Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

White v Fussell. [HIGH COURT of CHANCERY]

Nominate Series English Reports Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date18 December 1911
Date18 December 1911
CourtHigh Court of Chancery

English Reports Citation: 34 E.R. 460

HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY

White
and
Fussell

[113] white v. fitssell. May llth, 18U. Interrogatories and Depositions not referred for Impertinence alone without Scandal. Mr. Owen, for the Defendants, moved, that interrogatories and the depositions of two witnesses should be referred for impertinence. The motion was made as of course ; but notice having been served, the Plaintiff appeared ,to oppose it. Mr. Hall, for the Defendant, insisted, that there is no instance of a reference of depositions for impertinence alone without scandal. The reference for scandal is upon the distinct ground, that nothing scandalous is to be introduced before the 19 VES. JTO. 114. WILLIAMSON 'V. GORDON 461 Court. If there is any cause for blame, it rests with the Commissioners of both parties. All depositions contain much, that cannot be read ; being either irrelevant, or not evidence. In Pyncent v. Pyncent (3 Atk. 157) Lord Hardwicke adverts to the prior case of Cocks v. War thing ton (2 Atk. 235-6) as a case of scandal as well as impertinence. This motion, which is not of course, and for which no special ground is laid, must be refused with costs. The Lord Chancellor |:Eldon]. In Pyncent v. Pyncent...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT