Frazer

This is an action of ejectment. The defendants joined in an answer, which put in issue all the allegations of the complaint as to the ownership and right to the possession of the demanded premises, the value of the rents, issues, and profits, and the amount of damages claimed by plaintiff.

The plaintiff caused to be issued and served upon the defendant Catherine Lynch a subpoena duces tecum, re *622 quiring her to produce in court a United States patent conveying a portion of the land in controversy to one Patrick Lynch, through whom plaintiff claims title. The said defendant did not produce the patent as commanded. The court below, of its own motion, examined the defendant upon oath as to her reason for not doing so. Her evidence is as follows:—■

The question presented by this appeal is as to the correctness of this ruling, and it is clear to us that it cannot be sustained. Section 1991 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that disobedience of a subpoena may be punished as a contempt of court; “ and if the witness be a party, his complaint or answer may be stricken out.” This latter clause of the section is intended for the protection of the adverse party, whose substantial…