Case Name: BROADWELL v. McCLISH et al.
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1801-04
Citations: 4 F. Cas. 196
Docket Number: 
Parties: BROADWELL v. McCLISH et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 4
Pages: 196–197

Head Matter:
Case No. 1,911.
BROADWELL v. McCLISH et al.
[1 Cranch, C. C. 4.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
April Term, 1801.
Evidence — Best and Secondary — Absence or Subscribing Witness.
The fact that the plaintiff’s counsel had made diligent inquiry and could not hear where the subscribing witness lived, is not sufficient to dispense with his testimony, if it appears that he was in the country.
[See Clarke v. Courtney, 5 Pet. (30 U. S.) 319; Cooke v. Woodrow, Case No. 3,181; Sampson v. Johnson, Id. 12,281; Whann v. Hall, Id. 17,478; Rhodes v. Rigg, Id. 11,-749.]
At law. Assumpsit [by Simon Broad-well] against the defendants [McClish and Wolves], as indorsers of James Patterson’s note.
There was a subscribing witness to the note, and in order to induce the court to dispense with proof by the subscribing witness, E. J. Lee, counsel for the plaintiff, made affidavit that he had made diligent inquiry and could not hear where the subscribing witness lived. The defendant produced a witness who testified that he saw the subscribing witness in Baltimore last February, and that he was working at his trade there.
[Beported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.] .

Opinion:
THE COURT refused to dispense with his testimony, and the plaintiff became nonsuit