case GRIELLS versus gansell refer to hood v pimm sim Lord chancellor king Eq  can ab pl a deposition of a witness amend after publication on petition to  amend a deposition of a witness one dubourdieu a clergyman who have be examine  in this cause the witness be order to attend as be also the examiner the  latter of who be examine by the Lord chancellor swear he take the deposition  true from the mouth of the witness to peer William who the deposition be  afterward distinct read and then the witness subscribe his name the witness be  examine do not swear positive that the examiner have take his deposition false  but that he be induce to believe do not express himself in the manner the  deposition be take and be positive he do not intend or mean to swear as the  examiner have take it but that he real intend to swear in the manner as the  amendment be desire and that the same be what he have before declare in  conversation as also what another witness in the cause have positive swear the  counsel on the other side insist that though there be instance where a  defendant answer have be amend no precedent can be produce for amend a  deposition after publication or at least if the court be incline to amend this  will be better defer to the hear when it will be more full possess of the  whole matter Lord chancellor where it appear to the court that either the  examiner be mistake in take the deposition or the witness in make it I think  it for the advancement of truth and justice that the mistake shall be amend  and the soon this be do the better in regard the witness may be dead or in  remote part before the hear it will be hard and unjust to pin a witness down  to what be a mistake by deny to rectify it as to what have be object of the  inconvenience of amend the deposition after publication it be impossible to  know it until publication wherefore let the deposition be amend as desire and  the witness swear it over again Reg lib a fol see Rowley v Ridley Cox Ingram v  Mitchell Ves Kirk v Kirk Ves