357


of  documents  relating  (as  they  said)  to
their  own  right,  and  which  formed  ma-
terial evidence  for  them,  but  did  not  (as
they  said)  tend  to  prove  the  right  of  the
Crown,  and  they  submitted  they  were  not
hound  to  set  forth  a  list  thereof  The
Court,  on  a  consideration  of  the  whole
case,  having  regard  to  the  nature  of  the
title  claimed  to  the  bed  or  soil  of  the
river,  to  the  circumstances  under  which
it  was  claimed,  and  to  the  fiduciary  rela-
tion which  subsisted  between  the  Crown
and  the  corporstion  in  respect  of  the
conservancy,  Held,  that  the  Defendants
were  bound  to  give  the  discovery  re-
quired. The  Jttomey- General  v.  The
Vorperaihm  of  Lemdom,  vol.  12,  p.  8

42.  On  motion  for  production,  the  Defend-
ant asked  that  the  Plaintiff  might  be
prevented  using  them  for  any  collateral
purposes,  alleging  that  there  were  pro-
ceeaings  at  law  pending.  The  Court,
however,  declined  so  to  restrict  the  order.
Tagg  V.  The  South  Devom  Rail,  Co,

vol.  12,  p.  151

43.  A  suit  was  instituted  by  a  cestui  que
truti,  to  set  aside  a  sale  by  trustees  to
their  solicitor.  The  solicitor  submitted
to  give  up  the  purchase  on  repayment.
He  admitted  the  possession  of  the  title-
deeds,  but  resisted  their  production,  un-
less the  Plaintiff  consented  to  repay  the
purchase-money,  saying  that  the  title  was
iMd,  and  that  the  Plaintiff  would  have
the  power,  as  he  had  the  inclination,  to
expose  tfafe  title,  in  case  he  abandoned
the  suit.  Held  that  the  solicitor  was
bound  to  produce  the  deeds.  Shallcrott
V.  Weaver,  vol.  12,  p.  272

44.  An  order  for  production  cannot  he
made  against  an  executor  upon  admis-
sions in  his  testator's  answer.  Seott  v.
