Hemphill v. Miller
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lafayette Girev/it Court in Gha/ncery. Hon SiieltoN "WatsoN, Circuit Judge. Tlie depositions could not have been suppressed on account of the first ground stated in the motion to suppress.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lafayette Girev/it Court in Gha/ncery. Hon SiieltoN "WatsoN, Circuit Judge. Tlie depositions could not have been suppressed on account of the first ground stated in the motion to suppress. They w ere taken in 18:19. are marked filed 3d March, 1842, on which day the record show-they were opened and published, and the cause was that day h- ard upon them, the complainant having leave to presenl excepíio s to them in a written argument, which ho never did. i; vas too late, nine years and seven month* tiftnnwrdx, to raí- a question as to whether the witnesses wore properly sv- <>rn.…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Soott
This cause was heard on appeal in this court, during the January term, 1849, (4 Eng. R.) and was sent back to the court below for further proceedings. After its return to that court. Miller moved to suppress the depositions of Hemphill, which had been on lile and published for nearly ten years before, upon the ground: 1st. That the witnesses were not properly sworn, nor the depositions certified as required by law. 2d. That they were incompetent and irrelevant, and not applicable to the issues. This motion was granted and the depositions ruled out, to which Hemphill took a bill of exceptions.…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Martin v. South Bluefield Land Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1917
- Dennis v. BinzSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1959