The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1884-09-17

-
General Harrison-In the present aspect of
this case 1 think have said all can say on
that subject We shall answer those interO-
gatories and answer them very soon. In the
aspect of the case which your Honor has
suggested, think have gone as far as eau
go, bat we propose to answer those Interroga-
tories. and we propose to answer them very
soon, but l do not name the day; but | will
say to your Honor il will be very soon.
Judge Woods-Then viii say to counsel
that it is my impression beforehand that this
is the course l shall take, viz: leave the
question open and not decide it; leave your
interrogatories on file as they stand; but If
you desire to press the matter and argue it
as q law question / will not refuse to hear
you, but / shall be very much disincGned te
depart from what l understand to have been
the established practice in this court, until
/ can consult with the incoming Circuit
Judge.
Mr.. Jones, OF counsel for plaintiff, read
Section $50, Revised Statutes, 1881, as fol-
lows. "lnterrogatories to parties; Either
party may PROFOUND interrogatories to be
filed with the pleadings, relevant to the
matter in controversy, and require the op-
poeite party to answer the same under oath.
And corporations, through their proper Off
GERS, agent or agents. shall be required to
answer interrogatories as natural persons.
All interrOgatories must; De answered in the
cN6-
sion, and the Court may enforce the
answer by attachment or otherwise; and the
party may, in addition thereto, set forth in
his answer all relevant matter in avoidance.
The answer TO the heterogeneous may be
used on the trial or not, at the option of the
party requiring it," as governing the prac-
tice N this State. He then read Section 914
of the United States Statutes Of 1878, which
reads as follows:
'SThe practice, pleadngs and forms and
modes OF proceeding in civil causes, other
than equity and admiralty cases, in the Cir
cult and District Courts, shall conform as
near as may be to the practice, pleadings,
and forms and mooes of proceeding existing
at the time in like causes in the Courts of
Record of the State within which such Cir
cuit or District Courts are held, any rule to
the contrary notwithstanding" Claiming
that section GA, last read, was imperative in
its commands upon the cause of practice in
the Circuit and District Courts of the United
States. And that section $50 of the Revised
Statutes of 1881 was in force in this State,
and should govern in cases in the United
States Court.
Senator Harrison, following Mr.. Jones,
submitted several authorities, but dwelt
most on 8 citation from one of Judge Batch
foId's decisions, reading: There is nothing
in the Constitution or statutes of the United
States which sanctions any other mode of
bA4dA Al q NOAu14On INV dCbiOnf tndlA q biAnA
by jury in the presence of the Court, unless
such trial is waived"
Judge Turpe-I do not know, If your
Honor please, and do not care whether the
plaintiff ever intends to appear here as a
witness. He has right to offer himself,
but ne has not right to compel US to bring
him here. We are not compelled to make
him 9 witness, and it was to supercede the
necessity of our making him witness that
we proposed these interrogatories l do not
know exactly what the learned counsel
meant by saving IN substance that the filing
OF these interTogatories was not taken in
earnest on the other side. Certainly the
most earnest language is put in them. Those
interrogatories were filed nine DAYS ago. and
the Court was to fix time in which he was
TO answer them nine days ago. There has
been time to answer them, and they are not
answered yet They were asked with all earn
estness and all seriousness, and Eot with
any Knowledge on our part that the request
was contrary to the practice of the Court.
While am on that subject l may say that
do not think q record can be found in the
Court since the.adOption of the statue OF
1852, in which it has been held that nter-
Togatories filed here are not to be answered.
| know that interr0gatories filed here have
been answered. That has occurred once or
twice in my practice where the parties have
not objected and had come in and answered
have answered them even before this argu-
ment is heard if he had seen fit to give US
the information contained in them, and If he
had seen Fit to give the Court the very
ordinary information which the family
Bible of every gentleman who has contracted
matrimonial alliances contains. 1t is
very true, as alluded to, that Judge
Gresham refused to make a rule where
ne parties objected, but that was
Sven years ago. and prior to the revision of
1SsS. ILat was very much prior to the
'u'pn OF JUDGE Lowell referred to by my
colleague. As far as l know there has been
no scquiescence in that decision. There was
no scquiescencs in it that is certain, because
Undergraduates had been filed by me since
then and answered. ] think on three or
four weeks ago with n complaint attached 10
whiC were in terrOgator1eS. There has never
been an acquiescence, there has never been
q general understanding, there has been no
understanding of the rule because there has
been no rule. There has been nothing decided,
and the question is entirely open to-day as
to what the practice of this Court shall be.
The practice heretofore has not been estab-
lished, 1t has gone both ways. 1t has never
been ruled against an objection, DeVerthe-
less the validity of the objection has never
been Rcquiesced in. Judge Lowell SAYS
it would be foolish TO file a bill of
discovery when there is al obvious aud easy
AlEAINA AIhNG ~ at VI NOASACoo Va 1910 III
the room of that without disabling il. We
therefore think there ought to be a ruling
and rule well known and established. We
are not asking for an oral examination; we
are not asking for anything covered with the
cases cited by the learned counsel on the
other side We are asking simply of COM
piiance with the provision of the statute
according to the rale given to the Court in
such cases. The statute of the State regula-
ting and including the mode of production,
inspection and competency and credibility
Of witness was adopted by this Court in
rule nine. There is an absolute, uac0n-
trolled, entire adoption. 1 wish to call your
HonOr's attention to the term production. -
What is the term production" The man
ufacture, the creation, the formation
of testimony. Pro and duco. to lead
or draw out-the extraction of testimony.
Pressing the conscience of the party, that
we may discover what is peculiarly in his
knoEledge-when and where he was mar
ried, and the birth of the first child. The
mode of producing that testimony is the
same here as it is in the Marion or any other
Circuit Court of the State. Yet do not
think more forcible word could have been
used This rule is elastic. 1t covers the
mode of the production of testimony in the
State Court, no matter what that mode may
be at the time, and may be one thing this
year and another thing the next. But
think there has been no substantial change
since 1852. However that may be we haye a