Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 4.djvu/244
198 NINETEENTH CONGRESS. Sess. II. Ch. 4. 1827. by any c¤¤¤·f testimony of a witness or witnesses, at any place within the United °F ‘h° U""°d States, or the territories thereof, it shall be lawful for the clerk of any States, for ‘ . f ‘ d. _ · t -t - h. h. (nlting the court of the United States, or he tstnct or ern ory wu m w mh toslimouy <>f¤ such place may be, and he is hereby enjoined and required, upon to make the depositions evidence, although the commissioners 'named by the party making the objc;- tion, alter proceedzig some length in the examination of the witnesses, withdrew. Muns v. Dupont, 2 \V:tsh. C. C. R. 5 3. The provision of the judiciary act of t'i89,eh. 20, sec. 30, as to taking depositions, de bene essc, does not apply to cases pending in the Supreme Court of the United States, but only to cases in the district and circuit courts. Testimony, by depositions, can only be regularly taken for the Supra-me Court, under a commission issuing according to the rules of the court. The Argo, 2 Wheat. 287; 4 Cond. Re .119. Deposidions taken according to the proviso in the 13th section of the judiciary act of 1789, ch. 20, under a “ dcdimus potcstatem,” “ according to common usage, where it may be necessary to prevent a failure or delay of justice,” are,under no circumstances, to be considered as tahen de bene essq, whether the witness reside beyond the process of the court, or within it: the provision of the act rg. lative to depositions, de bene esse, being confined to those taken under the enacting part of the section. Sergea.nt’s Lessee v. Biddle et al. 4 Wheat. 508; 4 Cond. Rep. 522. A commission was issued in the name of Richard M. Meade, the name of the party beingkichard W. Meade. This is a clerical error in making out the commission, and docs not affect the execution of the commission. Keene v. Meade, 3 Peters, 1. It is not known that there is any practice in the execution or return ofa commission, requiring a. certificate, in whose handwriting the depositions returned with the commission were set down. All that the commission requires, is, that the commissioners, having reduced the depositions taken by them to writing, should send them with the commission, under their hands and seals, to the judges of the court out of which the commission issued. But it is immaterial in whose handwriting the depositions are; and it cannot be required that they should certify any immaterial Fact. Ibid. 8. A certificate by the commissioners, that A. B., whom they were going to employ asa clerk, had been sworn, admits of no other reasonable interpretation than that A. B. was the person appointed by them as clerk. Ibid. 9. It is not necessary to return with the commission the Form of the oath administered by the commissioners to the witnesses. When the commissioners certify the witnesses were sworn, and the interro~ gatories annexed to the commission were all put to them, it is presumed that they were sworn and examined asto all their knowledge of the facts. Ibid. 10. The plaintiffs issued a. commission to take testimony abroad, and the defendant joined in the same, by tiling crossdnterrogatories, but the plaintiffs afterwards found a. witness to prove the facts they desired to establish by the commission; and they abandoned it. The court said a trial under those circumstances, would be a surprise on the defendant. Le Roy 1:. The Delaware Ins. Co.,2Wash. C. C. R. 223. Iftlie crossinterrogatorics are not put to a witness examined under a commission to take testimonv, the examination of the witness cannot be read on the trial. Gilpins v. Consequa, Peters’ C. C. R. 86. It is no objection to a deposition taken under a commission to Holland, that it is in the English language, the commissioners before whom it was taken being Dutchmcn, and not stating that they had the assistance of an interpreter. Ibid. It is not an objection to the evidence taken under a commission, that the cross-interrogatories were not put to each witness, immediately after he had answered the chief interrogatories, but were put to him after all the ciiiefititerrogatories had been answered by all the witnesses. Ibid. Ib A commission is not defectively executed, because the commissioners and their clerk were not sworn. id. Those who execute a commission are appointed by the court, and although they may be nominated by the parties, they are not their agents. Ibid. Ifa.|l the interrogatories, which accompany n commission, are substantially, although not severally answered, it is sufficient; and this principle applies as well to the answers given to the interrogatories anngxed to letters rogatory, as to answers under a commission. Nelson 1:. The United States, Peters’ . . R. 235. The circuit court of the United States will issue letters rogatoxy, for the purpose of obtaining the testimony of witnesses, when the government of the place where the evidence is to bs obtained will not permit a commission to be executed. Ibid. The testimony ofa witness, taken under a commission, directed to five persons, or any one of them, cannot be read in evidence if another person than the commissioner, and who was not named in the gomtngspjon, assisted in taking the examinations of the witnesses. Willings v. Consequa, Peters’ C. A commission directed to A. to be executed in one county, cannot be executed by him in another. The commissioner ought to state when and where the commission was executed. He acts undera special authority. The depositions were rejected, being obnoxious to this principle. Bourdereau et al. 0. Montgomery et al., 4 Wash. C. C. R. 186. If the general interrogatory, under a commission, is not answered, it is a fatal objection to the whole deposition ; all the interrogatories must be substantially answered. Dodge v. Israel, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 323. Query, If it is not an objection to a deposition, that it was committed to writing by the witness before he was sworn; and whether exhibits, referred to in a deposition, ought not to be annexed b the commissioners to the deposition, or so designated by them as tolcave no reasonabledoubt of their idlentitv. Ibid. Ii' reasonable notice of formal objections to the depositions taken under a. commission, be not given, thehcowrt may Eefirmuced to set aside a verdict or nonsuit rendered in consequence of this objection, wi ou costs. 1 . Depostttons taken, under a commission, to another state, cannot be read, unless proof be given
