252 MACCUBBIN v. MATTHEWS.

he can, upon any ground, claim to have it taken from the file, and
committed to his custody, for any purpose whatever, (e)

It is, therefore, Ordered, that the said petition be dismissed
with costs. ___________

The commissioners of Baltimore to whom the commission to
take evidence had been issued, upon the application of the plain-
tiff, issued a summons in the following words :
' John H. Maccubbin v. Elizabeth Matthews, and others.—In
Chancery.'

' To Charles Waters, Henry C Dunbar, and O'Neal Cromwell;
you are hereby summoned to attend at the office of Benjamin C.
Ridgate, comer of St. Paul's and Fayette streets, in the city of
Baltimore, on Tuesday, the 22d day of December, instant, at 10
o'clock, A. M., to testify for the complainant in the above cause,
By order of the commissioners, John Carrere, jun., clerk, Balti-
more, 8th December, 1829.'

Which summons Charles Boour made oath he had regularly
served. After which two of those witnesses, having failed to
attend, as required, the commissioners reported, that the plaintiff
had represented to them, that the said witnesses, Waters and
Cromwell, were material witnesses in the case; and that as he
was otherwise remediless, prayed, that the court would direct an
attachment to compel them to attend and testify.

1st January, 1830.—BLAND, Chancellor.—It is very certain,
that this court has, at all times, been endowed with ample power
to have brought before it any testimony, documentary or verbal,
necessary to a just exercise of its jurisdiction, or which it may find
to be necessary to aid any suitor in having taken and produced,
as competent, pertinent, and material to his case. (f) And it
appears, that, under the provincial government, and since, this
power to enforce the production of evidence, for the benefit of its
suitors, has been often exercised in a manner analogous to that
pursued by the English Court of Chancery, (g) And, therefore,

(e) Graves v. Budgel, 1 Atk. 444; Harris v, Bodenham, 1 Cond. Chan. Rep. 143.—
(f) Amy v. Long, 9 East. 484; Lupton v. Hescott, 1 Cond. Chan. Rep. 138.—
(£) Brassington v. Brassington, 1 Cond. Chan. Rep. 233; Bradshaw v. Bradshaw, 4
Cond. Chan. Rep. 464; S. C. 5 Cond. Chan. Rep. 122; Corsen v. Dubois, 3 Com.
Law Rep. 86; Cowell v. Seybrey, 1 Bland, 18, note; Bryson v. Petty, 1 Bland, 182,
note; Onion t?. McComas, ante 83, note; 1 Newland's Chan. Pra. 273.

Charles, &c.,—To our trusty and well beloved Lieutenant Colonel Henry Darnall
and Colonel Henry Jowles, greeting: Whereas, by a final order and decree of our