390 PRICE t». TYSON.—3 BLAND.

so given Las been pursued; and, as under a writ of ad quod dam-
num, there should be no unreasonable delay, much less could any
fraudulent practice be allowed to pass without check or rebuke.
Ex parte Vennor, 3 Atk. 766; Rex v. Inhabitants of Flecknow, 1
Burr. 465; Rogers v. Bradshaw, 20 Johns. Rep. 735; Rex v. The
Mayor of Liverpool, 4 Burr. 2244; The King v. Bar/shew, 7 T.
R. 363.

In this case it is clear, from the answer, all the statements of
which on this motion must be taken to be true, that the inquisition
has been had before the property taken was covered up or obscured
by admixture with other substances; and, at a time, and in a
manner when the jury were enabled to form a correct estimate of
the claim for damages; and, it is also manifest, that there has
*been no unieasonable delay, misrepresentation, or fraud
392 practised by any one to the prejudice of the plaintiff; and
therefore, this company cannot, from anything now appearing, be
any longer restrained from proceeding with their work.

Whereupon it is ordered, that the injunction heretofore granted
in this case, be, and the same is hereby annulled and dissolved.

PRICE v. TYSON.
BILLS OF DISCOVERY, AND ANSWERS.

The nature of a bill of discovery.

A defendant in answering a bill of discovery may set forth any pertinent
matter in avoidance.

In general, no matter stated by way of answer which affords such informa-
tion as the bill calls for, or which may be needful as a defence can be
deemed impertinent.

Nor can any matter which is pertinent to the case be deemed scandalous.

The legality of evidence, brought out by a bill of discovery, must be deter-
mined by the Court of common law for whose use the discovery was
made.

THIS bill was filed on the 8th of February, 1831, by William
Price, administrator of John Price, deceased, against Mary Tyson,
Isaac Tyson and Moses Sheppard, administrators of Nathan Tyson,
deceased. The bill states, that in the year 1817, a suit which had
been previously instituted by the plaintiff's intestate, against the
intestate of the defendants, was transmitted from Baltimore to
Harford County Court; and was there, by an order of that Court,
referred to arbitration; bat no award having been made, it was in
1826, reinstated; that the defendants had pleaded in abatement
the death of the plaintiff before they had been summoned as de-
fendants, which plea was finally overruled by the Court of Appeals;
that the object of the suit at law was to recover a large sum of