SNOWDEN v. SNOWDEN. 551

was greatly inconvenient to defendants who resided at any distance
from the place where the court was held. Hence at first as an
indulgence and by a special order, but now and for a long time
past, where a defendant resides more than twenty miles from Lon-
don, or is unable to travel, it is a matter of course to issue a dedi-
mus potestatem to take his answer.(b) And the four commission-
ers, to whom the dedimus is directed, are named by the parties,
and approved in like manner as commissioners for taking testi-
mony; any three or two of whom are to take the answer.(c)

With regard to an infant defendant, however distant within the
kingdom he may reside, he must he brought in; because the court
must see, from inspection and observation, that he is an infant, for
whom it is necessary, that a guardian should be appointed by
whom he may answer. But if the infant be abroad, or unable to
attend, a commission must go to appoint a guardian and take his
answer by such guardian. The dedimus or commission, in such
case is similar; the four commissioners are appointed in the same
way as; and it is executed in all respects like, that which goes to
take the answer of an adult defendant who resides more than
twenty miles from London.(d)

The practice in Maryland is different. I have met with no evi-
dence, that it ever was at any time, either before or since our
revolution, the practice of this court to have the defendant actually
brought in merely to swear to his answer before the Chancellor or
the register of the court. It appears to have been always the prac-
tice here for the defendant to swear to his answer before a judge
or a justice of the peace, which when thus authenticated and filed,
has been uniformly received and dealt with as an answer.(e) This
practice is admitted on all hands to be exceedingly convenient,
and I have never heard of the slightest evil arising from it. But
if a defendant neglects or refuses thus to answer, he may be
attached and committed to close custody until he does answer.(f)

(b) 1 Hair. Pra. Chan. 283; 1 Newl. Chan. 124.-—(e) 1 Hair. Pra. Chan. 288.
(d) Marlborough v. Marlborough, 1 Dick. 74; Jongsma v. Pfiel, 9 Ves. 357; Tap-
pen v. Norman, 11 Ves. 563.—(e) Brice v, Alexander, MS. Chan. Proc. lib. W. K,
No. 1, fol. 43; Mackall v. Morsell, MS. Chan. Proc. lib. W. K. No. 1, fol. 223.
(/) Cooper v. Cooper, 1788, MS. Chan. Proc. lib. S. H. H. let, B. fol. 351.

BOWIE v, MOCKBEE.—December 1780.—ROGERS, Chancellor,—On motion of the
complainant's solicitor, ordered, that the defendant stand committed to close custody
of the sheriff of Prince George's county, to remain in custody of the said sheriff
until the said defendant shall put in and file a good and sufficient answer in this case,
and pay the costs of the said attachment of contempt issued against Mm in the cause
aforesaid.—Chan. Proc. Lib. No. 1, fol. 295.