Case Name: Patrick H. Rodn vs. Cyrus Hapgood & another
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1857-03
Citations: 8 Gray 394
Docket Number: 
Parties: Patrick H. Rodn vs. Cyrus Hapgood & another.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 74
Pages: 394–395

Head Matter:
Patrick H. Rodn vs. Cyrus Hapgood & another.
The certificate of the clerk of a court of record, that a deposition has been opened and filed by him, is sufficient evidence that it has been duly returned, filed and opened.
Action of tort for the conversion of a horse to which the plaintiff claimed title under a sale from Patrick F. Clancey Trial in the superior court of Suffolk at January term 1856 before Nelson, C. J., who signed this bill of exceptions:
“ At the trial, the plaintiff produced from the files of the court, and offered in evidence a deposition of Clancey ; and the defendants objected to said deposition, because it nowhere appeared that the said deposition had been inclosed, sealed up and directed by the justice to the court before whom the cause was pending, and remained sealed up until opened in court by the court. The court, finding the indorsement of the clerk that said deposition had been opened and filed by the clerk, and no other objection save the above named being made, and the defendant furnishing no evidence upon the subject matter, overruled the objection and allowed the deposition to be read. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendants except.”
P. Willard, for the defendants.
The deposition of Clancey was improperly admitted, because it nowhere appeared that all the statute provisions had been complied with; and the burden of proof is upon the party offering a deposition to show a strict compliance with the statutes. Rev. Sts. c. 94, § 24. Beale v. Thompson, 8 Cranch, 70. 1 Greenl. Ev. §§ 322, 323 & notes.
B. Dean, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The certificate of the clerk that the deposition had been opened and filed by him is prima facie evidence that it was duly sealed up and directed in conformity with the requisitions of the statute. If there had been any irregularity in this particular, the presumption is that the clerk would have noticed it, and have preserved the envelop or return of the magistrate, so that either party might bring the question before the court. Exceptions overruled.