WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER.— 2 BLAND. 179

necessary verbosity, tautology and scandal, the introduction of
which the ancient orders, regulating the English practice, so earn-
estly and repeatedly endeavor to prevent. Beam's Orders, 25, 71,
184, 273, 311, 492. By our public mode of proceeding, we have
been relieved from all such embarrassments. It is wholly unneces
sary, in any case, to file a long formal set of interrogatories to be
sent with the commission, unless it should be sent to a distance, or
into a foreign country, where the party, or his solicitor, cannot at-
tend. But where the party, or his solicitor, who understands the
nature of the matters in issue, to which the proofs are to be di-
rected, can be present at the examination of the witnesses, as he
always ought to be, the better and more correct mode, instead of
sorting the witnesses to whom the respective interrogatories apply
as directed by the English practice, Whiteclocke v. Baker, 13 Ves.
515, * is to propound to each one of them exactly such inter-
rogatories only as are most likely to draw forth the testi- 191
mony he is capable of giving, and then to place each answer imme-
diately under the interrogatory to which it is a response. In this
way all unnecessary repetitions would be avoided, and the proofs
would he placed in an orderly form, best calculated to prevent
confusion, and to facilitate the perusal and consideration of them.

Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bland, 241.

It would seem to be by no means impracticable, under our pah-
lie mode of examination, to allow a party to the suit to make ob-
jections to the competency of witnesses, or to the relevancy of
their testimony; and to have the examination suspended until the
Court should decide upon their validity. In a Court of common
law this course of proceeding is attended with little delay and no
inconvenience, because the parties and witnesses being before the
Judge who is to decide, the point may be instantly discussed,
judgment immediately pronounced, and the examination proceed
or otherwise, at once. But according to the mode of taking testi-
mony in Chancery, similar despatch could not possibly be had.
The examination must stop, the commissioners, parties and wit-
nesses, who had been assembled, at much trouble and expense,
must disperse; the commission, with all the proceedings under it,
shewing the objection, must be returned to the Court; and then
the parties must have a day to be heard; without which it would
be unfair to pronounce judgment upon any such objection. Now,
it is perfectly manifest, that such a course would be open to the
greatest ahuse. The parties might multiply, and in various forms
reciterate objections of this kind, so as not only to delay, but actu-
ally to render it almost impossible to bring the examination of the
witnesses to a conclusion, and the expenses might be reduplicated
and increased to an enormous amount. 1 Harr. Prac. Chan. 478.
Bnt, besides, I am not satisfied, even if such a course were allowed,
that it would be, in all cases, practicable, understandingly, and