case Nathaniel bland appellant archbishop OF Armagh and other respondent that  December Mews dig way the deposition of witness be not to be suppress because  they be make in the express term of voluntary affidavit swear by they at the  commencement of the suit where a defendant cross examine the plaintiff witness  he can afterward move to suppress their deposition in chief king James I in  pursuance of the power vest in the crown by two several act of parliament make  in Ireland the one in the that of Henry VIII entitle a act of faculty and the  other in the d of Elizabeth entitle a act restore to the crown the ancient  jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual and abolish foreign  power repugnant to the brown same do by his letter patent under the brown er p  great seal of England date the that of April in the that year of his reign  grant the jurisdiction of the court of prerogative royal and court of faculty  in Ireland unto Christopher then lord bishop of Armagh and his successor for  ever king Charles I by his letter patent under the great seal of Ireland date  the that of January in the d year of his reign for the reason and  consideration therein particular express empower James then lord archbishop of  Armagh and his successor to appoint in the manner in the say letter patent  mention a sufficient person to be his or their deputy surrogate or commissary  of the say court of prerogative royal and court of faculty and to grant such  surrogation to the person so by they to be nominate for the term of their  natural life or during good behaviour pursuant to this power the office of  deputy surrogate or commissary of the say court have ever since the time of  the last letter patent be constant grant by the archbishop of Armagh for the  time be for the term of the natural life or good behaviour of the several and  respective grantee and not otherwise and accord his grace Michael lord  archbishop of Armagh do by commission under his archiepiscopal seal date the  that of June nominate and appoint Marmaduke Coghill doctor of law deputy  surrogate and commissar of the say court of prerogative royal and court of  faculty during his natural life doctor Coghill officiate in these office and  hold and enjoy the same under the say commission until the month of January  about which time he fall into a very bad state of health and be advice to go  abroad for the recovery of his health and have a intention to resign the say  office and to procure the appellant to be appoint his successor in the same  doctor Coghill about the beginning of January acquaint the respondent the lord  primate with such his intention and at the same time recommend the appellant  as a person through qualify in every respect to fill the say office and  propose that if his grace shall after his doctor Coghills death have just  cause to be dissatisfy or displease with the appellant behaviour in the say  office the appellant will in such case be Willing to resign the same upon this  request and recommendation his grace consent to accept the resignation of  doctor Coghill and to grant the say office to the appellant but require by a  letter to doctor Coghill that the appellant shall execute a bind which the  appellant apprehend and understand be only intend to secure more firm after  doctor Coghills death a power to his grace over the appellant conduct and  behaviour in the say office in case the same shall give his grace any just  cause of displeasure and be satisfy he shall never conduct or behave himself  so as to give his grace just treason to be displease with he and that this  brown power will never be use but on just ground a draft of a bind be prepare  the penalty of pound with condition that the appellant shall on the death of  doctor Coghill at the will and pleasure of the lord primate surrender the say  commission with the say office so grant to he as aforesaid to the lord primate  which draft of a bind together with the commission grant to doctor Coghill and  a draft of a new commission to be execute by the lord primate be lie before  his grace and continue in his custody until the d of January on the morning of  which day his grace have express to the appellant his approbation of the draft  of the commission and bind the appellant wait on his grace in the evening of  that day with doctor Coghills resignation which his grace then accept and at  the same time duly pass a commission under his archiepiscopal seal contain a  grant of the say office to the appellant for the term of his life and the  appellant be accord swear and admit to the say office and at the same time  execute the beforementioned bind on the that of march doctor Coghill die and  within a day or two afterward the lord primate without charge the appellant  with any neglect or misbehaviour in the execution of the say office send  person to he to demand a immediate resignation of they which the appellant not  think proper to comply with his grace make a second demand to the same purpose  and upon the appellant persist in his refusal to resign his grace on the that  of may cause a bill to be file in his name against the appellant in the court  of chancery in Ireland charge among other thing that the appellant before his  admission to the say office have enter into a agreement with his grace to  resign the same peremptory on the death of doctor Coghill and that the  appellant have fraudulent conceal from his grace the power he have with  