BUCKINGHAM v. PEDDICORD. 453

thereon as may be deemed just; or the Chancellor may order a
commission to issue, or examine the plaintiff on interrogatories,
and thereupon decree as he may think just, (s) That if an attach-
ment for want of appearance or answer, shall be returned served
or attached, and the defendant shall not appear at the day of the
return, the Chancellor may by order, limit a certain day, in the
following term, on or before which the defendant shall appear, and
put in a good and sufficient answer, plea, or demurrer, otherwise,
the bill may be taken pro confesso, and a decree thereon; provided,
that if such defendant shall, before a decree, appear, and immedi-
ately put in such answer, there shall be the same proceedings as if
he had regularly appeared and answered, (t)

And further, that in case a subpoena shall be returned non est by
the sheriff of the county where the defendant shall be known, or
generally supposed to reside; and on affidavit of some indiffe-
rent person, of the said known or supposed residence, and of the
defendant's having avoided, or kept out of the way of the sheriff,
or evaded the service of the subpoena, (u) the Chancellor may, on
motion, direct publication to be given in some newspaper, conve-
nient to the known or supposed residence of the defendant, at least
three weeks successively, of the filing, subject and object of the
bill, and of the day fixed, not less than four months subsequent to
the publication, for the defendant's appearance; and on his failing
to appear, to proceed as against a non-resident; provided, that if
such defendant shall appear, at any time before a decree, and shall,
on or before the fourth day of the subsequent term, put in a good
and sufficient answer, or a good plea or demurrer, the proceedings
thereafter, shall be the same as if he had appeared to the sum-
mons; and, if, within nine months after a decree, such defendant
shall appear, file a petition, praying to set aside the decree; and
likewise, answer, plead or demur, the Chancellor shall annul the
decree as to such defendant, and there shall be the same proceed-
ings, as if he had appeared to the summons, (w) And that where
a subpoena has been returned summoned, and the defendant neglects
to appear, or appearing, fails to put in a good and sufficient an-
swer within the time prescribed by the rules of the court, an inter-
locutory decree may be entered, and a commission issued ex parte

(*) 1785, ch. 72, s. 20; 1 Harri. Pra. Cha, 278; 1 Newl. Pra. Cha. 125.—(t) 1799,
ch. 79, s. 2.—(u) Davis v. Davis, 2 Atk. 22; 1828, ch. 184.—(w) 1797, ch, 114,
s. 2, 3; 1773, ch. 7, s, 3, 4; 1832, ch. 302, s. 3.

58 v.2