atkins case vaillant versus DODEMEAD march at Lord chancellor house SC post  the defendant have examine Mr Bristol his clerk in court the plaintiff exhibit  interrogatory for cross examine he to which he demurrer for that he know  nothing of the matter inquire of except what come to his knowledge as the  defendant clerk in court or agent Lord chancellor overrule the demurrer and  order he to answer the interrogatory the bill be to be relieve against a  collusive assignment make by the defendant Dodemead of a lease to one lascells  a prisoner in the fleet in order to avoid pay a ground rend to the plaintiff  the defendant Dodemead have examine Mr Bristol clerk in court in the cause who  demurrer to the plaintiff interrogatory on a cross examination the demurrer be  for that he know nothing of the several matter inquire of by the interrogatory  beside what come to his knowledge as clerk in court or agent for the defendant  in relation to the matter in question in this cause and therefore submit to  the court whether he shall be oblige to answer thereto Lord chancellor these  demurrer ought to be hold to very strict rule I be of opinion there be several  objection to this demurrer I think it cover too much and be very lose draw for  all demurrer of this sort ought to conclude that he know nothing but by the  information of his client the first objection make against this demurrer be  that it appear in this case that the matter inquire after by the plaintiff  interrogatory be antecedent transaction to the commencement of the suit the  knowledge whereof can not come to Mr Bristol as clerk in court or solicitor  the second objection that this be a cross examination and wherever at law the  party call upon his own attorney for a witness the other side may crossexamine  he but that must be only relative to the same matter and not as to other point  of the cause the three objection that it be too general for the word be that  he know nothing but as clerk in court or agent now the word agent be very  extensive and uncertain for no person be privilege from be examine in such  case but person of the profession as counsel solicitor or attorney for a agent  may be only a steward or servant atkins the four objection that one of the  interrogatory be a enquiry concern the prove of the deed of assignment which  be exhibit I be of opinion that he ought to answer to this though he shall be  privilege as to other matter Lord Hardwicke seem chief to rely on the case of  the Southsea company and Dolliffe Ves S c which be this Mr Dolliffe upon his  go ad as supercargo to the Southsea company enter into article wherein be a  covenant from Mr Dolliffe not to demurrer to any bill the company shall bring  within two month after his return to England which time be alter to six month  Mr Dolliffe rant to examine Mr Gambier who have settle the article touch the  time which Mr Dolliffesuggests be alter without his privity or knowledge Mr  Gambier demurrer as be counsel for the company but the demurrer be overrule  for that what he know be as the conveyancer only it be hear before Lord  chancellor king and Lord Hardwicke be counsel in it for the plaintiff be cite  cut versus Pickering Ventr a solicitor be produce concern a rasure of a clause  in a will suppose to be do by his client but it appear that this discovery of  which he be now about to give evidence have be make before the retainer of he  as solicitor the court be of opinion that he may be swear otherwise if he have  be retain his solicitor before the same law of a attorney or counsel cut  versus Pickering Ventr see the question respect the examination of the  profession full discuss in Rayn read on stat to p vin b a Lord chancellor  overrule the demurrer so if a counsel or attorney consent to be examine the  court will not refuse the read his deposition Maddock v Maddock Ves atkins er  p