Les reportes del cases in Camera Stellata, 1593 to 1609 from the original ms. of John Hawarde edited by William Paley Baildon Published 1894. Pages 10-11
In Camera Stellata, 16 Novembris, An Do 1593.
The first motion was by Phillips on behalf of Fanstowe [Fanshaw] of the Exchequer and the Mayor of London and others, plaintiffs, against Wrothe and others of Ware, defendants Healle for them. The case was for the continuance of the Eiver of Lee, leading from the town of Ware to London, without disturbance by such kind of riots as has been used these twenty years last past. And because divers of the defendants have answered but will not be sworn to their answers, [it was moved] that they be compelled to be sworn. And it was ordered by the Lord Keeper that they be sworn to their answers, and attachment will lie against them to [Page 11] compel them to answer. And these matters were referred to both the Chief Justices. And because the bills and answers were so long, and especially the interrogatories, which were four yards of parchment, the Judges themselves moved for a remedy for this. And the Lord Keeper ordained as a rule of Court that if any bill contains more than sixteen sheets of paper, then the plaintiff shall pay for the copying of all beyond the sixteen sheets for the use of the defendant; and so if the answer contain more than sixteen sheets of paper, then the defendant shall pay for the copying of all beyond the sixteen sheets for the use of the plaintiff. And so of interrogatories. And if in any of those sixteen sheets the Judges report any unnecessary matter which might be comprehended in fewer lines, then the party so in default shall pay costs.
Serjeant Yelverton moved that whereas he for the plaintiff had named eight commissioners and the defendant had named six, of which six the plaintiff had elected two, and out of the said eight the defendant would not elect any, but took exception to all, that the Court would award an order to remedy this. Healle, one of the attorneys of the Court, to avoid this said that before this time the defendant and the plaintiff had agreed about their commissioners, and now the plaintiff prayed to have them remain their commissioners which the plaintiff [sic ? defendant] would not allow. And therefore no order to do the contrary, but it was ordered by the Court that its order shall be observed, and it is this, that in all cases both parties are bound by the usage of the Court to name six commissioners, and each party may take exception to four of them, and to allow the two of the six or otherwise to proceed with the commission alone. And so it was ordered in this case.
see STAC London