In re The Petition of Samuel D. Cubberly for A Writ of Habeas Corpus
| Decision Date | 04 May 1888 |
| Citation | 18 P. 173,39 Kan. 291 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Petition of SAMUEL D. CUBBERLY for a Writ of Habeas Corpus |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1888
Original Proceedings in Habeas Corpus.
PETITION for a writ of habeas corpus, filed in this court on March 10 1888, by Samuel D. Cubberly, who alleged that he was unlawfully restrained of his liberty by Alexander Love, the sheriff of Douglas county, under a commitment issued by one Joseph E. Riggs, a notary public of said county. The opinion herein was filed on May 4, 1888.
Peter Bell, George J. Barker, and John Hutchings, for petitioner.
Riggs & Nevison, for respondent.
In that case there was an express admission by the railway company that it was not acting in good faith in taking the deposition of C. Wood Davis, and did not intend to offer in evidence his deposition, but was acting oppressively, and for the purpose of fishing out evidence. In this case no such admission is made, but it appears that the petitioner is a bona fide resident of the county where the cause is pending for trial; and it is not shown that he is sick, infirm, or otherwise in a condition likely to prevent him from attending the trial. The petitioner declares on oath that he intends and expects to attend the trial. If he so attends, his deposition cannot be used. Counsel proposing to take his deposition insist that they are acting in good faith, and desire to take his deposition to be used upon the trial, if he be absent at the time. There is no showing that the petitioner is going away, or that there is any probability of his being absent at the trial. Counsel qualify the statement about the use of the deposition by adding: "If the petitioner tells the truth." They also say that they need his deposition so as to be informed as to what other depositions it is necessary to take. Taking all the evidence together, it does not seem to us that the deposition of the petitioner is to be taken to be read in evidence upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Westerheide v. Shilling, Case Number: 30573
...right to take his deposition by requiring him to give his deposition twice more at widely separated places. In the case of In re Cubberly (1888) 39 Kan. 291, 18 P. 173, the Davis Case was followed, and the Abeles Case was not mentioned. In the case of In re Merkle (1888) 40 Kan. 27, 19 P. 4......
-
Ex parte Button
...7 Okl. 78, 54 Pac. 319. In the cases In re Davis, 38 Kan. 408, 16 Pac. 790,In re Merkle, 40 Kan. 27, 19 Pac. 401, and In re Cubberly, 39 Kan. 291, 18 Pac. 173, decided while the rule of the Abeles Case was the law of that state, it is held that an officer has no power to commit a witness fo......
-
In re Hammond
... ... writ of habeas corpus. Writ ... ... The petition alleged ... that the plaintiffs were husband and ... 408, 16 P. 790, and in In re ... Cubberly, 39 Kan. 291, 18 P. 173, decided while the rule ... ...
-
Miller v. Huffman
...corpus.' (Syl.) Thus the court started a departure from the liberal rule announced in the Abeles case. The case of In re Cubberly, Petitioner, 39 Kan. 291, 18 P. 173, further restricted the rule. There we 'The taking of the deposition of a party in a pending case, merely to ascertain in adv......