case Lord arundel against pit that march see hood v Pim sim deposition  suppress because interrogatory be leading leave give to exhibit new  interrogatory to be settle by the master lib Reg b foe defendant four  interrogatory touch the boundary of CranbournChase be lead be together with  the deposition suppress on application leave be give to exhibit new  interrogatory for examination of the same witness to be settle by the master  the examine witness after publication be attend with inconvenience and it must  not be understand that the court will always allow such indulgence where  deposition have be suppress but it depend on particular circumstance of the  case it do not appear in this case that the interrogatory though improper  frame be do with any ill design there be two reason which weigh with I to give  liberty to reexamine the witness the suit be bring for relief and to  perpetuate the testimony of the witness if the defendant deposition be  suppress none other will be perpetuate but what be take on the part of the  plaintiff and the frame of the interrogatory seem to have be through  inadvertency and the defendant be a infant and ought not to be prejudice by  the inadvertency of those concern for he and the court will of course when he  come of age give he leave to reexamine his witness but it seem that when after  deposition have be suppress for irregularity a reexamination be permit all the  same witness must be examine and cross examine very v Sylvester Jacob cur v  bowyer Swanst see in Cox v allingham Jacob Kirk v Kirk Ves Lord Abergavenny v  Powell mere Bott v birch mad it appear from lib Reg that the master report the  that interrogatory not to be lead the court overrule the master report lib Reg  foe and on the that of march on motion make by the plaintiff it be order that  the defendant ambler er p clerk in court do produce before the master the  interrogatory and the deposition take thereon and that the deposition be  suppress with cost to be pay by the defendant and that the defendant be at  liberty to exhibit a new interrogatory for the reexamination of the say  witness relate to the matter in question to be settle by the master the  plaintiff to be at liberty to crossexamine the say witness but in case he do  not then the commission to be at the expense of defendant but if plaintiff do  crossexamine say witness then he be to share in the expense