BRYANT V. LEYLAND. 125 �ranted in declaring that at the former of those dates he was incapable of transacting the ordinary affairs of life, or of making a will, or a contraot of however solemn and impor- tant a nature. �These findings of facts make the disputed points of law unimportant. I ought to say, however, that the evidence of the defendant, taken in his own behalf, though not especially objected to at the time, is understood to be governed by a stipulation in the record that each party reserves ail objec- tions to matters of substance, and the complainant is right in insisting that by section 858 of the Eevised Statutea the defendant's own evidence should not be received as to the transactions and conversations with Copelin personally. I have, therefore, not relied at ail, in reaching my conclu- sions, upon testimony which cornes within the prohibition of that section. �BUl dismissed^ with costs. ���Beyant V. Leyland and others. {Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. March 1, 1881.) �1. Practice— Filin» iNTERnoGATORras— Bill 01" Discovert. �Under tiie federal practice act, interrogatorieg, authorized by a Btate statute, may be flled in a federal court, in an action at law, in lieu of a bill of discovery. �2. SaME— CUMXTLATIVE REMBDT. �Such remedy is cumulative merely, and not adopted as a substituts or a bill of discovery. �3. Same— Discovery— Oral Testimony — Rev. St. i 861. �Section 861 of the Revised Statutes, which declares that the mode of proof in actions at common law shall be by oral testimony, does not refer to discovery, whether by bill or interrogatory. — [Ed. �Action at Law. Motion that defendants be required to answer certain interrogatories, filed in the clerk's office, in accordance with the practice of the state. �T. F. Nutter, for plaintiff. �L. S. Dabney, for defendants. ��� �
