PRICE v. TYSON.—3 BLAND. 399

deceased's personal estate. The eldest son put in his answer,
which he entitled thus: "The several answer of John Peck, one
of the defendants to the bill of complaint of Anna Baines, alias
Green, assuming to herself the name of Anna Peek, as pretended
wife of John Peck, Esq.. deceased, and of Anna Maria Green, as-
suming to herself the name of Anna Maria Peck, as daughter of
the said John Peck, Esq., deceased." To this the plaintiffs ob-
jected, * because of its being impertinent and scandalous.
And the exception was allowed; because there was no rea 402
son to fear that the title of the answer should prejudice the defend-
ant, as an admission of the plaintiff's right, or woik any conclu-
sion in this Court. Peek v. Peck, Mosely, 45.

And in another case where the plaintiff filed his bill to he re-
lieved against a bond of £2,000 upon which the defendant had
brought his action, setting forth that the bond wa.s not entered
into for money lent, or any valuable consideration, but purely to
serve the defendant, and that it was agreed between them that it
should not be put in suit. To prove which the plaintiff charged,
that no demand had been made from 1703, when the bond was en-
tered into, till the bringing of the action; that the plaintiff was a
gentleman of large fortune, and the defendant very necessitous:
and that the defendant afterwards borrowed of the plaintiff £300
on bond; and that the bond being somehow lost, the plaintiff ex
hibited his bill in this Court against the defendant, and had a de-
cree for payment. The deiendant in his answer says, "that he
does not know or believe that the plaintiff lost the bond, but be-
lieves that he fraudulently concealed or destroyed it." To this,
the plaintiff objected, that it was scandalous and impertinent.

Upon which it was held, that though a matter may be scanda-
lous in itself, it is not to be considered so if it is pertinent; or if
the plaintiff asks impertinent questions, though the answer should
be reflecting and impertinent, it would not be scandal. And it is
very different to charge fraud and combination in a bill generally,
and to insist upon it by oath in an answer. This bill is to be re-
lieved against a stale bond; and, as an inducement to prove it
satisfied, the plaintiff' mentions the subsequent bond, proceedings,
and decree of this Court, in which case the defendant never in-
sisted on being paid the money due by this bond he has now put
in suit; and, therefore, it is to be presumed it was satisfied. All
this is material to the case, but the plaintiff, in his manner of
setting out this transaction, takes notice, that the bond being
some way got out of his custody, obliged him to sue in this Court,
and the "defendant, in his answer, says, he believes the plaintiff
did not lose it, &c.; he denies what is not material: aud what the
plaintiff did not require him to answer. If he had alleged that he
had lost it, and questioned him to it, then his answer would not