answer; the object being, either to compel him to answer when not bound, or to refuse, and so create a prejudice against him. What precise limitation the Court meant to impose upon the rule laid down in Osborn v. The London Dock Company, I know not: but I think they did not intend to overrule it. Osborn v. The London Dock Company was acted upon by this Court in Chester v. Wortley, 17 C. B. 410 (E. C. L, R. vol. 84), and I am disposed to act upon it likewise. Upon the whole, I think the inter rogatories in question may properly be delivered.WILLES, J.-I am of the same opinion. It is skechers shape ups only skechers necessary to look at the frame of the 51st section to see that it was intended that this new jurisdiction should be administered in the Courts of law by shape ups shoes analogy to theirown proceedings, and not to the practice of the Courts of equity. The framers of the Act evidently did not intend that we should be fettered by the rules of equity .(a) Upon shape up skechers a careful consideration of its *language, I think the 51st section will be found expressly to r#263 exclude the difficulties which, as appears from the treatises on L the law of discovery by Sir James Wigram and Mr. Hare, so frequently arose in Courts of equity, as to whether an objection of this nature should be made on demurrer or come by way of answer. The party interrogated is by the very terms of the section placed in the position of a witness. Now, if such questions as these were put to a witness, the witness, shape ups in order to excuse himself from answering them, must make out to the satisfaction of the Court that he would be in peril of a criminal prosecution if he were compelled to answer them. Upon this ground, it appears to me, that, even admitting that the interrogatories are put for the purpose of extracting answers which may criminate the party, or of prejudicing him in the estimation of the jury if he declines to answer them, they ought to be allowed to be put. I must own that I have no sympathy with a witness who is compelled, in order to protect himself from answering a question, to admit that his answer would tend to criminate him. This view of the law was acted