appears "likely to be able to give material evidence." Similar H.C. or A.
provisions are contained in the Justices Acts of the other 19%
States. They do not, of course, apply to corporations. See. 15c Ba
deals specifically with the production of documents belonging to Rupaneern
corporations, although the "person" mentioned in sec. 15B may .
also be required to produce documents. <A fair inference is that sec. Hoomeee
158 was not intended to apply to corporations quoad hoc. And, Sriffith 0.J.
if not quoad hoc, why at all? Again, knowledge, information
and belief cannot, except in a technical sense, be imputed to a
body corporate. It is true that under the old Chancery practice
a corporation made defendant to a bill was required to make
answer to the plaintiff's interrogatories under its corporate seal
to the best of its knowledge, information and belief. But that
requirement was for the purposes of pleading, and not of evidence.
A corporation cannot, of course, be a witness.
If it had been intended that sec. 158 should apply to corpora-
tions, one might have expected that it would have contained a
provision that the answer should be made under the corporate
seal, or by some member or officer appointed by the corporation
for the purpose of making answer, according to the practice of
this Court as well as the High Court of Justice in England and
the Australian Supreme Courts with regard to discovery, and
that the answer so given should be admissible against the
corporation.
I do not think that either the old practice of the Court of
Chancery and of the Australian Courts which have not adopted
the Judicature Acts, or the practice of those Courts which have
adopted them, can be regarded as incorporated by implication in
sec. 158,
Reference was made to the provision in sec. 15B (4) that the
answer of a " person" to questions shall not be admissible in evi-
dence against him except in proceedings for an offence under the
Act, from which it may be inferred that it was intended that it
should be used in such proceedings. I agree, but I do not think
that this provision carries the argument any further. The pro-
vision is by way of protection only, and is equally valuable and
applicable whether " person " includes corporations or not.
For these reasons, I have come to the conclusion that a contrary