398 PRICE v. TYSON.—3 BLAND.

together before the Chancellor, and disposed of at once, without
delay or embarrassment. Fowl, Exch. Pra. 2; Raphael v. Bird-
wood, 1 Swan. 228; Mortimer v. West, 3 Swan. 229.

It is the duty of the Court to take care that its records be kept
pure, to prevent them from being made the repositories or vehicles
of scandal, and to see that the answers do not contain useless and
impertinent matter. And although there may be a difficulty in
answering properly in some cases, as to a bill for an account and
the like, without running into long details; yet unreasonable pro-
lixity and mere verbiage should in all cases be avoided; and may be
* checked by the Court itself wherever it can be done with-
401 out improperly retarding the progress of the suit. The
general rule is, that if the answer goes out of the bill to state any
matter, not material to the defendant's case, it will be deemed
impertinent and may be expunged; but nothing can be considered
irrelevant that may have an influence upon the suit, attending to
the nature of it. Yet if what is pertinent be so mixed with that
which is impertinent, that the one cannot be separated from the
other, the whole matter with the impertinency mixed shall be ex-
punged. And if such foreign matter in an answer be scandalous
as well as impertinent, it may be struck out at the instance of a
co-defendant, or even a stranger, as well as the plaintiff in the
case; and that too at the costs of the party by whom it was filed.
Shaftsbury v. Arrowsmith, 4 Ves. 71; Coffin v. Cooper, 6 Ves. 514;
Lord St. John v. Lady St. John, 11 Ves. 538; Norway v. Rowe, 1
Meriv. 355; Oliver v. Haywood, 1 Anstr. 82; Mason v. Mason, 4
Hen. & Mun. 414; Chescldine v. Gordon, 2 Bland, 79. (a)

The general rule as to impertinence seems to be sufficiently clear
in itself; but the proper application of it to cases as they arise,
has, in many instances, caused so much hesitation, that it may be
well just to mention some few of the instances which afford illus-
trations of it.

In a case in which Anna Peck and Anna Maria Peck fiied their
bill as widow and daughter of John Peck, deceased, against his
eldest son and others for dower, and their respective shares of the

(a) BIRCHFIELD v. SHARP.— HART, C., 19th January, 1714.—Ordered, that
the complainant have liberty to take the bill off the file, and to file a new
bill without costs; and have time till Monday next to declare which bill he
will amend. And that the other bill which is ordered to be taken off the
file, be not so taken off, but that it be lodged in the office where it may at
any time be had.—Chancery Proceedings, lib. P. L.fol. 83.

NEALE v. CALVERT.—HART, C., 1717.—Forasmuch as it appears, that the
bill of complaint exhibited by the complainant against the defendant is al-
together scandalous for the ill language therein. It is ordered, that the bill
be dismissed out of this Court; and that the defendant recover his costs by
him expended in the defence of this suit against the complainant.—Chan-
cery Proceedings, lib. P. L. fol. 376.