|
|
|
|
|
|
|
402 PRICE v. TYSON.
jected, because of its being impertinent and scandalous. And the
exception was allowed; because there was no reason to fear that
the title of the answer should prejudice the defendant, as an
admission of the plaintiff's right, or work any conclusion in this
court. (i)
And in another case where the plaintiff filed his bill to be re-
lieved against a bond of £2,000 upon which the defendant had
brought his action, setting forth that the bond was not entered into
for money lent, or any valuable consideration, but purely to serve
the defendant, and that it was agreed between them that it should
not be put in suit. To prove which the plaintiff charged, that no
demand had been made from 1703, when the bond was entered
into, till the bringing of the action; that the plaintiff was a gen-
tleman of a large fortune, and the defendant very necessitous; and
that the defendant afterwards borrowed of the plaintiff ,£300 on
bond; and that the bond being somehow lost, the plaintiff exhi-
bited his bill in this court against the defendant, and had a decree
for payment. The defendant in his answer says, 'that he does not
know or believe that the plaintiff lost the bond, but believes that
be fraudulently concealed or destroyed it.' To this the plaintiff
objected, that it was scandalous and impertinent.
Upon which it was held, that though a matter may be scanda-
lous in itself, it is not to be considered so if it is pertinent; or if
the plaintiff asks impertinent questions, though the answer should
be reflecting and impertinent, it would not be scandal. And it is
-very different to charge fraud and combination in a bill generally,
and to insist upon it by oath in an answer. This bill is to be re-
lieved against a stale bond; and, as an inducement to prove it
satisfied, the plaintiff mentions the subsequent bond, proceedings,
and decree in this court, in which case the defendant never in-
sisted on being paid the money due by this bond he has now put
in suit; and, therefore, it is to be presumed it was satisfied. AH
this is material to the case, but the plaintiff, in his manner of set-
ting out this transaction, takes notice, that the bond being some
my got out of his custody, obliged him to sue in this court, and
the defendant, in his answer, says, he believes the plaintiff did not
Jose it, &c.; he denies what is not material; and what the plain-
tiff did not require him to answer. If he had alleged that he had
lost it, and had questioned him to it, then his answer would not
(i) Peck t. Peck, Mosely, 45.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
