
    SCULL vs. MOWRY.
    Itterrogato ries cannot be strickeped off.
    Appeal. The petition below contained inter-regatories, which the defendant had answered on oath. A motion was now madeon the part of-the plaintiff that the petition might be amended by striking out the said interrogatories and answers.
    Henneji, for the plaintiff.
    A party who administers interrogatories to his adversary, is not obliged to use them: he may, if he is able to proceed without them, lay th aside. "The party," says the Civil Code, 316, art. 264. "wishing to "avail himself of the avowals made by the ad"verse party, in his, answer to the interogatories "on facts and articles, must not divide them, but "must take them entire." It follows that the party not wishing to avail himself of them, need not take them.
    Porter, for the defendant,
    was stopped
   By the Court.

The 26th section of the act for establishing parish courts, 1807, ch. 1, provides that in regard to the obtaining discoveries from cither plaintiff or defendant on oath, and the efect of the same, the proceedings shall be the same as in the superior court, 1805, ch. 26. The ninth section of that act, directs that, whenever any fact is denied by the answer to an interrogatory of either plaintiff & defendant, such answer so given shall be received as true, unless disproved, &c.

The Civil Code, 316, art. 259, refers to those acts, and declares that the form ofthose interroga- tories, and the rules that are to be observed in them, are settled by the law regulating the judicial proceedings. The 264th article, introduces no change; it only declares what the law was before, viz, that the answer is not to be divided, but must be taken entire. The rule that the asnwer shall be received as true, unless, &c. is not changed. If there be a party, who may cause the answer to be received as true, it surely must be the one in whose favour it is, be he the person interrogating or interrogated.

Leave denied. 
      
       See a quotation from pothier, ante, 74, 75.
     