case Wrottesley v Bendish on exception to the master report Lord chancellor  Talbot Eq ab pl a infant answer can be give in evidence against he because it  be not the infant answer but the guardian and the guardian be swear and not  the infant baron and feme defendant to a bill the feme must answer though the  answer can be read against the husband but may possible be read against her if  she survive but in this case the feme not bind to answer the bill subject her  to a forfeiture though the husband have submit to answer sir Hugh Wrottesley  by his marriage settlement secure to his daughter that lie shall have by his  lady in case of no son pound among they Payable at their age peer William er p  of twentyone or day of marriage which shall first happen peer William provide  if any of his daughter shall after his death marry under her age of twentyone  and without the consent of her mother that then such daughter shall forfeit  her portion which shall go over to the other daughter the father die leave no  son and four daughter the defendant Bendish marry one of the daughter and as  be pretend without the consent of the mother whereupon the other daughter  bring their bill against the defendant the marry daughter and her husband and  thereby among other thing they ask the marry daughter whether she marry with  her mother consent the defendant do not demurrer to that part of the bill but  submit to answer and the husband answer even to some circumstance of the  marriage as that be take it he be encourage by the mother in his address to  the daughter and that the mother know of it but the daughter his wife do not  answer to the point whether she do not marry without her mother consent upon  which exception be take to her answer the same be report insufficient and now  exception we re take to the master report which come on to be argue it be  object that the wife be not bind to answer for if she do yet her answer can  not be read against the husband nor can she be a witness against he wherefore  it be a vain thing to insist upon her answer when such answer can not be make  use of after it shall be put in be no more to be regard than the answer of a  infant beside the wife be suppose to be sub potestate man and not to answer  free peer William to which it be reply that the same argument may be make use  of against a feme covert answer any bill when make a codefendant with her  husband which be contrary to all rule of practice and therefore this objection  ought not to prevail moreover the wife may survive her husband in which case  her answer may be read against herself and that this case differ from that of  a infant answer where it be true the answer can be read against such infant  and yet it have be sometime order that a infant shall answer notwithstanding  his infancy but the true reason why the infant answer be not to be read  against he be because in reality it be not the answer of the infant but of the  guardian who be swear and not the infant and the infant may know nothing of  the content of the answer put in for he by his guardian or may be of those  tender year as not to be able to judge of it peer William Lord chancellor I do  not now give any opinion whether the answer may be read against the wife when  discovery or not but as in all time heretofore the wife as well as the husband  have be compel to answer I will not take upon myself to overthrow what have be  the constant practice but the wife shall not be compel to answer a mere bill  of discovery baron v Grillard V b then it be object that this answer of the  wife tend to make her liable to a forfeiture which in no case will be assist  in a court of equity that have the defendant instead of answer put in a  demurrer it must have be allow and it will be very hard to make this mistake  so extreme penal to they Lord chancellor I shall have make no question if the  defendant have demurrer of allow the demurrer vide Chauncey v Tahourden atk  chancy v Fenhoulet ves Lord Uxbridge v Staveland ves sen but they have submit  to answer and the husband have answer as to his marriage that the wife mother  know of the courtship and have full answer the bill and the present exception  be to the wife answer only I be somewhat doubtful how to determine but at  length consider that this bill be to entitle the plaintiff to a forfeiture  which word forfeiture be the very word use in the deed and since the wife be  in danger of have that force from her by the compulsion of a court of equity  which may occasion the loss of the whole provision make for her and all this  in the case of a forfeiture so little favour in this court against which in  many case vide Peyton v bury ante vol relief be give unless where there be a  devise over as in the present case peer William and it be a condition which by  the ecclesiastical court be hold void in all case the rule be there that  maritagium debet be book vol under these circumstance his lordship say he can  not reconcile himself to the compel a wife to confess that by which she may  forfeit all she have in the world and that though the defendant have not  demurrer as they shall have do yet peer William er p the case be now full  before he it seem not agreeable to the rule of equity to make the defendant  suffer so much for the mistake of their counsel whereupon the exception to the  master report be allow and the answer hold to be sufficient a infant answer by  his guardian be not evidence against he because the infant be not swear and it  be only for make proper party Carthew savage v carol ba be and exception will  not lie to a infant answer Strudwick v Pargiter bunb Copeland v Wheeler bro c  c Lucas v Lucas Ves and where a infant be defendant the service of the  subpoena to hear judgement must be on the guardian and not on the infant see  vol tailor v atwood but where a defendant put in a answer to a bill bring by a  infant who do not reply to it in such case it seem the answer must be take to  be true in regard the defendant for want of a replication be deprive of a  opportunity of examine witness to prove his answer and he ought not to suffer  for such omission in the plaintiff so rule at the roll with some warmth by sir  Joseph Jekyll in the case of Thurston and Dechair a infant v Nutton ux Trinity  in which the reporter be of counsel with the plaintiff and much oppose the  read of the answer for that the plaintiff be a infant can admit nothing and it  may be very mischievous if by reason of the neglect of the plaintiff the  infant guardian or prochein any in not put in a replication to the answer such  answer shall be read and admit to be true though never so detrimental to the  infant inheritance therefore qure et vide contra Legard v Sheffield atk salk  vern William v Farrington bro c c S c Cox Parkhurst v Lowten mere beside the  case of forfeiture above mention there be other ground upon which a defendant  may by answer protect himself from make a full answer namely that he may  criminate himself baker v Mellish yes row v teed yes Mant v Scott price Curzon  v de la zouch swan Leonard v Leonard ba be that he be a purchaser for a  valuable consideration without notice Jerrard v sander yes Jun row v teed ub  sup Leonard v Leonard ub sup send vide ovey v Leighton S S that the discovery  seek be immaterial to the matter of the suit agar v the regent canal comp coop  and as be hold in Stratford v hogan ba be that the knowledge be acquire in a  privilege character but general a defendant must answer full or object to the  discovery by plea or demurrer Cookson v ellison bro c c Cartwright v hately  bro c c and Ves Jun shepherd v Robert bro c c hall v Noah bro c c Selby v  Selby bro c c Jacobs v goodman Cox Jerrard v sander ub sup marquis of Donegal  v Stewart Ves Phelips v Caney yes tailor v milner yes Dolder v Lord  Huntingfield Ves faulder v Stuart yes shaw v Ching Ves row v teed ub sup  somervile v mackay Ves agar v the regent canal comp ub sup Leonard v Leonard  ub sup Mazarredo v Maitland mad v Harrison mad Thorpe v Macaulay mad but the  practice in the court of exchequer differ from that establish in chancery by  the above case for in that court the answer of a defendant may be support  against exception if the matter of exception will have be good ground of  demurrer or may have be make available by plea Richardson v Hulbert Anst Selby  v Selby bro c c the reason of the difference be that exception be in the  exchequer bring before the court itself in the first instance instead of be  refer to a master row v teed ub sup agar v the regent canal comp ub sup peer  William er p