The Express.
London, England, 1847-01-30 00:00:00

EQUITY COURTS.
Before the Lord Ctaneellor.

MORRIS V. MORRIS.—PUBLICATION or DEPOSITIONS.—
This was a motion to discharge an order of Vice-Chancellor
Knight Bruce for passing publication of evidence taken in
thiamine. The suit was instituted in 1823 for the purpose
of perpetuating testimony in respect to the right of sweet.
sion to lands in Ireland. A snit was previously instituted
in Ireland for the same purpose. The witnesses who were
examined in the suit in this country were all dead, and pub-
lication haring passed in the Irish suit, the Vice-Chancellor
ordered publication of the depositions in the English suit.
Mr. Roger. (on Thursday) in support of the motion ba
discharge that order, after stating the focus, and that
the object of passing publication was to aid a
defence to a bill lately filed in the Irish Court
of Chancery, contended that it wu contrary to the principles
of this court to aid an inferior or foreign court. The Irish
courts came un,ler both these descriptions. The Court of
Chancery in Ireland had itself power to compel discovery
and to obtain the testimony of witnesses in this country by
commission, without the aid of this court. He cited several
cues, relying on that of " Bent v. Young" (9 Simons, 80),
in which the Vice-Chancellor allowed a demurrer to a bill
of discovery in std of a defence to a suit in the courts of
Surinam. There was no case or dictum to the cm/teary, ex-
cept a note to " Mitford's 'fr..atise on Pleading" (p. 186), in
which the author said, "A discovery his been compelled to
aid the jurisdiction of a foreign court," and referred to an
' unreported cue of " Crowe v. De Rio" ; but that ease wee
found, upon investigation of the pleadings in it, to be no au-
authority for the position so laid down (9 Simons, 185).
When an order is made by this court to pass publication of de-
positions, which are to be used in another court, the form of
the order, which is added to the report of the " Attorney
General v. Ray," (2 Hare, 619) is that "the depositions be
published and the proper officer attending such court will
produce the record of the whole proceedings, and that the
portico may make such use of the same as by law they can."
How are these depositions to be furnished to the Irish
court ? This court will not send its officer with them, nor
allow copies of the depositions to be used in any suit ex-
cept in that in which they are taken. The order, therefore,
to pass publication, besides being contrary to the authorities
on the subject, is useless.—Mr. Ed. Y. Smith opposed the
motion, and said the Vice-Chancellor did not make the

order until be had proof that publication had passed
in the Irish suit. It was usual for this court to
Rive effect to
s proceedings and orders in the Irish Court
of Chancery, as ' Hoolditeh v. the Marquis of
Donegal" (8 Bligh). He referred to other cues, as
" Morrison v. Arnold " (19 Vesey), to show that where
witnesses, whoa., evidence was taken to perpetuate testi-
mony, died, no objection could be taken to the publication
of their depositions, and said that the form of the order in
2 Hare was corrected in 3 Hare, p. 335, and that the inter-
rtories and depositions only were sent, and not the record.
The Lord Chancellor observed that the point was one of
importance, and he would look into the cases before de-
ciding it.
His lordship now (Friday) gsoe his judgment, and said
that as the suit was instituted for the purpose of perpetuating
the testimony of witnessed, and they were all dead, he saw