PRICE v. TYSON.—3 BLAND. 395

BLAND, C., 3d August, 1831.—The exceptions to the answer
standing ready for hearing, the solicitors of the parties were fully
heard and the proceedings were read and considered.

This is properly a bill of discovery, and nothing more; and
therefore the case must finally terminate here with the answer; it
can go no further; there can be no hearing upon the merits as
where relief as well as discovery is asked for. Hindman v. Taylor,
2 Bro, C. C. 8; Shaftsbury v. Arrowsmith, 4 Ves. 71. This Court
having no criminal jurisdiction itself, meddles with no cases of
that description which may be brought before any other tribunal;
and therefore a plaintiff here can only obtain a disclosure of facts
by a bill of discovery in relation to a civil case; either to enable
him to commence his action aright, or to prosecute it with effect.
If upon the face of the bill, it appears that there can be no re-
medy, the plaintiff here cannot have a discovery, which in such
case would be useless and altogether impertinent; nor can a bill
of discovery be sustained against any one not interested in the
matter in dispute, who may be examined as a witness; and con-
sequently, the plaintiff must by his bill point out the individual
who he has already sued, or against whom he means to bring his
action; and also so state the nature of his case as to enable the
Court to judge of the alleged liability of the person designated as
a defendant. Rondeau v. Wyatt, 3 Bro. C. C. 155; The Mayor of
London v. Levy, 8 Ves. 404; Cartwright v. Hateley. 1 Ves. Jr. 292.

This plaintiff states that he is seeking the relief he claims by an
action now depending in a Court of common law; and although
he has by very brief and general expressions stated the nature of
his case; yet its character and object are sufficiently shewn to
enable this Court to judge of the bearing of the liability, and to see
that if his claim has any foundation whatever, in point of fact,
the * action at common law has been properly originated and 398
now revived against these defendants; and therefore he is entitled to
the discovery he asks from them.

This, it has been urged, being a mere bill of discovery, in which
the plaintiff asks only for a disclosure of the defendant's knowledge
of a specified fact, they cannot be permitted to set forth, in their
answer, any thing foreign to that special inquiry. If this position
be correct, then every thing in an answer to a bill of this kind,
which cannot be comprehended within the terms of the interroga-
tories propounded, no matter what may be the nature of the case,
must be rejected as irrelevant. The validity of this position,
therefore, presents a preliminary question, which must be deter-
mined before any inquiry can properly be gone into as to how lar
the matter objected to may be considered as impertinent in regard
to the whole case as stated by this bill.

If a plaintiff has a right to relief in this Court, he has a right to
an answer from the defendant to every allegation of his bill, the