the application of either of the parties in the suit, cause, action, or proceeding, in which such commission shall have been issued, his, her, or their agent or agents, to issue a subpœna, or subpœnas, for such witness or witnesses, residing or being within the said district or territory, as shall be named in the said commission, commanding such witness or witnesses to appear and testify before the commissioner or commissioners, in such commission named, at a time and place in the subpœna to be stated, and if any witness, after being duly served with such subpœna, shall refuse or neglect to appear, or after appearing, shall refuse to testify (not being privileged from giving testimony,) such refusal or neglect being proved to the satisfaction of any judge of the court, whose clerk shall have issued such subpœna or subpœnas, he may thereupon proceed to enforce obedience to the process, or to punish the disobedience, in like manner as any court of the United States may do in case of disobedience to process of subpœna ad testificandum, issued by such court; and the witness or witnesses, in such cases, shall be allowed the same compensation as is allowed to witnesses attending the courts of the United States:Proviso. Provided, That no witness shall be required to attend at any place out of the county in which he may reside, nor more than forty miles from his place of residence, to give his or her deposition, under this law.
Any judge of the United States to issue a subpœna duces tecum, in certain cases.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever either of the parties in such suit, cause, action, or proceeding, shall apply to any judge of a court of the United States, in the district or territory of the United States, in which the place for taking such testimony may be, for a subpœna duces tecum, commanding the witness, therein to be named, to appear and testify before the said commissioner or commissioners, at the time and place in the said subpœna to be stated, and also to bring or carry with him or her, and produce to such commissioner or commissioners, any paper, writing, or written instrument, or book, or other document supposed to be in the possession or power of such witness, such judge being satisfied, by the affidavit of the person applying, or otherwise, that there is reason to believe that such paper, writing, written instrument, book, or other document, is in the possession or power of the witness, and that the same, if produced, would be competent and material evidence for the party applying therefor, may order the clerk of the court, of which he is a judge, to issue such subpœna duces tecum, accordingly, and if such witness, after being duly served with such subpœna duces tecum, shall fail to produce any such paper, writing, written instrument, book, or other document, being in the possession or power of such witness, and described in suchthat a copy of the interrogatories, and a written notice of the rule for a commission, and the names of the commissioners, were served on the opposite party or his attorney, according to one of the rules of the circuit court of Pennsylvania. Lessee of Rhoads and Snyder v. Selin, 4 Wash. C. C. R. 715.
It is no objection to a deposition, that a material part of the evidence comes out under the general interrogatory. Ibid.A commission was issued under a rule to take depositions at Selinsgrove, and was endorsed “commission to Selinsgrove.” It should appear, by the certificate of the commissioners, or otherwise, that the depositions were taken at the place indicated, or they cannot be read. Ibid.Affidavits to be used as further proof, in causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, must be taken by commission. The London Packet, 2 Wheat. 371; 4 Cond. Rep. 162.A deposition taken under a commission is fatally defective, if the general interrogatory, “Do you know anything further,” &c., is now answered. Richardson v. Golden, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 109.If a commission issue to A. & B., or either of them, take the depositions of witnesses, the depositions of A. may be taken before B. Lonsdale v. Brown, 3 Wash. C. C. R. 404.Evidence to establish heirship and pedigree, had been obtained under a commission issued for that purpose to France, in an action of ejectment, in which the plaintiffs had recovered the lots of ground for which the suit was instituted. In the course of that trial, a bill of exceptions was tendered by the plaintiffs and sealed by the court, in which the evidence contained in the commission was inserted. The commission, and the testimony obtained under it, were afterwards lost. In an action for mesne profits brought by the plaintiffs in the ejectment, against the landlord of the defendant in the suit, who had employed counsel to oppose the claims of the plaintiffs, but who was not a party to the suit on record; it was held, by the Supreme Court, that the testimony, as copied into the bill of exceptions, was legal and competent evidence of pedigree. Chirac v. Reinecker, 2 Peters, 613.