MUEDOCK'S CASE.—2 BLAND. 441

On the 1st of March, 1825, this plaintiff filed another bill against
this defendant, in which he stated the facts in relation to the mort-
gage as in the before mentioned bill; and that the mortgaged land
was the property of the defendant, whose husband was dead in-
testate, and that she had been appointed administratrix of his
personal estate, including his chattels real; that on the non-pay-
ment of the mortgage when due, the defendant was to have a lot
of ground in the City of Annapolis sold, and the proceeds applied
in satisfaction of the debt, which had not been done; and that the
whole mortgage debt, with one year's interest, was then due, upon
which he prayed a sale, &c. In this bill there was no allusion to
that filed on the 15th of January, 1825.

On the 9th of July, 1825, the defendant put in her answer, in
which she admitted the execution of the mortgage; but averred
that it had been obtained from her husband, who was an illiterate
and, unhappily, an intemperate man, by great importunity and
undue influence; that there were certain conditions and stipula-
tions in relation to certain lots purchased from the plaintiff by her
late husband, and which lots formed the consideration for which
the mortgage had been given, which had not been complied with;
that the plaintiff having no title to those lots, the consideration of
the mortgage had therefore failed; and that the plaintiff had, on
the 15th of January, 1825, filed his bill, praying a sale of the mort-
gaged property, which was then depending, and therefore she
relied on the pendency of that suit as a bar to this.

The defendant, by her petition on oath, stated, that by a mistake
and misapprehension, she had, in speaking of the character of her
late husband in her answer, said that he was an intemperate man;
since which, it had occurred to her, that the expression might be
construed to import the excessive use of spirituous liquor, which
was not her meaning; but that what she said was meant to be
* expressive of his violeiit character and intemperate pas- Man
sions; that no commission had been issued, nor any proofs 463
taken. She, therefore prayed leave to amend her answer in this
particular.

BLAND, C., 18th August, 1825.—It appears that the defendant
has thought proper to correct her defence as regards the character
of her deceased husband. Giving his character in her answer, she
has used the word intemperate, from which it may be inferred that
he was either excessive in meat and drink, or that he was passion-
ate and ungovernable. The word intemperate, according to the
most approved authorities, conveys both of those meanings. The
defendant now alleges, by her petition, that the latter was the
sense in which she intended to use of the word. Therefore, it is
ordered, that the defendant be, and she is hereby permitted to file
a supplemental answer, correcting the mistake, as prayed; leav-