Trotter v. Latson
New York Supreme Court
This was, in effect, a motion to commit the defendant for not bringing his books and papers before a referee, in compliance with a common subpoena duces tecum, issued without any order of a judge, previously obtained for the purpose.
1Opinion of the Court
Roosevelt, Justice.
As the law now stands, a party may be compelled to testify as a witness, “ in the same manner and sub*262ject to the same rules of examination as any other witness.” (Code, § 390).
Does this language necessarily import an obligation not merely to answer orally, but to bring with him and exhibit his books and papers'?
A liberal construction, such a construction as is generally., applicable to the provisions of the Code, might, and under ordinary circumstances probably would, justify such a conclusion, if necessary to prevent a failure of justice.
Here, however, no such failure…
2Cited by4 opinions
- McVeany v. Mayor, Aldermen & CommonaltyNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Wertheim v. Continental Ry. & Trust Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1883
- Smith v. DoddNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1854
- Smith v. ReidSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1932