The Cheyenne daily leader. [volume] (Cheyenne, Wyo.) 1870-1884, 1883-12-30
DISTRICT COURT.
Corey Va. the County "A Discussion
About the Law Of Depo-
sltlons.

Court convened yesterday morning
at the usual hour, Chief Justice J. B.
Sener presiding.
The journal record of the day before
was read by the clerk and approved by
court.
G. W. Corey va. the board of county
commissioners Of Laramie county.
This case WAS brought up on appeal
from the board of commissioners of
Laramie county, on account of their re-
fusal to allow a bill presented to the
board by the doctor. j. A. Riner ap-
peared for the plaintiff and j. @. Baird
for the county. 1t being an appeal
case from the action of the board, no
formal ~pleadings were necessary, but
the matter rested SO far as that matter
Is concerned. The case proceeded to
trial, but the defense interposed various
objections to the introduction Of the
papers which had come up from the
commissioners, on the ground, mainly,
that it was not distinctly stated in the
original bill az presented to the board,
that the account was against Laramie
county, Wyoming. The court reserved
its ruling on these objections and pro-
ceeded to hear the testimony. Finally,
however, Mr.. Baird moved to dismiss
the case, on the R.Hund that the bond
given by the plaintiff on his appeal,
was defective. The evidence was yir-
tually all in when this motion was
made, but it yet remains to be argfhd
and will be heard and determined here
after.
Another case similar to the fore
going, with the same parties and the
same attorneys, was taken up for trial
also, and the same questions as in the
preceding arose and the same disposi-
tion was made Of this case also.
E. q. Blair and Jacob Strous VS.. j.
NJ. Treavett, in this case, which is an
action on the part of the plaintiff to
recover the price of a span of horses or
mules bought by the plaintiffs OF a
party who obtained them of Treavett,
and which afterwards turned out, 1t is
claimed, to be the property of another
party, a motion to suppress a deposit
ton taken by one George L. Webster
as commissioner In Dakota Territory,
was taken up for argument and DISPOSE
ton.
Messrs. Donzelman and Potter APP
peared for the plaintiffs and Corlett and
Campbell for the defendant.
There were various grounds stated in
the motion to suppress, some of which
were not very persistently urged, and
others were quite deliberately argued,
One OF the defects of the deposition
was that the caption did not recite
that the deposition was taken In pur-
suance OF the authority conferred by
the commissioner, and one that while
the commissioner was directed therein
to take the deposition OF James L.
Nicholas the certificate attached stated
that the deposition of ]. L. Nicholas
had been taken. Still another was,
and this seemed to be the most import
ant one, that the inter rogations had
not been settled by the court before
or at the time the commission was is
sued.
The arguments were mostly of an
Informal character and the court par
ticipated to some extent, or rather sug-
gested several matters connected with
the subject.
Finally the discussion narrowed
down to the simple question as to
whether the interrogatories and cross
interrogatories should first be settled
by the court before the commission
goes out.
This is an important question Of jus
tice, important to the bar and for
those whom they from time to time
represent, and 1t should be settled, as
all the attorneys conceded. No final
conclusion was reached, and the mat
ter will be taken up again tomorrow.
Court adjourned until tomorrow
morning at 10 O'Clock.