3. Money paid into Court as aforesaid may, unless otherwise ordered by a judge, be paid out to the plaintiff, or to his solicitor on the written authority of the plaintiff. No affidavit shall be necessary to verify the plaintiff's signature to such written authority unless specially required by the officer of the Court.

4. The plaintiff, if payment into Court is made before delivering a defence, may within four days after receipt of notice of such payment, or if such statement is first stated in a defence delivered then, may, before reply, accept the same in satisfaction of the causes of action in respect of which it is paid in; in which case he shall give notice to the defendant in the Form No. 6 in Appendix (B.)1 hereto, and shall be at liberty, in case the sum paid in is accepted in satisfaction of the entire cause of action, to tax his costs, and, in case of non-payment within forty-eight hours, to sign judgment for his costs so taxed.

The practice of tendering a certain sum in satisfaction of Tender. the plaintiff's claim in actions for salvage has long been in use in the Court of Admiralty; and even if there are two plaintiffs who are bringing separate actions, the defendant may make a tender of a single sum in respect of both actions, if it is very difficult for him to ascertain the value of the services rendered by each. (The Jacob Landstrom, L. R. 4 P. D. 191; 4 Asp. M. C. N. S. 581.) Notice of such tender must be served on the solicitor's for each plaintiff. For mere payment of money in satisfaction the practice formulated by the above rule might be employed, but the original Admiralty practice as to tenders is still in use. The solicitor of the defendant obtains a receivable order at the registry, which authorizes him to pay the sum he proposes to tender into the Bank of England to the account of the registrar. This order and the money having been left at the bank, a receipt for such sum is received there, a copy of which, together with a notice that the money has been paid into the bank and is tendered to the plaintiff, should be served on his solicitor. Such notice should include an offer to pay costs (as to costs of tender generally, see post, Order LV.) up to the date of tender, or it should state that the tender relates to the claim only, and give reasons why

1 App. IV., p. 442.

costs are not also tendered, and refer the question concerning them to the Court (The Hickman, L. R. 3 Ad. 15; 39 L. J. Ad. 7; The Thracian, L. R. 3 Ad. 504; 1 Asp. M. C. N. S. 207). For Form of Tender, see App. V. The sum tendered will not, however, be paid out until the conclusion of the suit (The Annie Childs, Lush. 509), so that the practice as to a tender differs in this respect from an ordinary payment into Court; as to which see r. 3, ante. A tender should be pleaded by the defendant in his defence. On an appeal from the Cinque Ports Commissioners, the defendant may tender a sum, which must be refused or accepted by the plaintiff (The Annette, L. R. 4 Ad. 9; 42 L. J. Ad. 13). As to costs, see post, O. lv., Costs.

Discovery.

ORDER XXXI.

DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION.

1. The plaintiff may, at the time of delivering his statement of Time for claim, or at any subsequent time not later than the close of the pleaddelivering ings, and a defendant may, at the time of delivering his defence, or at interrogations. any subsequent time not later than the close of the pleadings, without any order for that purpose, and either party may at any time, by leave of the Court or a judge, deliver interrogatories in writing for the examination of the opposite party or parties, or any one or more of such parties, with a note at the foot thereof, stating which of such interrogatories each of such persons is required to answer: Provided that no party shall deliver more than one set of interrogatories to the same party without an order for that purpose.

Rule 1 of this Order regulates the time at which interrogatories should be delivered. It has been laid down that as a general rule the plaintiff ought not to deliver his interrogatories before the delivery by the defendant of the statement of defence (Mercier v. Cotton, 1 Q. B. D. 442; 46 L. J. Q. B. 184); nor the defendant administer his interrogatories before he has delivered his statement of defence (Disney v. Longbourne, L. R. 2 Ch. D. 774; 45 L. J. Ch. 532). If very strong reasons were given, interro

gatories might be allowed at an earlier period than the above, as in The Murillo, 28 L. T. N. S. 374; 1 Asp. M. C. N. S. 579, when the defendant appeared, stating he was "improperly sued as one of the owners of the ship."

2. The Court in adjusting the costs of the action shall at the instance of any party inquire or cause inquiry to be made into the propriety of exhibiting such interrogatories; and, if it is the opinion of the taxing master of the Court or judge that such interrogatories have been exhibited unreasonably, vexatiously, or at improper length, the costs occasioned by the said interrogatories and the answers thereto shall be borne by the party in fault.

3. Interrogatories may be in the Form No. 7 in Appendix (B.) hereto, with such variations as circumstances may require.

See App. IV.; and as to costs, see further, App. II., p. 373.

tions.

