This is the fault of introducing superfluous matter into a legal Instrument; particularly the insertion in a pleading of matters foreign, extraneous, and irrelevant to tfcat which It is intended to answer. Matter introduced in an answer, or pleading, which is foreign to the bill or articles. 2. In the case of Dysart v. Dysart, 3 Curt. Ecc. R. 543, in giving the judgment of the court, Dr. Lushigton says: It may not, perhaps, be easy to define the meaning of this term [redundant]in a short sentence, but the true meaning I take to be this: the respondent is not to insert in his answer any matter foreign to the articles he is called upon to answer, although such matter may be admissible in a plea; but he may, in his answer, plead matter by way of explanation pertinent to the articles, even if such matter shall be solely in his own knowledge and to such extent incapable of proof; or he may state matter which can be substantiated by witnesses; but in this latter instance, if such matter be introduced into the answer and not afterwards put in the plea or proved, the court will give no weight or credence to such part of the answer. 3. A material distinction is to be observed between redundancy in the allegation and redundancy in the proof. In the former case, a variance between the allegation and the proof will be fatal if the redundant allegations are descriptive of that which is essential. But in the latter case, redundancy cannot vitiate, because more is proved than is alleged, unless the matter superfluously proved goes to contradict some essential part of the allegation.