184 WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER.—2 BLAND.

of the peace, I am aware that there has been some doubt and
difference of opinion as to the mode of requiring a witness to
attend and testify in such cases; but nevertheless a witness has
been compelled to attend before a justice of the peace and to have
his deposition taken in a case depending in this Court, under an
order giving the justice authority thus to act as a commissioner.
Onion v. McComas, ante, 83; Purviance v. Ogden, Chancery Proceed-
ings, 1804, fol. 49. Of late years there have been a great multi-
tude of instances of such orders; and the convenience and
economy of taking testimony in that mode has been felt to a great
extent. It has, in my time, given rise to no complaint; and it has
been sanctioned and approved by a wide range of experience.
Townshend v. Duncan, ante, 81. I therefore feel myself authorized
to place it upon a footing, in all respects, with the mode of taking
testimony under a regular commission. And, consequently,
whether the order, under which this testimony is proposed to be
taken, be considered as amounting to, or in fact as a commission
directed to the officers of the Court; or as analogous to an examina-
tion before the auditor, under a decree or order to account; or as
being nothing more than an order authorizing a justice of the
peace to take testimony, I shall sanction, aid, and protect the
proceedings under them, in like manner as if the authority had
been conferred by a regular commission. Wardel v. Dent, 1 Dick.
334; Henncyal v. Evance, 12 Ves. 201; Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 5
Cond. Chan. Rep. 122; Bryson v. Petty, 1 Bland, 182, note; Forum
Rom. 118; 1 Harr. Prac. Chan. 447. A late Act of Assembly af-
firms the power of this Court to enforce the attendance of witnesses
before commissioners, or the auditor; and gives a new and addi-
tional mode of compelling the witness to attend, 1824, ch. 133,
which, in * some respects, is not so clear, or so energetic as
197 the ancient course of proceeding.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the time allowed for taking testi-
mony under the order of the 21st of February last be, and the same
is hereby enlarged; provided, that the testimony so taken be re-
turned and tiled in the Chancery office, on or before the 19th inst.
And it is further ordered, that the said objection of the said wit-
ness, and also those of the defendant, John Diffenderffer, be.
and the same are hereby, overruled; and the said witnesses are
hereby required to answer forthwith and fully to the said inter-
rogatories propounded to them, or either of them.

Under this order, the witnesses were again called before the
commissioners, and answered the interrogatories. And extracts
from the books of the Mechanics Bank, of the account of the
defendant, John Diffenderffer, were produced as required; all
which were returned by the commissioners on the 10th of June,
1829.