TOWNSHEND v. DUNCAN. 85

not only in some respects, the cheapest form of gathering proofs,
but, in many instances, it greatly facilitates, and expedites the pro-
gress of the cause. Depositions so taken, it is evident, are made
under all the principal safeguards, which can, in any manner, in-
sure fairness and fulness of evidence; that is, the special order of
the court indicating the matter in issue, on oath, publicity, the
right to cross-examine, and a penal responsibility. It may, there-
fore, be as confidently relied on as testimony taken in any other way;
being in no manner open to the strong objections to that kind of
ex parte, affidavit evidence, to which the Court of Chancery of
England allows itself to resort, for the determination of some of

before the Chancellor instead of the auditor. But whether or not they ought to
have been laid before the auditor, the Chancellor now thinks proper to order; and
it is Ordered, that, from the aforesaid depositions, and other proceedings, the auditor
of this court, state and report an account, or accounts, agreeably to the said propo-
sitions and agreement of July 20th, 1802.

The defendants, by their petition stated, that in pursuance of this order, of the
12th of November, the auditor had summoned Hannah Marches to appear before
him, at his office, on the 28th of the same month, to testify on their behalf which
she had not done. Whereupon they prayed for an attachment, &c.

2d December, 1805.—HANSON, Chancellor,— Ordered, that, unless Hannah
Marches, of Baltimore, shall, on the 13th day of this month, appear before Samuel
W. Lee, a justice of the peace of Baltimore county, and answer such interrogato-
ries as shall be proposed by either, or any of the parties to this cause, she shall be
considered as acting in contempt of this court; and an attachment shall forthwith
issue against her; provided a copy of this order be served on the said Hannah
Marches before the11th instant.

The defendants, by their petition stated, that the witness Hannah Marches had
appeared before the justice of the peace as required; but, that she had not given a
full answer to the interrogatories exhibited to her by the petitioners. Whereupon
they prayed for an attachment, &c.

21st December, 1805.—HANSON, Chancellor.- Ordered, that unless Hannah
Marches, lately Hannah Onion, shall, before the 25th day of January next, appear
before some judge, of justice of the peace, and give a plain, full, and direct answer
to the second interrogatory, on the 13th instant proposed to her, and evasively an-
swered in the presence of Samuel W. Lee, a magistrate, an attachment of contempt,
on application, shall be issued against her, returnable immediately: Provided, a copy
of this order, and of the said interrogatory be served on her at any time before
the 10th day of January next; and provided too, that the paper marked No. 1, be
shewn to her at the time of her appearing to answer as aforesaid. The said inter-
rogatory and the answer thereto have been laid before the Chancellor. The answer
to the second interrogatory is defective and evasive, inasmuch as she does not say
whether or not the name 'Hannah Onion,' signed to the said paper marked No.1,
shewn to her, at the time of exhibiting said interrogatory, is her hand-writing.

12 v.2