
    Same Term.
    
      Before the same Justice.
    
    Brown vs. Andrews and others.
    ■' achments against parties to the suit, and the affidavits on which they are grounded, and the subsequent proceedings, should be entitled in the cause.
    The death of one of several defendants is an abatement of the suit as to himself alone. And pending an abatement by the death of one defendant even process of contempt may be executed against the other.
    
      The interrogatories upon which a defendant is examined, on á commission of rebellion, should be confined to the fact of the service of the order or process, and to the acts constituting the violation thereof. They should not relate to any previous proceeding.
    In EauiTY. After an attachment, an alias and pluries attachment, and an attachment with proclamations, the defendant Andrews was arrested and' brought into court on a commission of rebellion, for a contempt in refusing to appear and submit to an examination before a master on a breditor’s bill. On being brought into court and asking time to answer the interrogatories, he was committed to prison, in default of bail in $3000. On the day appointed, the defendant moved to set aside the commission of rebellion on the ground that the first attachment, the affidavit on which it was grounded, and all subsequent proceedings, were entitled in the original cause.
   Edmonds, J.

That is no objection. Attachments against parties to the suit, and the papers therein, ought to be so entitled.

The defendant then objected that his co-defendant Wiswall had died before the defendant was arrested; and that the suit had not been revived.

Edmonds, J.

The death of a defendant is an abatement as to himself alone; and pending aii abatement by his death, even process of contempt may be executed against the other defendant.

The defendant then demurred to several of the interrogatories because they related to other alleged contempts in the cause than that for' which he had been arrested.

Edmonds, J.

. The demurrers must be allowed. The inter-' rogatories should be confined to the fact of the service of the order or process and to the acts of neglect or commission constituting the violation thereof. They should not' relate to any previous proceeding.  