Case Name: VAN NESS v. HEINEKE
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1821-10
Citations: 28 F. Cas. 1044
Docket Number: 
Parties: VAN NESS v. HEINEKE.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 28
Pages: 1044–1044

Head Matter:
Casé No. 16,866.
VAN NESS v. HEINEKE.
[2 Cranch, C. C. 259.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
Oct. Term, 1821.
Depositions — Caption — Certificate op Magistrate.
It is no objection to a deposition that, in the caption, it is not stated in what county the cause is depending; nor that the name of one of the parties is misspelled, nor that the magistrate has not certified that he reduced the testimony to writing in the presence of the witness, nor that the witness signed it in the presence of the magistrate.
[Cited in Re Thomas. 35 Fed. 823.]
Mr. Lear, for plaintiff,
offered a deposition' in evidence.
Mr. Marbury, for defendant,
objected to the reading of it: (1) Because the cause is stated, in the caption of the deposition, as depending in the circuit court of tne District of Columbia, without stating in which county. (2) Because the name of the defendant is misspelled. In the deposition ;t is spelled Henick, but in the writ it is spelled Hinneckee. In the declaration it is «pelled Henick, as in the deposition. (3) Because the deposition, although written by the magistrate, is not certified to have been written in the presence of the witness; nor to have been signed by the witness in the presence of the magistrate.

Opinion:
THE COURT
overruled the objection.
THRUSTON, Circuit Judge,
thought the first objection was fata:.