George v. Nichols
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Exceptions from the District Court, Hathaway, J. The defendant had been notified to attend the taking of a deposition at the office of Henry W. Fuller in Boston. It was in fact taken at the office of Henry H. Fuller in Boston. It was offered by the plaintiff, and objected to by defendant, for the foregoing reason, and also because the magistrate was not a commissioner, appointed by the Governor and Council of Maine, to take depositions.
Read the full summary
Exceptions from the District Court, Hathaway, J. The defendant had been notified to attend the taking of a deposition at the office of Henry W. Fuller in Boston. It was in fact taken at the office of Henry H. Fuller in Boston. It was offered by the plaintiff, and objected to by defendant, for the foregoing reason, and also because the magistrate was not a commissioner, appointed by the Governor and Council of Maine, to take depositions. The presiding Judge admitted the deposition, but gave the defendant an election whether to take a continuance or to proceed to trial with the deposition in…
1Opinion of the Court
Tenney, J.,
orally.—The first objection was obviated by the defendant’s attendance at the taking.
It is not requisite that the magistrate should be a commissioner. It does not appear that he was not authorized by *180the laws of his State to take depositions. Depositions taken out of the State may be received at the discretion of the court. R. S. c. 133, § 22. Exceptions overruled.
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. WoolridgeOregon Supreme Court · 1904
- Brown v. A Raft of Poplar & Oak TimberOhio Superior Court, Cincinnati · 1854