case smith versus reynolds at the chancellor house Lord chancellor a bill be  bring to be relieve against a stale bind as satisfy and as evidence to prove  it the plaintiff set forth that the defendant enter into a late bind for money  the plaintiff lend he and that have lose the bind he file a bill against the  defendant and have a decree for payment in which cause he never insist on  anything be due to he from the plaintiff the defendant in his answer say he do  not believe the plaintiff lose the bind but conceal or destroy it this be  scandalous because it be not material to his defence Ant Cas the plaintiff  file his bill to be relieve against a bind of pound upon which the defendant  have bring his action set forth that the bind be not enter into for money lend  or any valuable consideration but pure to serve the defendant and that it be  agree between they that it shall not be put in suit to prove which the  plaintiff charge that no demand have be make from when the bind be enter into  till the bring the action though the plaintiff be a gentleman of a large  fortune and the defendant very necessitous and that the defendant afterward  borrow of the plaintiff pound on bind and that the bind be some how lose the  plaintiff exhibit his bill in this court against the defendant and have a  decree for the payment the defendant in his answer say that he do not know or  believe that the plaintiff lose the bind but believe that he fraudulent  conceal or destroy it the plaintiff refer the answer for scandal the master  report it scandalous and the defendant take the general exception to the  report that the answer be not scandalous because pertinent and the council for  the plaintiff argue that the answer be scandalous because the word must be  design pure to reflect on the plaintiff because they be not material or  relevant to the defendant he shall have take notice of this bind only as far  as it be pertinent mosely report as to have deny that there be any such bind  or any such decree the bill be bring to have a bind deliver up and as a  evidence that nothing be due on it we set forth this other bind enter into by  the defendant and our bill and that the defendant in that cause do not pretend  any money be due to he from the plaintiff and this part of the answer be so  whole immaterial to our charge that though the defendant can prove it it will  be of no service to he in this cause though it may on a bill of review in the  other the council for the defendant argue that though those word be not  material to their defence yet the plaintiff have make it necessary to set they  out and that if they be out that their answer may be refer for insufficiency  all the several allegation and charge in the bill be to be answer as if they  be particular interrogate and one of the charge of the bill be that the bind  be some bow get out of his power and if we have be ask particular this  question these word will be pertinent and the word be not scandalous what be  more common than to charge in a bill fraud combination and confederacy in the  defendant and the word to contrive skilfully fraudulently to stretch out be  not scandal at commonlaw Lord chancellor though a matter may be very  scandalous in itself it be not to mosely report er p be consider so if it be  pertinent or if the plaintiff ask impertinent question though the answer shall  be reflect and impertinent it will not be scandal and it be very different to  charge fraud and combination in a bill general and to insist upon it by oath  in a answer this bill be to be relieve against a stale bind and as a  inducement to prove it satisfy the plaintiff mention the subsequent bind  proceed and decree in this court in which cause the defendant never insist on  be pay the money due by this bind he have now put in suit and therefore it be  to be presume it be satisfy all this be material to the cause but the  plaintiff in his manner of set out this transaction take notice that the bind  be some way get out of his custody oblige he to sue in this court and the  defendant in his answer say he believe the plaintiff do not lose it c he deny  what be not material and what the plaintiff do not require he to answer if he  have allege that he have lose it and have question he to it then his answer  will not have be scandalous though immaterial because the plaintiff lead he  into it but now he be impertinent for go out of the way pure to reflect on the  plaintiff so the report must stand mosely report you can bring on a cause for  the further direction of the court or move on a master report till it be  confirm you can move on a decretal order till it be pass with the register  Saturday December the three seal after Michaelmas term motion