Case ID: f-cas_3/html/1070-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "THE- COURT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 1,732.
    BOWIE v. TALBOT.
    [1 Cranch, C. C. 247.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    July Term, 1805.
    Deposition — Notice op Taking.
    1. In taking the deposition of a seafaring marf under the statute of Maryland (1721, c. 14, §- S). it is not necessary that notice' should be given to the adverse party in person. One day’s notice to the attorney-at-law is sufficient.
    2. The deposition cannot-be read-at the-trial, unless the court shall be satisfied that the wit-, ness has departed from-the district.
    At law. Case against a common carrier,; for negligence in "carrying tobacco from1 Bladensburg in a scow. •
    Mr. Caldwell, for the plaintiff [Washington Bowie],
    .offered the deposition of William Barry, a seafaring man, taken under the act • of assembly of Maryland, 1721, c. 14.
    Mr. Key, for the defendant [Lewis Talbot],
    .objected that the notice was.only to himself, as attorney, on the day before the taking, which was not reasonable notice. Every departure from the general rules of evidence, must be taken strictly. The act requires notice to the adverse party. In the act of 1779, c. 8, the word “attorney” is inserted; so in the act .of congress (1 Stat. 88; Judiciary Act 1789, § 30).
   THE- COURT

overruled the objections, saying that it is not reasonable that the. party should have all the benefits of being . present in court, and not- liable to its disadvantages. The benefit of the net might be entirely avoided by the party concealing himself, or the opposite party may not know . his residence. 'But THE COURT, not being satisfied that the witness had departed and was out .of the District of Columbia at the time of the trial, rejected the deposition; upon which, a juror was withdrawn by consent, and the cause continued.