Bousfield. v Mould
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 12 June 1847 |
| Date | 12 June 1847 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 63 E.R. 1098
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[347] boitsfield v. mould. June 12, 1847. After the examination of witnesses between all the Plaintiffs and all the Defendants, leave cannot be given to withdraw the replication, and examine a Defendant. A witness permitted to be1 re-examined upon the former interrogatories after releasing his interest. Mr. Bacon, on behalf of the Plaintiff, moved for leave to withdraw the replication. to the answer of one of the Defendants, and to, examine that Defendant as a witness, and also for leave to re-examine a witness upon the same interrogatories who had been already examined, and to prove that a release had been executed by this witness. The point as to which the re-examination was sought was as 'to a certain debt having been vested in the witness at the time of his bankruptcy. Publication had passed. The suit was instituted in May 1843, which was before the passing of Lord Penman's Act, 6 & 7 Viet. c. 86. Mr. Eussell and Mr. Hitchcock, in opposition to the motion. As to' withdrawing the replication for the purpose of admitting evidence, it cannot be done after publication. has passed. And as to the re-examination sought, Lord Eldon said, in Faughan v. Wmrall (2 Swanst. 400), "When, after the witness has been cross-examined to the bone on the last question, it appears that he has an interest in the suit, the Judge-must say that no attention could be given to his evidence ; but whether they permit a release to be given, and the witness [348] to be asked the general question - is all that you have to say to-day true 1 - or the examination to be repeated, is that of which 1DEG.&SM.349. LENNABD V. CURZON 1099 I am not informed. At a late period of my-life, however, I certainly remember no such instance. It is a novelty to me to hear it said that if it appears that a witness was interested at the time of the examination, this Court knows any such practice as that, a release being given,'the witriessmaythen.be re-examined. I believe that that never was done in any well-considered case. rWhen, with knowledge that there might be an objection to the testimony, and not requiring on the one hand, or giving on the other, a release, the parties take their chance of interested testimony, it would lead to mischief beyond calculation if they were permitted, should the objection transpire in the progress of the cause, to release and re-examine, when it is almost morally impossible that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v Keayes. Keayes v Carroll
...Eq. Rep. 176. Lake v DeanENR 28 Beav. 607. Nelthorpe v. HolgateENR 1 Coll. C. C. 203. Hall v. Smith 14 Ves. 426. Clive v. BeaumontENR 1 De G. & Sm. 347. Gaston v. FrankumENR 2 De G. & Sm. 561. Spunner v. WalshUNK 10 Ir. Eq. Rep. 386. Pope v. Garland 4 Yo. & Coll. 394. Vignolles v. BowenUNK ......