case mayor and alderman of colchester versus Lord chancellor Parker the court  can make a order to examine a plaintiff de bene be save just exception though  they will make such order to examine a defendant but the defendant ought to  have demurrer to such immaterial plaintiff if a corporation will make use of  one of their own member as a witness they must disfranchise he the plaintiff  move to examine some of the coplaintiffs save just exception and the defendant  make the like motion Lord chancellor if a corporation will examine any of  their member as witness they must and so be the course disfranchise peer  William they and then they make use of their testimony but upon his lordship  consult with the register it appear to be a rule that no coplaintiff ought to  be examine as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff there be this apparent  exception against he videlicet his be liable to answer cost if the event of  the cause shall prove against he but by Lord chancellor there be more reason  that the defendant shall be at liberty to examine one of the plaintiff in this  cause first because the defendant can disfranchise any of the corporation as  the plaintiff may second if the plaintiff swear any thing against himself it  be good evidence against he though nothing that he swear can be evidence for  he nevertheless the practice be otherwise and this seem to be in imitation of  the commonlaw where the defendant can examine the plaintiff and though equity  go so far as to give either side leave to examine a defendant de bene be yet  this rule have not be extend to a plaintiff who if he be a immaterial  plaintiff the defendant may demurrer note the method of disfranchising be by a  information in nature of a quo warranto against the member who confess the  information on which the plaintiff obtain judgement to disfranchise but in  Armiter v Swanton Amb a trustee plaintiff be permit to be examine on the part  of a defendant and in Troughton v Getley may Lord Northington make a old that  the defendant shall be at liberty to examine the plaintiff green who be  coassignee with Troughton of a bankrupt as a witness for the defendant Reg lib  b fol see however dick and Hewatson v Tookey dick in which the decision in  Troughton v Getley be overrule by Lord Thurlow but a defendant may obtain a  order for examination of the plaintiff if the latter consent walker v  Wingfield Ves and see motteux v Mackreth Ves jun Lloyd v Makeam Ves wit v  Campbell Ves peer William er p peer William de term S HILLARII