case piddock v brown et all Lord chancellor Talbot Eq can ab pl a good rule at  law that where to a suit there be never so many defendant if the plaintiff can  give evidence against a defendant he may be call as a witness for a  codefendant and so it be in equity a bind or mortgage be prima fancy a good  evidence of a debt but in case fraud appear the obligee c ought to prove  actual payment the defendant be a weak man and to be examine on interrogatory  the master be order to take such defendant examination lest he shall unwary  admit something against himself that be not true one who be make a defendant  in equity be examine as a witness save just exception and it be object to the  read of his deposition that though there can be no decree against he yet his  answer be falsify in many part of it he may be liable to a prosecution for  perjury and consequent not so indifferent with respect to the event of the  cause a witness shall be and that this defendant have be very active in the  interest of other defendant in the cause Lord chancellor it be a good rule at  law that when the peer William plaintiff have make many person defendant and  the principal defendant call one of the codefendants to be a witness if the  plaintiff can give some material evidence against he skin he be allow to be a  good witness else it will be in the power of the plaintiff to take off all the  defendant witness by name they defendant in the action and in the present ease  I do not see how the plaintiff have any equity against this defendant  therefore let his deposition be read second it be declare by the Lord  chancellor that upon produce a bind or mortgage this prima fancy be a good  evidence of a debt but that wherever there be manifest sign of fraud in the  obligee c in such case he ought to be put to the proof of actual payment  wharton v may Ves Vaughan v Lloyd cite Ves peer William er p and see Osmond v  Fitzroy ante and though he may happen thereby to lose some part of the money  real due to he for want of be able to make sufficient proof this be but a just  punishment of he for the fraud which he plain appear to have be guilty of and  will be a proper discouragement to other from commit the like the bill be file  to impeach some bind as obtain from the plaintiff by fraud and imposition Reg  lib three a account be direct and that all party shall be examine on  interrogatory and it appear that the plaintiff who bring this bill to be  relieve against a security into which he be draw without any valuable  consideration be a weak man and easy to be prevail upon to say and admit in  his examination any thing that be true how much soever to his prejudice it be  therefore pray that the court will so order it as that no such advantage shall  be take of these circumstance whereupon the court direct that in case the  defendant peer William exhibit interrogatory against the plaintiff the master  shall take care to examine the plaintiff in person and thereby see that no  advantage shall be take of his weakness Reg lib b fol Barret v gore atk  nightingale v Dodd Amb it be a motion of course to examine a codefendant as a  witness save just exception upon a allegation that he have no interest lee v  Atkinson Cox which allegation be construe to mean no interest in the matter to  which it be propose to examine he Murray v Shadwell V and b yet if when the  motion be make the court perceive all interest it will not make the order anon  Ves nor be it a motion of course after a decree francklyn v colquhon Ves