the authority in the said bill stated," except as therein mentioned; the particulars of such letters to be verified by affidavit, and also the letters from John Hezey Bate to the said complainant, dated 26th of August 1826, and 7th of September 1826, in the said bill referred to. The affidavit of the Defendant Thomas Bate stated as follows: That he kept no copy of the alleged letter written by him to the said Plaintiff, dated the 5th of March 1842, in the said bill set forth, or of the several other letters written by him to the Plaintiff, respecting the matters. in the said bill stated. That he and Robins could not properly put in their answer to the said Plaintiff's amended bill, until they had had the opportunity of inspecting the said alleged letter of the 5th of March 1842, and the other letters in the said bill referred to, whereby, as was alleged by the said bill, "the Defendant Thomas Bate had, on several occasions, stated by letter to the said Plaintiff, since the month of September 1838," &c. &c., and also the correspondence in the said bill stated to be in the Plaintiff's possession, whereby he alleges it will appear, "that the indentures of the 28th and 29th of September 1826," &c. Mr. Roupell, and Mr. Prior in support of the motion, argued that the Plaintiff was bound by the 17th Order of August 1841 (a), to specify the interrogatories in the amended bill, to which he required an answer in order (a) Ordines Can. 169. "that |