State ex rel. Alford v. Thorson

The defendant groups his objections to receipt of the testimony under four heads: (1) It was taken under abuse of process and its receipt is contrary to public policy. (2) Receiving it would violate defendant’s constitu*34tional rights by taking his property without due process of law. (3) It was received on the erroneous theory that it constitutes admissions of the parties to the action. (4) It is secondary evidence and due diligence was not used to procure the best evidence.(1) While the facts are stated on which the defendant claims the testimony of the witnesses was procured in the first…