Vice-Chancellor's Court, ...
Illr. WAXEFrELD staned that in this canse a biDl had been filed by me plaintifSs for discoverv of c7idence, anct for a commission to ex- i nine vitnesses. The bill stated that the plaintiffs were the pro. :ietors and printers of a weekly newrnpaper called the John Bull. 1 the ycar 183 a controversy aroje respecting the atate of slavery i thil est Indies. On the 26th of ctoberand the 9th of Novem. Cr ]ast, the pIaintiff published two articles on that subject in their per, in wrhich Air. .lacaulay considered some unjust reflections ere cast upon him, and therefore he brought tWo actions against pjem in January, 1824, for libte. The bill went on to state that ec defendants at Law (the plaintiffs in equity) were uFsbla to defend iemnselveA in.these actions without the aid of a comnission to cx- Iinine witnessis in Africa, and in North and South America, for :hich it prayed swcordingly. and also for the discovery of evidence. o this bill the defendant (thc plaintiff at laiw) (lemurred. i Mr. ,PErys and Mr. GARRATT, on behalf of Mr. Aiacaulay, i jpportcd the demurrer upon two grounds. The first ground of de- ; urrer vas to the form of the grayer; but that was abandoned as i*mportnnt. The other grourd was that the bill was mdltifiariouI t asmuch as there were two distinct and separate actions founded ut4: t r fitnIistteltexof et'nens ~ii3:h ,these diattuct X>ctonsi Nowr -t w quld be necessay i f te payyerof'tbis bill were to bh er4litl; to send.'a comrission to eacl of tbe places 'whee re, 'wit revsco who were to be examined resided : one comrnitsion might terminate long before ihe other; and the publication of the evidende obtained upon that would keattended withgreat injusticeto the plaintif*, by letting the defendants kdow how they were to shape their .lefence in tie other case. The learned counsel cited son^.e au- thorities, and argued,that both uponi prineijle and precedent, the de- murrer ought to be allowed.. TheSoleS cL ToCT-GEsiiAL;, Mr. SvG,orn, and Mr. IVAKP- riE.LD argued against the deinurrer. Alultifariousness was dcfined by Lord Redesdale to be a-good cause of demurrer where a bill in. cZided different claims, not aigainst one person, but against diflerent defendants; where the case of one defendlant was not that of the olther. There was no doubt that one bill might be filed for disco- vcry in two cases and whv not as wrell for a commission in tvo ac- tions ? I4ut the bill did not confine its prayer to one com- mission: it prayed for ele or more. In filings bill of this kind, it was necessary to avoid two extremes; according to Lord Redesdale, it was denmurrible as well for onl stating a part of a matter, as for stating tco much., in orler to avoid the multiplicity of suits; and, therefore, if the plaintifis had filed two bills instead of one5 the other party might have demurred. Mr. Illtacaulay thoughit proper to briag two actions, when he might have consolidated them in one; and he seemed anXiOU still farther to extrend the litigation, by com- pelling the plaintiffis to file two bills. Itf his Honour found any dif. iiculty in drawing tip the ftor of ani order for two comumissions, he might make the precedent; for it was only a matter of formn, as it was elear that t wo commissions might be obtained by filing twobills. Mr. PlVYS hbaving replied, The VxCE-(-C5AXCaI.L.oR said, that in this case tte plaintiff at law hadl brought two actions against tbe pLaintiffs in equity, for two alleged libels. It had been said that he might have joined them both ; that might be; but it was not the question at present. The lefendants at law filed a bill in equity praying a discovery, and a couttaission to furnish matter of defence in these two dis. tinct actions. So far as his Hlonour's experience went, -this bill appeared to him to be a mere experiment. Every botly knew that a commission issued to take evidence upon the matter con- tained it the pleadings. Now as a commission was prayed for in botil actiuns, tlue would necessarily be delayed, whiclit would be a grreat injustice, without going farther. 'P'le Court did not permit the publiratiors of evidence before triAl, because, if the witnesses came within the iurisdiction In the metn time, it should never br published ; and if ttruoi one tsial publication took place, it would be an inducement PJwards perjury, by letting the defendant know what defence he was to set up. It had not been alleged that the Court had ever approached this point ; boit it was saidl that it might make a precedeni. The Ctourt was too long established tiot to supI. pose *itat the point had before occurred, and that it had niot been considered prudent to tmake such a tdecision. I nider all the circum- stances, his HoInour was of opinion that t!te demnurrer must be -ICE-CHAANCELLOR'S COURT. WED 4r.nAV T.7, ,n SHACKELL AND OTHERS V. MACA.T.A I