164 on delays in the court of Sefsion. Oct. 2. 
production before it goes to be advised. To remedy 
this, both parties might be ordained to bring for- 
ward their facts, and make their productions, along 
with their condescendence and answers: and all new 
productions after the answers are lodged, m»ght be 
absolutely prohibited; and if any new document 
fhould afterwards come to the knowledge of either 
party, it might be produced along with a representa- 
tion or an answer, as the case may be. 
I would not have the days to stop even for the recove- 
ry of a paper out of the hands ofa third party; ndr m- 
deed to admit of any interruption more than the re- 
presenting days: for if they are once found capable 
of interruption, things will soon revert into their 
old channel of delay. And if a party be thus taken 
fhort by a strict adherence to rule, the benefit can be 
reserved to him of any action he may choose to 
bring afterwards, upon the uarecovered deed. 
In the case of orders to produce a writing, it is 
obvious that the time for production cannnot in'every 
case be limited toa fortnight. The document may not 
always be athand. It may be in the East or West In- 
dies, or perhaps a-mifsing or lost. Such orders must 
therefore be left to the discretion of the judge, that 
he may allow a week or a year, to produce it, as most 
expedient. But after the time allowed by him is 
once expired, I would not have it in the power of the 
judge himself to give any renewal of the order; but 
only to reserve action to the party supposed to suffer 
from the want of the deed. When litigants are once 
aware of such precision, they will bestir themselves 
i 