4. If any party to an action be a body corporate or a joint stock Corporacompany, whether incorporated or not, or any other body of persons empowered by law to sue or be sued, whether in its own name or in the name of any officer or other person, any opposite party may apply at chambers for an order allowing him to deliver interrogatories to any member or officer of such corporation, company, or body, and an order may be made accordingly.

5. Any objection to answering any one or more of several interro- Striking gatories, on the ground that it or they is or are scandalous or irrelevant, out interrogatories. or not bona fide for the purposes of the action, or that the matters inquired into are not sufficiently material at that stage of the action, or on any other ground, may be taken in the affidavit in answer. All applications to set aside the interrogatories, on the ground that they have been exhibited unreasonably or vexatiously, or to strike out any interrogatory or interrogatories, on the ground that it or they is or are scandalous, may be made at chambers within four days after service of the interrogatories.

By the rules of November, 1878, this rule replaced the former one. It regulates the manner of interrogating, and points out the reasons for which an interrogatory may be struck out. It has been laid down as a principle of practice that interrogatories ought to be such as tend bond fide to support the case of the interrogator and to favour a

Answers.

complete inquiry into the truth of the issue which is before the Court (The Mary or Alexandria, L. R. 2 Ad. 312; 18 L. T. N. S. 891; see also Benbow v. Low, L. R. 16 Ch. D. 93; 50 L. J. Ch. D. (C.A.) 35). Among interrogatories which are objectionable, it has been held that those the answers to which would tend to render the answerer liable to criminal proceedings must be included (The Mary or Alexandria, supra), also those which seek to discover on what evidence the opposite side will rely (The Commissioners of Sewers v. Glass, L. R. 15 Eq. 302; 42 L. J. Ch. 345). Interrogatories have been allowed in a collision. action, even though the information sought would mostly be found in the preliminary Acts (The Radnorshire, L. R. 5 P. D. 172; 49 L. J. Ad. D. 48). Interrogatories, however, are seldom required in ordinary Admiralty actions.

6. Interrogatories shall be answered by affidavit, to be filed within ten days, or within such other time as a judge may allow.

7. An affidavit in answer to interrogatories shall, unless otherwise ordered by a judge, if exceeding ten folios, be printed, and may be in the Form No. 8 in Appendix (B.) hereto, with such variations as circumstances may require.

8. Rescinded.

9. No exceptions shall be taken to any affidavit in answer, but the sufficiency or otherwise of any such affidavit objected to as insufficient shall be determined by the Court or a judge on motion

or summons.

10. If any person interrogated omits to answer, or answers insufficiently, the party interrogating may apply to the Court or a judge for an order requiring him to answer, or to answer further, as the case may be. And an order may be made requiring him to answer or answer further either by affidavit or by vivâ voce examination, as the judge may direct.

A person interrogated must answer according to the best of his knowledge, belief, and information. If he is unable to answer a question he must say so with particularity, and that will be a sufficient answer (The Minnehaha, L. R. 3 Ad. 148 (152); 23 L. T. N. S. 747), otherwise a further or better answer will be required of him.

As to the use of these answers as evidence at the hear

ing, see post, r. 23.

tion of

11. It shall be lawful for the Court or a judge at any time during Producthe pendency therein of any action or proceeding, to order the pro- docuduction by any party thereto, upon oath, of such of the documents ments. in his possession or power relating to any matter in question in such action or proceeding, as the Court or judge shall think right; and the Court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just.

12. Any party may, without filing any affidavit, apply to a judge for an order directing any other party to the action to make discovery on oath of the documents which are or have been in his possession or power relating to any matter in question in the action.

These two rules enable a party to obtain the production of documents relating to the action, or to discover first of all what documents the other party to the action may possess. Having regard to J. A. 1873, s. 25, sub-s. 11, the rules of equity must govern the practice in this matter. Every document asked for must be produced, unless it is protected from being seen on the ground of privilege (Bustros v. White, 1 Q. B. D. 422; 45 L. J. Q. B. 642). And the right to discovery extends to every document which may throw light on the case (Hutchinson v. Glover, 1 Q. B. D. 138; 45 L. J. Q. B. 120, where terms of a compromise of an action of collision were ordered to be inspected). But reports of surveys held solely for the purpose of the action are privileged (The Theodore Korner, L. R. 3 P. D. 112; 47 L. J. Ad. D. 85); but not letters which would disclose trade secrets (The Don Francisco, Lush. 468).

In an action against the Queen's ships, the Court will not order the commander's reports to the Admiralty to be produced (H. M. S. Bellerophon, 44 L. J. Ad. 5; 31 L. T. N. S. 756).

Upon oath means an affidavit in which the documents must be described.