case nightingale versus dodd at the chancellor house Lord chancellor eoden die  Mr Verney in Mr Bohun be appoint by the eastindia company the governor of  Bombay make sir Robert nightingale and Mr chamberlain his agent in England and  on his return file a bill against Mr nightingale the representative of sir  Robert and Mr chamberlain for a account of the profit of his real estate and  of his remittance and Mr nightingale file a cross bill against Mr chamberlain  and Mr Bohun for a account of what remittance have be make he to the east  Indies and both cause come on to be hear together mutual account be decree and  the party to be examine on interrogatory pursuant to this decree Mr  chamberlain and Mr Bohun be examine before the master then Mr nightingale  exhibit this bill against Mr chamberlain only which on his death be revive  against his executor Mr mosely report Dodd and the cause be at issue examine  Mr Bohun as a witness and he demurrer to those interrogatory only he have be  examine to before the master in the other cause a witness be not to be examine  to his own interest but may demurrer to the interrogatory on affidavit if he  be not defendant in the cause Chan Cas a reversioner demurrer to his be  examine as a witness because his estate depend upon the same title and the  demurrer be overrule for want of a affidavit because it do not appear he be  concern in interest by the act of the court and though a defendant by answer  must discover against himself yet then he have the advice of counsel but it be  otherwise when he be examine on interrogatory and he have be already examine  to these Mr attorneygeneral for the plaintiff this bill be bring by the  plaintiff as executor of sir Robert nightingale for a account of his personal  estate against Mr chamberlain and be now revive against the defendant Dodd his  executor Mr chamberlain in his answer swear that his own estate be so mix with  sir Robert that he can not distinguish they this make it necessary for we to  examine many witness to Mr chamberlain deal the value and nature of they Mr  Bohun demurrer because other suit be depend he state his demurrer as a plea  and do not rely on the interrogatory be have in law but on matter dehors the  former decree and the examination before the master on the same interrogatory  so his demurrer be not good in form and he do not demurrer because he be  concern in interest and though he have be examine on interrogatory as a party  in the other cause his deposition can be read as evidence against the  defendant in this cause because he have no liberty to cross examine he and he  ought to show he be concern in interest Mr Verney if a witness can not  demurrer for matter extrinsic to the interrogatory he can seldom demurrer  because he be concern in interest but the case of the affidavit show the  course of the court to be otherwise Lord chancellor a defendant can demurrer  to a bill but for matter appear in the bill itself but a witness may demurrer  for matter dehors to the interrogatory because he have no other way to relieve  mosely report himself but by demurrer but then the fact must be verify by  affidavit Mr Bohun in the other cause be to account for and be examine what  asset of sir Robert nightingale come to his band yet sure in this cause he may  mosely report er p be examine what asset of sir Robert come into the hand of  Mr chamberlain and he can demurrer because the interrogatory be the same in  both cause because they may be proper to discover both point Thursday November  the that