respect to the grant the say office his grace charge that he brown er p have  power to grant the same at will and in order to show what be the intention of  the party at the time of grant the say commission and execute the say bind his  grace charge several conversation upon this head and several parole promise as  make by the appellant to his grace and the respondent Richard Morgan his  receiver at the time of execute the bind and commission but do not suggest any  misbehaviour or other reason why he will remove the appellant from the say  office but his grace inclination to have in himself the absolute disposal of  they the bill therefore pray that the appellant may be compel specifical to  execute the say pretend agreement and to surrender the say office and  employment to his grace to this bill the appellant put in a plea and answer  and in his answer full set forth the several matter before mention deny the  agreement pretend by the bill and express brown aver that there be not the  least passage in all the expression or behaviour of his grace which give the  appellant to understand or imagine that he be at all event to hold the say  office no long than during doctor Coghills life or that he be peremptory to be  displace on the doctor death for have understand from doctor Coghill that his  continuance in the say office be to depend on his behaviour if he have at the  time of the execution of the say commission be apprise or have entertain any  imagination or suspicion of such intention in his grace he will have absolute  refuse to accept the say commission he have thereupon quit the business of his  profession as a advocate and other business equal in profit to the income of  the say office and that doctor Coghill with who till his death the appellant  account for a moiety of the profit of the say office be at the time of the  appellant admission into the same in so bad health that his physician judge it  impossible for he to live three month and the appellant insist that he be all  along give to understand that he be not to resign the say office on any other  term than on just cause of exception to his behaviour in the office which he  hope have be unexceptionable and as to that part of the bill which pray a  specific performance of the pretend agreement the appellant plead the  beforementioned act of parliament letter patent resignation and commission and  that the say office be judicial and concern the administration and exercise of  justice and have be always grant for life or during good behaviour and that  the appellant be duly admit and swear into the say office under the say  commission and have ever since execute the same on the that of July this plea  come on to be argue when the court order it to stand for a answer with liberty  for the plaintiff to accept and reserve the benefit thereof to the hear of the  cause the answer be full the respondent the lord primate take no exception  thereto but immediate reply and issue be join in the cause his grace proceed  to examine several witness and particular the respondent shiel and Morgan and  the appellant likewise examine they on several cross interrogatory exhibit for  that purpose publication have pass it appear upon a perusal of these  deposition that soon after doctor Coghills death it be agree that the  respondent Morgan and shiel who have be present with the lord primate when the  appellant wait upon he as aforesaid shall make affidavit of what they remember  of the several transaction and conversation that pass upon grant the say  commission to the appellant that the respondent Morgan thereupon draw a draft  of such a affidavit as he propose to make himself upon that occasion and at  the foot thereof add the draft of another affidavit for the other brown  respondent shiel to make verify the say Morgan affidavit that the respondent  Morgan afterward bring both the say draft to the respondent shiel for his  perusal and approbation and that the respondent shiel upon his peruse such  draft disapprove thereof and actual refuse to swear to the draft which the  respondent Morgan have prepare for he declare that if he must make a affidavit  he will draw his own the transaction be fresh in his memory that the  respondent shiel do accord after have first see Morgan affidavit draw a  affidavit for himself and some time in march deliver the same to Morgan in  order to be by he lie before the respondent the lord primate that the  respondent Morgan some time afterward return this draft to shiel and on the  that of April they both swear their affidavit before a master in chancery and  that the original affidavit be deliver by Morgan to the respondent the lord  primate brown er p it likewise appear that these affidavit be afterward  deliver by the lord primate to his agent Mr Samuel white for his guidance and  direction in the prosecution of the cause against the appellant that the  respondent Morgan have his affidavit or a copy thereof from the lord primate  agent some short time before his examination in the cause and that in many  passage the deposition and affidavit of the respondent Morgan and shiel be  verbatim the same by the respondent Morgan deposition to the cross  interrogatory it be pretend that the reason for make these affidavit on the  behalf of the respondent the lord primate be that the respondent expect the  appellant on see they will find the transaction to be so well remember that he  will desist from give his lordship any