Bros v. Brock

• Decision Date: 01 July 1912
• Citation: 75 S.E. 176,91 S.C. 549
• Parties: LITTLE BROS. v. BROCK.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

75 S.E. 176

(91 S.C. 549)

LITTLE BROS.

v.BROCK.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

July 1, 1912.

1. Depositions (§ 83^*)—Motion to Suppress —Denial.

Where the exceptions assigning error to the denial of defendant's motion to suppress depositions on the ground that at the time they were taken he was engaged in a trial did not show that defendant's attorney, but for such engagement, would have appeared at the making of the depositions, nor that other counsel could not have been engaged to represent him in the taking thereof, nor that defendant was prejudiced thereby, the denial was not error.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Depositions, Cent. Dig. §§ 219-226; Dec. Dig. § 83.*]

2. Depositions (§ 83*)—Suppression—Discretion of Court.

The matter of the suppression of depositions is largely within the discretion of the trial court.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Depositions, Cent. Dig. §§ 219-226; Dec. Dig. § 83.*]

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Anderson County; R. W. Memminger, Judge.

Action by Little Bros, against T. H. Brock. Defendant's motion to suppress depositions overruled, and he appeals. Affirmed.

A. H. Dagnall, for appellant.

Bonham, Watkins & Allen, for respondent.

GARY, C. J. [1] This is an appeal from an order refusing to suppress certain depositions. The action was commenced on the 18th of December, 1911. On the 24th of January, 1912, notice was served upon defendant's attorney that the testimony of certain witnesses would be taken de bene esse at Knoxville, Tenn., on the 5th of February, 1912. The following statement appears in the record: "Court of common pleas for An derson county convened February 5, 1912, and attorney for defendant had other cases set for trial on this day. When the case was called for trial, attorney for defendant moved the court to suppress the depositions of N. T. Little and J. W. K. Brown, pursuant to the notice served on plaintiff's attorneys January 25, 1912. The defendant urged in the support of the motion to suppress the depositions that reasonable notice had not been given of the taking of the depositions, as the depositions had been taken while the court of common pleas was in session, which court had jurisdiction of the action, that it was impossible for defendant attorney to be present and cross-examine the witnesses, as he was engaged in the trial of other cases in court of common pleas at the time the depositions were being taken. The court overruled the motion to suppress the depositions, and allowed same to be used in evidence. Defendant's attorney...