case nightingale against dodd a defendant have be examine under the usual  order as a witness may have a decree against he upon other matter to which he  be not examine No entry in l r S c mose before sir Joseph Jekyl m r that may  order that buck one of the defendant shall be examine as a witness for the  plaintiff save just exception buck be interest in the cause but not in the  matter to which he be examine it be insist upon by buck counsel at the hear  that the plaintiff have examine buck as a witness can not pray any decree  against he but the court say suggestion in order of this kind videlicet that  the defendant be not interest must relate to the matter whereto he be examine  if he be examine to other matter wherein he be concern he may demurrer and the  court order buck to account Q vide piddock v brown wms carter v Hawley before  Lord Hardwicke can be examine without leave of the court as at law ambler Q  the reason of the order videlicet that plaintiff shall not compel a defendant  to assist and in the same cause act adverse against he and leave be give save  just exception it be not for his sake that leave be require he have better  protection against give evidence against himself may demurrer see Bowman v  Rodwell mad it be for the sake of the other party the cause of exception can  only come from the other defendant if the matter he be examine to go direct to  affect himself he may demurrer and as to other matter he be not concern  therefore no care be take of he in the order he be safe in all event it do not  appear from the minute book that any case in which either nightingale be the  name of the plaintiff or Dodd of the defendant be hear in easter or Trinity  term in the case of Thompson v Harrison Cox it be determine that the plaintiff  examine a defendant as a witness preclude himself from obtain any relief by  decree against he and if from the nature of the case that defendant will be  primary liable to the plaintiff and another defendant only in a secondary  degree the plaintiff have lose his remedy altogether see Weymouth v boyer Ves  Jun Harvey v Tebbutt I W it be hold by Lord Eldon that the real meaning of the  general allegation that defendant be not interest be that he be not interest  in the matter to be examine to but if in the result of the cause it turn out  that he have a interest in those matter by reason of his interest in other the  deposition ought not to be read Murray v Shadwell v b and the objection to the  evidence must be take at the hear see it and see lee v Atkinson Cox franklin v  colquhon Ves the follow note of the case of carter v Hawley be from Mr bound  ms ambler er p bill against four several defendant for a specific performance  of article enter into for grant a lease the plaintiff examine one of the  defendant Q whether his deposition shall be read Lord chancellor the rule of  this court be that whenever you examine a defendant as a witness you can pray  a adverse decree against he because that will be charge he on his own evidence  which if you do will be a great temptation to defendant to forswear themselves  the rule of law be where several be make defendant and no evidence be give  against some of they the rest of the defendant may call those who be not  evidence against as witness for they but the plaintiff can never do so because  he have make they party to the suit there be a case to this purpose in Lord  holt time which be a information bring against several defendant and the  plaintiff will have swear one of they as a evidence against the rest but the  court will not suffer he to do so as the plaintiff himself have make he  defendant whereupon the plaintiff immediate enter a nolli attendance as to he  and then he be admit a evidence the rule of this court differ from that of law  because there be several case where the plaintiff must make party of those  defendant who he must necessary examine in the cause as witness as in the case  of trustee who he must examine and notwithstanding pray a decree against they  for though they may have the legal estate in they yet they be not material  interest I be of opinion this present case be of the same nature for there be  a necessity to make clarke a defendant for the plaintiff can not bring a bill  against the rest only for a specific performance of this agreement unless  clarke will have consent to have be a coplaintiff which he have not consent to  and therefore his evidence must be admit S c hill ms tot verb the date of this  case do not appear in the ms and the editor be therefore unable to supply the  fact from the register book and see v Fitzgerald hill ms Armiter v Swanton  Ambl Scroggs v Scroggs Ambl appendix g and Meadbury v isdale