Case ID: binn_2/html/0072-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ye ates J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bachman’s Case.
    1809. Sunbury, Thursday, July 13.
    A deposition taken ex parte under a rule ot court, after the hour named in the rule, cannot be read in evide~ce\,
    ,. . Semble that it may, if the oppos.ite party had notice, and did not attend aíthe hour named.
    N the hearing of this cause, which was an appeal by \_J' Bachman from the settlement of his accounts as an. . • executor, m the Orphan’s Court of Dauphin, Fisher offered jn evidence the deposition of a witness taken ex parte under r , , , ,. r , , a rule oi court. I he rule authorized the taking of the deposition at a certain place on a day named, between the hours r . / , oi ten and twelve; it was taken on the day and at the place pointed out, but at four o’clock i>. m. It was objected r 1 , . ,, _J io on account ox this irregularity; and the court refused to hear it.
   Ye ates J.

mentioned a case of the Lessee of Davis v. Means, where the deposition was taken after the appointed time; but it was proved that the opposite party who had notice did not attend at the time, and the deposition was admitted in evidence.