WINDER v. DIFFENDERFFER. 191

is to propound to each one of them exactly such interrogatories

only, as are most likely to draw forth the testimony he is capable
of giving; and then to place each answer immediately under the
interrogatory to which it is a response. In this way all unneces-
sary repetitions would be avoided; and the proofs would be placed
in an orderly form, best calculated to prevent confusion, and to
facilitate the perusal and consideration of them, (a)

It would seem to be by no means impracticable, under our public
mode of examination, to allow a party to the suit to make objec-
tions to the competency of witnesses, or to the relevancy of their
testimony; and to have the examination suspended until the court
should decide upon their validity. In a court of common law this
course of proceeding is attended with little delay and no incon-
venience; because the parties and witnesses being before the judge
who is to decide; the point may be instantly discussed, judg-
ment immediately pronounced, and the examination proceed or
otherwise, at once. But according to the mode of taking testi-
mony in chancery, similar despatch could not possibly be had.
The examination must stop, the commissioners, parties and wit-
nesses, who had been assembled, at much trouble and expense,
must disperse; the commission, with all the proceedings under it,
shewing the objection, must be returned to the court; and then the
parties must have a day to be heard; without which it would be
unfair to pronounce judgment upon any such objection. Now it is
perfectly manifest, that such a course would be open to the greatest
abuse. The parties might multiply, and in various forms reiterate
objections of this kind; so as not only to delay; but actually to
render it almost impossible to bring the examination of the wit-
nesses to a conclusion; and the expenses might be reduplicated
and increased to an enormous amount. (6) But, besides, I am not
satisfied, even if such a course were allowed, that it would be, in
all cases, practicable, understandingly, and correctly to decide upon
such objections, proceeding from a party, because some other testi-
mony, upon which the validity of such an objection might mainly
depend, might not then have been taken and brought before the
court.

For these reasons, therefore, as in England, where an order has
been passed, which is granted as of course, for the examination of
a co-defendant as a witness, his examination cannot be suspended

(a) Lingan v. Henderson, 1 Bland, 241.—(6) 1 Harr. Prac. Chan. 478.