BUCKINGHAM v. PEDDICORD.—2 BLAND. 433

to be given in some newspaper, convenient to the known or sap-
posed residence of the defendant, at least three weeks successively,
of the filing, subject and object of the bill, and of the day fixed,
not less than four months subsequent to the publication, for the
defendant's appearance; and on his failing to appear, to proceed
as against a non-resident; provided, that if such defendant shall
appear, at any time before a decree, and shall, on or before the
fourth day of the subsequent term, put in a good and sufficient
answer, or a good plea or demurrer, the proceedings thereafter,
shall be the same as if he had appeared to the summons; and it,
within nine months after a decree, such defendant shall appear,
isle a petition, praying to set aside the decree; and likewise,
answer, plead or demur, the Chancellor shall annul the decree as
to such defendant, and there shall be the same proceedings, as if
he had appeared to the summons. 1797, ch. 114, s. 2, 3; 1773, ch.
7, s. 3, 4; 1832, ch. 302, s. 3. And that where a subpoena has
been returned summoned, and the defendant neglects to appear,
or appearing, fails to put in a good and sufficient answer within
the time prescribed by the rules of the Court, an interlocutory
decree may be entered, and a commission issued exparte* for
the taking of testimony in support of the allegations of the 454
bill; upon the return of which, the Court may proceed to a final de-
cree. But that, when the bill shall charge any matter as being
within the private knowledge of the defendant, and the plaintiff'
shall satisfy the Court, by affidavit in open Court, that such matter
does rest in the private knowledge of the defendant, the bill as to
such matter may be taken pro confesso, and a final decree made,
as if such matter had been proved or admitted. 1820. ch. 161.
s. 1,2.

But there being a great variety of instances in which it was im-
portant that some means should be given for obtaining relief in
equity against persons who were competent to answer, Carew v.
Johnson, 2 Scho. & Lefr. 292; Knight v. Young, 2 Ves. & B. 185,
but were not within the jurisdiction of the State, all such cases
have been provided for by several general, and apparently com-
prehensive legislative enactments; Smith v. The Hibernian Mine
Company, 1 Scho. & Lefr. 238; which appear to have virtually
modified, or repealed several then existing provisions in relation
to the same matter; 1773, ch. 7, s. 3, 4; 1785, ch. 72, s. 30, 31;
1787, ch. 30, s. 2; and to have more particularly specified what
should be deemed sufficient notice as spoken of in some other laws.
1791, ch. 79; 1792, ch. 41; 1794, ch. 60.

It has been declared, that, in all cases whatever, where a bill
shall be filed against a person not residing within the State, the
Chancellor may direct such notice of the bill, and the object
thereof by advertisement in newspapers, or otherwise, warning
the defendant to appear on or before some day to be fixed, not less
28 2B.