296 Timehri. 
Again, suppose the statement of defence sets up no real defence 
to the action, a motion may be made by the plaintiff to strike out 
the defence and have judgment in precisely the same way as the 
defendant had a right to move to strike out the plaintff’s statement of 
claim. As soon as the statement of defence is in, either party has a 
right to serve what is called an ‘“ Order to Produce,” directing the 
opposite party to produce on oath, all documents, copies of documents, 
etc., etc., which he has or has had in his possession bearing on the issue 
to be tried. Then either party may be examined under oath by the 
other generally upon the whole case. If a corporation be one of the 
parties to the action, an officer of the corporation is selected by the 
opponent, who may be examined. 
Now, there is a great deal of difference of opinion as to the value of 
this ‘examination for discovery,” as we call it. In practically every 
case in Ontario there is an examination for discovery. That increases 
the cost of the action undoubtedly. I heard the other day, very much 
to my astonishment, at a meeting of the Ontario Bar Association which 
Iattended before I had the pleasure of meeting you here, one very 
eminent member of the Bar say that an examination for discovery 
was absolutely useless except to show the opposite side what one’s 
case was. In my own experience, I did not find this to be the 
case. My experience (and I know the experience of a great many 
others practising at the Bar is the same) was that the ‘“ examination 
for discovery” is an exceedingly valuable proceeding. When you 
examine the other side for discovery you find out what his case is. 
It is true you must disclose, to a certain extent, your own case; but 
that is not always of much importance. I have found that the 
examination for discovery leads to the settlement of at least one-third 
and perhaps more of the cases which would otherwise be tried, and I 
have found it exceedingly valuable. But opinions differ in that regard. 
In a great many instances the plaintiff also requires to make applica- 
tion to the Master in order to have particulars delivered. Particulars 
may be required to be delivered of the statement of the defence, that is 
what particular matters the defendant relies on for his defence. When 
delivering a statement of defence, the defendant may counterclaim for 
any claim he has against the plaintiff on any cause of action. In an 
action brought on a promissory note a counterclaim may be brought of 
a claim for libel—with this provision, however, that if the Court sees 
that the issues should not be tried together the Court may strike out the 
counterclaim, or order it to be tried at a different time from the general 
claim. 
Then we come down to, the trial. We have the jury system the 
same as you, but I do not think we are quite so—TI shall not say crazy, I 
know better than to say that to lawyers—but we are not so wedded (that 
is a good word) to the jury system as you are. There are certain cases 
such as malicious prosecution, libel, slander, actions of that character 
