Terrell J:

The facts and arguments are sufficiently stated in the judgment.

By an order dated 8 February 1935 the plaintiff was given liberty to deliver certain interrogatories referred to on the summons. The interrogatories were to be answered by the defendants "by their secretary or other proper officer."

The interrogatories were answered by the affidavit of Alfred Weber, the secretary of the defendant company, in an affidavit sworn on 20 February 1935.

[12] The relevant interrogatories and answers are as follows:

Interrogatories

3. Shortly prior to the time when the plaintiff sought admission as aforesaid or at what hour did not the said Walter Dennis Lambert as such manager call two or how many constables from the front of the said theatre or whence into the precincts of the said theatre or whither? State the names and the numbers respectively of the two constables?

4. Were not the constables, police constables 1528 and 379? Were not their respective names Said Shah and Sardar Shah?

5. Did not the said Walter Dennis Lambert forthwith or when post the two said constables or whom outside one of the two doors leading into the auditorium on the ground floor of the said theatre from the inner vestibule? If nay, where did he post the said two constables and each of them? If Yea, was not the door at which they were so posted the door on the right hand side of the inner vestibule looking towards the stage of the said theatre? Did he not instruct the two said constables or what constables or constable after so posting them as aforesaid not to allow anyone to get into the said theatre? If nay, what instructions did he give the two said constables or either and which of them ?

Answers

3. In answer to the third interrogatory I say that the said Walter Dennis Lambert did not at such time as suggested or at any time on the said day as such manager or otherwise call two or any constables from the front of the theatre into the precincts of the said theatre or anywhere.

4. In answer to the fourth interrogatory, I crave leave to refer to the answer to the third interrogatory.

5. In answer to the fifth interrogatory, I say that the said Walter Dennis Lambert did not forthwith or at any time post the two said constables or either of them outside the said door or anywhere. He did not instruct the two said constables or any constables or constable not to allow any one to get into the said theatre. Nor did he give any instructions to the two said constables or either of them. He did post two of the watchmen employed by the defendant company outside one of the two doors leading into the auditorium on the ground floor of the theatre from the inner vestibule.

10. The above answers are all made to the best of my information and belief such information being obtained for the most part from the said Walter Dennis Lambert.

The plaintiff being dissatisfied with these answers has applied to the Court by two summonses Nos. 285 and 296 which are complementary to one another.

S/C 285 asks that the said Walter Dennis Lambert answer interrogatories 3, 4 and 5 and S/C 296 asks that the answers to interrogatories 3, 4 and 5 be struck out and that the defendants by their secretary or other proper officer answer or further answer the interrogatories in question.

The summonses were adjourned into open Court and came on for hearing together.

The basis of the plaintiff's objection is that Lambert in the course of evidence given on oath before the Police Court, when the plaintiff was charged with assaulting the two Police constables in question, gave evidence at variance with the answers now given by the secretary and which he professes to give upon information given to him by Lambert himself. In these circumstances the plaintiff submits that the answers are a sham and an abuse of the process of the Court and should be struck out under the Court's inherent jurisdiction. The plaintiff further objected that the Secretary having presumably know