andrews versus brown ux S c Prec Chan disapprove Jones v Scott Russ m what  will bring a debt out of the statute of limitation in this case it hold clear  that if a man have a debt due by note to he or a bookdebt and have make no  demand of it so that he be bar by the statute of limitation yet if the debtor  after the six year put out a advertisement that all person who have any debt  owe to they from he will repair to such a place they shall be pay this though  it be only general and so may be intend of legal subsist debt only yet amount  to such a acknowledgement of that debt which be bar as will revive the right  and bring it out of the statute again so if in that case the debtor have make  his will and direct that all his debt shall be pay or make any provision for  the payment of his debt in general see p will this likewise will revive such a  debt and bring it out of the statute so that his executor will be liable to  the payment of that debt among the rest and it say it have be rule so  oftentimes and that a little matter will bring it out of the statute be to  revive and restore a right a strong if after six year the debtor upon  application of that particular debt acknowledge it and promise payment this  revive the debt and bring it out of the statute because as the note itself be  at first but a evidence of the debt so that be bar this acknowledgement and  promise be a new evidence of the debt and be Gilbert prove will maintain a  assumpsit for recovery of it and in the principal case the plaintiff recover  upon a note of pound of Valentine Duncombe brother of the late sir Charles  Duncombe to who the defendant wife be executrix give in Payable to one or  bearer and the note have be hand from one to another till at last Valentine  become a bankrupt go to France and long after the six year and death of  Valentine sir Charles his executor recover a debt of five or six thousand  pound which be due to his brother put out a advertisement for all person who  have debt owe from his brother to come to he and make they out they will be  pay and the plaintiff have this note prosecute for the recovery of the money  soon after the advertisement but can not bring it to a hear till now he have a  decree for the pound and interest from the time of the bill bring though my  Lord say this bill be in the nature of a indeb assumpsit at law another point  in this case be that after the bill and answer come in and a replication file  several witness be examine and their deposition take then the plaintiff move  to withdraw his replication and take exception to the answer and they reply  and examine other witness and now on the hear will read the first deposition  but the other side insist they can not be read by reason the replication must  be withdraw and so as take without any replication they be irregular and ought  to be suppress and accord my Lord say they ought to be suppress for that as he  say they shall have examine they a new after the second answer come in and  replication file or have move the court to have liberty to make use of they at  the hear see vern vern Gilbert report er p Chanc c Chanc c and Spencer versus  Allen Trin see above a three point in this case be wherein the court and bar  agree that where interrogatory be exhibit in the examiner office and witness  examine thereon that either part may without application to the court or order  for that purpose exhibit one or more interrogatory or a new set of  interrogatory for far examination of the same or other witness but where the  Commission be take out for examination there no new interrogatory or set of  interrogatory can be exhibit without motion or order of the court and the  reason of the difference be say to be because the examiner be a officer of  credit and swear and so presume to be impartial and that he will not disclose  the deposition to either party but the commissioner be private person and not  swear and be call the plaintiff commissioner or defendant commissioner and so  without leave of the court no new interrogatory can be add before they