Case ID: ny-st-rep_51/html/0228-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Putnam, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Fred C. Laidley, Assignee, Resp’t, v. James Rogers et al., App’lts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
    
    
      Filed February 15, 1893.)
    
    Depositions — Interrogatories—Oral cross-examination.
    Where it appears that the witnesses to be examined on commission are important ones, and that it will be difficult, if not impossible, L r the opposite party to so anticipate their testimony as to properly frame written cross interrogatories, a proper case is made out for allowing an oral cross-examination, with a right in the moving party to orally re-examine.
    Appeal from order allowing two commissions to examine witnesses and denying defendants’ motion to insert provision for an oral, cross-examination.
    
      Kellas & Munsill (John P. Kellas, of counsel), for app’lts; Thomas Cantwell and William P. Cantwell, for resp’t.
   Putnam, J.

This is an appeal by defendants from an order, made on motion of plaintiff, that two commissions issue to examine two witnesses on interrogatories to be annexed to said commissions, and denying defendants’ request to have a provision inserted in said order that they be allowed an oral cross-examination of said witnesses.

It is evident from an examination of the affidavits and papers in the case that the witnesses so proposed to be examined by commission are very important ones. They are doubtless plaintiff’s principal witnesses to establish his cause of action. It is apparent from the nature of the case that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the defendants to so anticipate what these witnesses would testify to as to properly frame written cross-interrogatories.

I think defendants, if they desire, should have the right to orally cross-examine these witnesses. The court, under §| 898, 894, of the Civil Code, have the power to direct an oral commission, and have often exercised the power in similar cases. Smith v. Talmadge, 3 Monthly Law. Bul., 97; Parker v. Lithgoe, 36 St. Rep., 981; Wainright v. Low, 49 Hun, 283; 17 St. Rep., 693.

On appeal from the order it is our duty to consider and pass' upon the case on its merits. Jemison v. Citizens Savings Bank of Jefferson, Tex., 85 N. Y., 546.

The order should be modified as follows: It should provide that the commission issue in the ordinary form with leave to the defendants to cross-examine the witnesses orally; they, however, to pay the expenses of the commission attendant on said cross-examination; plaintiff to have the right to subject the witnesses to an oral re-examination if desired ; he to bear the expenses thereof. The plaintiff may also, if he so elects, have an oral direct examination of said witnesses instead of an examination upon interrogatories.

I think the order should be modified as above, without costs to either party.

Mayham, P. J., and Herrick, J., concur.