F. Pollock, contrà. A sight of these documents is necessary for the purposes of justice; therefore the Court will compel their production. They are part of the proceedings in this Court, kept by the Marshal by virtue of his office, and for the safe custody of which he is responsible. This is a very different case from that of Cooper v. Jones. There the plaintiff called upon the Marshal to file the writ of habeas corpus, and the Court refused the application on the ground that there was no place in which it could properly be filed except the office of the Clerk of the Papers, in the prison, the writ forming part of the authority of the Marshal for detaining the prisoner. Here no attempt is made to change the place of custody of the writ; all that is prayed for is an opportunity to inspect and take a copy of it, in order that it may be correctly set out in the declaration.

Lord TENTERDEN, C. J.-This case is perfectly distinguishable from Cooper v. Jones. The motion there was for the Marshal to file the writ, and it was refused upon the ground that there was no proper place in which, consistently with his own safety and with his duty, he could file it. Here the application is only to produce the writ, so that the plaintiff may inspect and take a copy of it, for the purpose of maintaining his action for the escape of his debtor. I think that is a perfectly just and reasonable application. It is clear that the Clerk of the Papers must produce the writ at the trial, if served with a subpœna duces tecum for that purpose; and as it may be necessary for the plaintiff to set out the writ in his declaration (a), I see no reason why he should not be allowed an inspection of it for that in the present stage of the cause.'

purpose

The other Judges.concurred.

Rule absolute (b).

(b) But see Davies v. Brown, 9 Fleet, for the escape of a prisoner

committed to his custody in execu-nish copies of them, as all the pro

On a question ARCHBOLD had obtained a writ of habeas corpus to of the legality bring up the body of Charles Bagster, for the purpose of

ment of a wit- discharging him out of custody, he having been committed ness by comof to prison by the commissioners appointed under a commission of bankrupt issued against his brother, William Bagster, of Norwich, draper, under the following circum

The prisoner had been committed by the commissioners, under the authority of the statute 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, ss. 33 and S4 (a), for not giving satisfactory answers in his examina

tion before them touching his brother's affairs. The war-
rant of commitment set out the whole of the examination.
of the prisoner before the commissioners. On his first
examination, the prisoner being asked whether he had not
written to one Gissing, the bankrupt's shopman, respecting
a statement of the bankrupt's debts and assets, he denied
that he had. On a subsequent examination he desired
leave to correct that answer, and stated that he believed he
had written to Gissing on that subject. He then also de-
sired to correct another answer which he had previously
given. He had before stated that he had not received any
goods from the bankrupt's stock since the 8th of August,
1827: he now stated that he had received goods from the
bankrupt since that time, to the amount of 421, 88. He
admitted that he had struck the docket against his brother.
Being asked whether he had seen the bankrupt between
the time of his writing to Gissing and striking the docket,
he answered, that he could not say, he thought it probable
he had, he believed he had;-if he had seen him, it was
at Ipswich; he thought it was at Ipswich, with Mr. Marston,
the attorney. Being asked whether that was not after the
time when he wrote to Gissing, and before the bankrupt
absconded, he answered, yes. Being asked why he did
not state that before, he said, it was because he did not
recollect it. The examination then proceeded thus:—
"Now, state what passed at that interview between you.
Mr. Marston came over to strike the docket.

"that if any person committed by the commissioners shall bring any habeas corpus, in order to be discharged from such commitment, the court or judge before whom such party shall be brought by habeas

corpus, shall, if required thereto by the party committed, in case the whole examination of the party so committed shall not have been stated in the warrant of commit

ment, inspect and consider the
whole of the examination of such
party, whereof any such question
was a part; and if it shall appear,
from the whole examination, that
the answer or answers of the party
committed is or are satisfactory,
such court or judge shall and may
order the party so committed to
be discharged."

1828.

Ex parte BAGSTER.

State what did pass, relative to his circumstances, whe ther important or not in your view of it; state the whole truth.

I have stated that the attorney came over to strike the docket.

You are requested to state what passed between your brother and you relative to his circumstances.

Nothing.

You have before said, nothing important passed: state what did pass.

I now mean to say nothing at all passed.

For what purpose did your brother then come over to you?

1

I suppose to drive Mr. Marston, the attorney, tor Ips wich, where I lived...

1

Do you not know that your brother did go from Norwich to Ipswich with Marston to you, for the purpose of getting you to strike a docket?

Mr. Marston would have done as well alone.

Have you any other answer to give to that last question?
No.

It is pointed out to you that you have not answered it; have you any other to give?

No.

You are requested carefully to consider, as it is a question easily to be answered.

I can give no other answer. My brother might have had business at Ipswich, although not with me.

The question repeated.

I have no other answer to give.

The question repeated.

If he did, it was unknown to me.

Do you not believe that your brother went with Marston

from Norwich, to yourself at Ipswich, to get you to strike a docket?

I do not know if he did or not: I do not know his inten tion in coming..

You are not asked as to your knowledge, but as to your belief.

I would have answered the question long ago-
Answer it now as to your belief.

I do not know what to say.

Is that the only answer you mean to give?
Yes.

Having had time for reflection, have you any addition to make to your examination?

No."

The warrant then stated that these answers not being satisfactory, the commissioners did thereby commit the prisoner to Newgate, there to be kept without bail, until he should submit himself to answer the questions to their satisfaction.

Scarlett and Archbold, on behalf of the prisoner. The commitment was not justifiable. The questions, for the not answering of which the prisoner was committed, were not within the scope of the authority of the commissioners to put, for they did not " concern the person, trade, dealings, or estate of the bankrupt," nor were they "material to the full disclosure of the dealings of the bankrupt;" to which subject-matter the power of examination vested in the commissioners is confined. The prisoner, therefore, was not bound to answer such questions at all; and though it must be admitted that some of his answers are not very satisfactory, still he ought not to have been committed.. The particular questions, at the close of the examination, upon the answers to which the commitment appears mainly to have proceeded, were still more objectionable. They were neither fair nor legal questions, nor had they any relevancy to the subject under inquiry. No man is bound to

1828.

Ex parte BAGSTER!