174 SALMON v. CLAGETT.—3 BLAND.

Ves. 302; Shaw v. Ching, 11 Ves. 305; Rowe v. Teed, 15 Ves. 377;
Somerville v. Mackay, 16 Ves. 387.

The inconvenience of this new mode of pleading is, that the
defence is not judged of by the Court, in the first instance, as it
would be, if it were presented in the regular form of a plea; but is
brought on, in the shape of exceptions to the answer, assuming a
new, and in this respect, a different form, more indefinite and
more expensive. By a plea, the defendant puts in issue a single
fact, or several facts constituting one defence admitting all the
other tacts of the bill, and upon that the parties go to trial; if it
is found for the defendant, the bill is dismissed; if for the plain-
tiff he has a decree; or previously thereto fuither inquiry is
directed, if necessary. But, in this new mode, the defendant an
swering just what he chooses, issue cannot be joined on the single
fact supposed to be the bar; but the plaintiff, if he replies, must
reply to the answer as he finds it; and must go into long expensive
proof* upon a great variety of facts, which is an uuneees-
157 sary vexatious burthen thrown upon him. Shaw v. China,
11 Ves. 305; Somerrille v. Mackay, 16 Ve,s. 387.

If the late cases, it is said, as far as they are authorities, Dol-
der v. Huntingfield, 11 Ves. 293, intimating by that term of expres-
sion a doubt, whether they ought to be really so considered, have
established these exceptions to this rule; then it would seem to
follow as a necessary consequence, that the negation or new mat-
ter relied on in the answer, to protect the defendant from discov-
ery, must, at least, be brought forward by the answer as distinctly
as if it had been pleaded. Faultier v. Stuart 11 Ves. 302. And
also, that all the facts stated in the bill, not covered by this form
of defence, should, as in the case of a plea, be admitted to enable
the plaintiff, at the hearing, to obtain a final decree for so much as
was admitted, and sustained in opposition to the defence set up;
in case a further discovery might not be necessary. But, as to all
these matters, the new mode of proceeding is enveloped in dark-
ness and uncertainty. Apparently aware of the difficulties into
which the plaintiff would be thrown, in case the defendant should
fail to sustain his defence in this form; it is said in one of those
cases, that if such matter should be found against the defendant,
he may be examined upon interrogatories to discover his knowl-
edge. Rawdal v. Head, Hard. 188. But what weight is to be
given to the answers to those interrogatories; and to what points
are they to be directed ? A plea places the case, and its several
parts, in a clear, definitive condition; but this new-fashioned de-
fence distinctly specifies nothing.

After passing over this review of the subject, and considering
how the law is chained together, and how important it is to pre-
serve its consistency and harmony as a whole, and in its several
parts; and that the genius of all our institutions requires; that no