case Hawkins versus crook at the roll mos Eq can ab pl take a bill pro  acknowledged admitted fact not of long stand it have be former the practice to  put the plaintiff to make proof of the substance of the bill though the  defendant stand out to the last process but latterly the practice have be that  if the defendant appear to a bill and stand out in contempt to a sequestration  the cause be set down to be hear and the record of the bill produce and take  pro acknowledged admitted fact but if time be give to a defendant to answer  though after the sequestration and though the answer be report insufficient  yet the bill shall not be take pro acknowledged admitted fact this bill be  bring by Thomas Hawkins brother and heir of John Hawkins to set aside his  brother will date the saint of December whereby the testator have devise his  real and personal estate to the defendant Japhet crook charge the same with  some legacy and charity the bill suggest that the defendant have obtain this  will by fraud and imposition the defendant crook have appear to the bill stand  in contempt to a sequestration for not answer whereupon the plaintiff obtain a  order for set down the cause to the intent the bill may be take pro  acknowledged admitted fact but the defendant have procure a order for put the  cause for some few day in the meantime put in a answer to which the peer  William plaintiff take above twenty exception and the answer be report  insufficient as to most of these the plaintiff serve the defendant with a  subpoena for a better answer whereupon the defendant put in a second answer  which be also report insufficient in near twenty exception eighteen of which  be in relation to letter write by the defendant to the testator Hawkins the  bill pray a discovery whether the defendant do write such letter and these be  in the hand of the plaintiff clerk in court and the defendant have be all take  from the time of exhibit the bill in the prison of b r upon account of a  criminal prosecution apply to the plaintiff clerk in court offer he a guinea  to bring the letter to he in the king bench prison that he may be enable to  answer concern they and also petition the master of the roll that the  plaintiff clerk in court may attend the defendant in the prison of b b suggest  in his petition that he can not otherwise put in a full answer but this be  only two day before the cause be to come on in order to take the bill pro  acknowledged admitted fact and after two insufficient answer the master of the  roll take it to be for delay only and refuse the petition whereupon the  defendant put in a three answer set forth that he can not answer positive as  to these letter have have no opportunity of see they but that he do believe he  write such letter and also answer the other two exception this answer be put  in on the Saturday and the cause come on the Monday follow when I move that  the defendant may have far time to answer because saint the practice of take a  bill pro acknowledged admitted fact be not of long stand the ancient way be to  put the plaintiff to peer William make proof of the substance of the bill  though the defendant have stand out to the last process a sequestration I vern  sir James Johnston versus Desminere in vern Gibson v Scevington the court  appear to be in doubt whether it shall grant such a order and indeed the  consequence of it be extraordinary to take every thing pro acknowledged  admitted fact which the fruitful fancy of a counsel can invent suggest or put  into a bill and make all pass for truth my the reason of this order must be  that the defendant appear and refuse to put in any answer at all the plaintiff  be by that mean incapable of join issue and deprive of the opportunity of  examine any witness whereas the defendant put in a answer though it be  insufficient yet the plaintiff have it then in his power peer William er p to  reply and prove his whole bill consequent be not without remedy dly there can  be no precedent produce for this and what make the present case still the hard  be that by this order not only what have not be answer will be take pro  acknowledged admitted fact but even such part as be sufficient answer and it  seem very strange when the master saidthe defendant have answer all the bill  except such a part of it and the plaintiff acquiesce under such report that  the court shall now be desire to look upon that as confess which the defendant  in fact upon his oath have well and sufficient deny thly this be stranger yet  when all the part of the bill which contain any charge of fraud have be deny  and only some letter not answer to which the defendant be a prisoner can not  see nor have access to though the same have be leave in the hand of the  plaintiff clerk in court on the other side it be say that this order for take  the bill pro acknowledged admitted fact be usual when no answer be put in and  a peer William insufficient answer be as no answer the order be therefore  regular that though the court have afterward indulge the defendant in give he  far time yet he have make a ill use of such indulgence deserve no favour and  it be no answer to say that by a insufficient answer the plaintiff be put into  a condition to examine he witness and prove his whole bill since the justice  of this court be not thereby satisfy for the plaintiff be entitle to have a  discovery from the defendant and it may be of such fact as can not be  otherwise prove by the plaintiff therefore it be just to say in this as well  as in other respect that a insufficient answer be no answer they far this  method of equity in take a bill pro acknowledged admitted fact be consonant to  the rule and practice of court at law where if the defendant make default by  nothing to say judgement be immediate give in debt or in all case where the  thing demand be certain but where the matter sue for consist in damage a  judgement interlocutory be give after which a writ of inquiry go to ascertain  the damage and then follow the judgement final whereupon although no precedent  be cite in the case the bill be in part read and his honour the master of the  roll pronounce his final decree for the defendant to account for the rend and  profit receive by he that there shall be a perpetual injunction and a  reconveyance but a appeal be bring from this decree before Lord chancellor  king July Lord chancellor king his lordship differ in opinion observe that  though in this case there be a order for a sequestration before any answer put  in yet the court will consider how matter stand when the decree to take the  bill pro acknowledged admitted fact be make it be sufficient there be at that  time a peer William answer put in and that it be a answer plain appear nay  have be admit to be so even by the plaintiff himself when he sue out process  for a better since it can not with any proprietary of speech be call a better  answer unless there be some answer put in before that here be also a three  answer which must be admit to be a full one because not refer for  insufficiency now he can not he say reconcile it to reason or common sense  that a defendant shall be say to confess the whole bill to be true when it  appear by the master report which be a record of the same court that he have  answer the great part of it and when the plaintiff himself have take the first  answer to be a answer in part by serve the defendant with process to put in a  better wherefore the decree at the roll for take the bill pro acknowledged  admitted fact be reverse his lordship be of opinion and do declare that the  matter of the say plaintiff bill in this case can and therefore be not to be  decree pro acknowledged admitted fact against the say defendant crook for want  of a answer because it appear by the record of this court that the say  defendant have by leave of this court put in a answer to the say plaintiff  bill which be accept as a answer thereto by the plaintiff put in exception to  it the say answer and receive the cost of such insufficient answer and take  out a subpoena for the say defendant to put in a better answer and the say  defendant afterward put in two other answer to the say plaintiff bill and  although the two first of the say answer be insufficient in several point yet  the say defendant crook have thereby deny several material part in the say  plaintiff bill therefore his lordship conceive that the say defendant crook  can in this case be say either to put in no answer to the say bill or be  presume to confess the say plaintiff bill for that in several material part  thereof he have by his answer deny peer William er p the same and especial as  his last answer be unexcepted to and that if such decree pro acknowledged  admitted fact be make it will notwithstanding his say answer put in as  aforesaid bar he of all manner of defence against the say plaintiff bill and  do therefore order that the say decree for take the say plaintiff bill pro  acknowledged admitted fact be discharge and that the party be at liberty to  proceed in this cause on the say bill and answer accord to the course of the  court Reg lib a fol say vide Lord hardwicke observation on and objection to  this case in Davis v Davis atk lady Abergavenny v lady Abergavenny Eq can ab  pl see also William v Thompson bro C C attorney general v young Ves Jopling v  Stuart Ves turner v turner Bacon v Griffith ib in not and dick hearne v  Ogilvie Sidgier v tyte Ves