186 WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER,

In doing this, it is their duty to confine themselves and the wit-
ness to the substance of the interrogatories; for, if they take down
any thing impertinent, it may be suppressed, and the commissioners
themselves made to pay the costs. Each witness having been
fully examined, and the depositions revised, corrected, and pro-
perly certified, the whole must be sealed up, so that no part of the
contents can be read, and thus returned to the court, (g) When
the commissions have been all returned, an order may be obtained
for their publication, or in other words, that they be opened, read,
and copies taken by all concerned, if required. The examinations
being thus brought to a conclusion and made public, no further
testimony can be taken in relation to the matter in issue between
the parties; unless under very special circumstances, (h)

After the publication, but not before, either party may exhibit
articles against any witness of his opponent; and obtain a commis-
sion to take testimony in support of his articles impeaching the
credibility, or the competency of the witness, (i) And if any of
the interrogatories, or any portion of the testimony be scandalous,
or impertinent, and irrelevant to the matter in issue, they may be
suppressed at the hearing; or if not, still they must be totally dis-
regarded; since it would be deemed error in the court to ground
its decree, upon any such testimony; and the party, at whose in-
stance such impertinent testimony has been taken may be made to
pay the costs.

From this mode in which the English Court of Chancery has
the testimony of a witness taken, it is manifest, that it would be
utterly impracticable, before publication, to suspend the examina-
tion until objections to the competency of the witness, or the rele-
vancy of the testimony was determined; because a party cannot,
from the general notice given him by his opponent, that such and
such persons will be called as witnesses, be prepared to shew the
incompetency, or to discredit any one of them without hearing, or
knowing the nature of his testimony. Although the incompetency

&c.' Park's His. Co. Chan. 284. But by an order or rule of court, passed in the year
1721, the commissioners and their clerks were required to take an oath, impartially
to examine the witnesses; and not to disclose their depositions until after publica-
tion, Beam's Orders, 327; Forum Rom. 143. Nor should the witnesses, according
to these English principles, disclose their evidence to the parties; Forum Rom.
141; Cooth v. Jackson, 6 Ves. 82.

(g) 1 Harr. Prac. Chan. 476.—(h) 1 Harr. Prac. Chan. 458.—(i) Forum Rom.
147; 1 Harr. Prac. Chan. 511.