Case ID: la_2/html/0537-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Martin, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

BOURGEOIS vs. BOURG.
    
    APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE SECOND DISTRICT, THE JUDGE OF THE THIRD PERSIDING.
    The defendant’s answer to interrogatories will not avail against the testimony of two credible witnesses.
    A former suit by the plaintiff against the defendant, for the same object for which this is brought, had been discontinued. In this suit, the defendant sought to avail himself of his answers to interrogatories which had been propounded to him in the first. The judge a quo decided that the answers could not be read in evidence, and the defendant took a bill of exceptions. There was judgment for the plaintiff in the court below, and the defendant appealed. By consent of counsel the answers Of the defendant were admitted in evidence on the trial of the appeal.
    The defendants answer to interrogatories will not avail against the tes' timony of two credible witnesses.
    Eastern District,
    July 1831.
    Nichols, for appellalit. Wheeler, for appellee.
   Martin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is before us on a bill of exceptions taken by the defendant and appellant, to the opinion of the district court, who refused to permit him to give in evidence his answers to interrogatories put to him by the plaintiff, in a former suit between them.

By consent of the parties the case is submitted to us, and the defendent, is allowedT'the benefit of his answers in evidence,although they do not come up with the record, and having been used below-but the counsel on both sides have agreed that we should consider them as absolutely denying the allegations in the petition.

We have done so, and it appears to us the facts are proved by two witnesses, whereby the evidence resulting from the answers to the interrogatori~s is done away.

It jg therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be affirmed with costs.