Richardson v. Golden
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania
objected to certain depositions taken under a commission returned from North-Oarolina — 1. Because there is no answer given to, or notice taken of, the general interrogatory, viz. “Do you know any thing further, material?” &c. 2. Because an ex parte certificate of facts, having been given by some of the witnesses, they were asked if the certificate contained the truth, instead of being interrogated as to the facts stated in it.
1Opinion of the Court
BY THE COÜBT.
Both objections are good. The first has been often decided here. The second is supported on this ground, that the mode pursued in this case, is calculated to produce perjury. It is worse than asking *710leading questions, or telling the witness what to say; because, he is here reminded of the necessity of swearing to what he has before stated, or of suffering in his credit. The answers to these questions cannot be read.
The parties, by consent, withdrew a juror.
2Cited by2 opinions
- Randel v. President of Chesapeake & Delaware CanalSuperior Court of Delaware · 1833
- Williams v. Vreeland's ExecutorsNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1879