further trouble and waive his  pretention to the office and yet it be not suggest or even insinuate  throughout the whole cause that either of these affidavit be lie before or  communicate to the appellant for that or any other purpose but on the contrary  they be conceal from he and never disclose but by the examination it also  appear from the deposition of Edward sale Esq a witness examine in the cause  that the respondent Morgan have apply to and endeavour to persuade he that he  have declare to Morgan to have hear the appellant say he be to resign on the  death of doctor Coghill but which sale upon his examination declare he never  do hear or anything like it but on the contrary say he believe in his  conscience the appellant never will have accept the office on such term the  appellant apprehend and be advice upon perusal of these deposition that the  behaviour of the respondent in this transaction have be unjustifiable and  irregular apply to the court by petition pray that the deposition of the brown  respondent Morgan and shiel to the direct and cross interrogatory may be quash  and that attachment may be grant against they or for such further or other  order as the court shall think proper on the circumstance of the case but upon  the hear of this petition on the that of march the lord chancellor refuse to  grant the prayer of it declare he see no reason for the application the  appellant therefore appeal from this order contend I brown W Murray that the  testimony of witness ought to be free from all previous engagement or  influence and therefore ought not to be throw into a formal narrative and  secure by affidavit in the outset of a cause for in experience it be find to  be true that affidavit make at the instance of either party do not always  contain the whole truth of the fact or represent all its circumstance in their  true and natural light and when once a witness have bind himself down by a  relation of the fact in a affidavit it be a restraint upon his evidence for  the future and a strong temptation when examine to adhere to the affidavit  though by mistake forgetfulness or otherwise it shall happen to vary from the  truth that these affidavit have be apply to a very unjustifiable purpose be  use as instruction and assistance to the witness at the time of their  examination for upon compare the affidavit with deposition it appear that in  several passage they be verbatim the same in other there be a variation in  form indeed but not in substance and in general it be visible that the  affidavit be the plan upon which the deposition be frame that if a attempt of  this kind be to be endure it will be the constant practice as soon as a cause  begin to get affidavit from the witness and then draw the interrogatory from  they and at the commission turn the affidavit into a deposition which will be  of the most dangerous consequence to the truth and justice of every cause that  in the present case there be not the least reason or occasion for require a  affidavit from the witness for as no incident in the cause make it necessary  so the reason give for it in Morgan deposition be not only weak and improbable  but also true it be manifest that the affidavit be not calculate for the  purpose therein suggest because they be never apply to that purpose nor can  they be design mere to preserve the remembrance of the transaction or to  refresh the memory of the witness at the time of examination because a minute  or memorandum in write without the sanction or formality of a oath will have  answer both these purpose as well as a affidavit that the respondent Morgan  and shiel know from the beginning they be intend to be examine in the cause  and therefore they ought to have keep themselves free and unengaged as to  their testimony accord to the duty which as witness they owe to the court and  to the party in the cause but instead of behave with indifference they have  act with great partiality by make voluntary affidavit in brown er p brown  favour of the other respondent and put they into his power to be use in the  progress of the cause and especial the respondent Morgan who be not satisfy  with make such affidavit himself but have prepare the draft of such a one for  the other respondent shiel as he will not venture to swear it be therefore  hope that the deposition will be suppress and the witness just censure on the  other side it be say d rider I strange that the affidavit be swear before any  suit be commence and be excuse if not render necessary by a case hand about in  favour of the appellant represent that he have be hardly deal with by the lord  primate that these affidavit be make by person of reputation and character and  who be the proper person to attest what pass in their presence and that the  whole appear to be a very innocent transaction that the exception if any can  only go to the credit of the witness upon the hear of the cause the appellant  have not only cross examine they but consent after publication that the cause  shall be hear without objection to the deposition and therefore it be hope  that the order reject the appellant petition will be affirm and that the  appeal will be dismiss with exemplary cost as it seem to be bring mere for the  purpose of delay the hear and keep possession of the office in question accord  after hear counsel on this appeal it be order and adjudge that the same shall  be dismiss and the order therein complain of affirm jour vol p