case peck all versus peck all at the chancellor house Lord chancellor if the  title of a answer reflect on the plaintiff it be scandal because it be not  part of the defence nor can be put in issue post Cas mrs peck and her daughter  Anna maria file their bill against John peck Esq old son of John peck Esq  decease as widow and daughter of the say Mr peck for dower and their  respective share of Mr Pecks personal estate to this bill Mr peck put in a  answer which be refer to the master for scandal and impertinence and the  master report it to be scandalous and impertinent and the defendant except to  the report and the council for the plaintiff argue in support of their  exception which be take to the title of the answer the several answer of John  peck Esq one of the defendant to the bill of complaint of Anna banns alias  green assume to herself the name of Anna peck as pretend wife of John peck Esq  decease and of Anna maria green assume to herself the name of Anna maria peck  as daughter of the say John peck Esq decease whatever reflect on the party if  it be impertinent be certain scandalous for its be material be the only reason  why it be allow and though a charge be ever so scandalous and criminal if  relevant and necessary to their defence they have a right to set it forth and  it be proper to be put in issue but what be in the title of the answer can be  examine to or put in issue and therefore if it reflect on the party must be  certain impertinent and mosely report scandalous to which it be answer by the  council for the defendant that the title of the answer be agreeable to the  style of the spiritual court where if a woman as wife sue for the performance  of conjugal duty or to administer the title of the answer be such a one see  nomina by the name of the decease or of the husband which be do to avoid any  admission of her right as wife Lord chancellor there be no reason to fear that  the title of the answer shall prejudice the defendant as a admission of the  plaintiff right or work any conclusion in this court and therefore I allow the  exception vern Nels Fol Rep in canc mosely report er p