Knode v. Williamson
| Decision Date | 01 October 1873 |
| Citation | 84 U.S. 586,17 Wall. 586,21 L.Ed. 670 |
| Parties | KNODE v. WILLIAMSON |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
ERROR to the District Court for the District of West Virginia.
Knode sued Williamson in the court below in trespass.
In the course of the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence the deposition of J. A. Chapline, which the court excluded.
He also offered in evidence the depositions of certain persons, Biddle, Jamieson, and others, which the court equally excluded.
The defendant, on the other hand, offered in evidence the deposition of a certain Ellis, which the court admitted.
Verdict and judgment having gone for the defendant, the plaintiff brought the case here on exceptions to the exclusion of the two first-mentioned depositions, and the admission of the last-mentioned one.
Mr. C. W. B. Allison, for the plaintiff in error; Mr. W. W. Boyce, with whom was Mr. C. J. Faulkner, contra.
Mr. Justice STRONG stated the particular circumstances under which the respective depositions that were the subject of the court's action complained of were taken, and delivered the opinion of the court on each case.
We think the District Court erred in excluding the deposition of Chapline. It had been taken in the cause, in pursuance of notice that, together with the depositions of other witnesses, it would be taken on the 11th day of September, 1869. The notice also informed the defendant that taking of the depositions would be adjourned from day to day until they were completed. So long as such adjournments were in fact made, he was, therefore, informed of the times when he might attend for cross-examination. On the day first designated he did attend, with his counsel, and some depositions were taken. But all the witnesses not having been examined, the taking was adjourned until the next day, when it was again adjourned until the next succeeding day; and so on, from day to day, until September 18th, when the deposition of Mr. Chapline was taken in the absence of both the defendant and his counsel. All the adjournments, however, were from day to day, and consequently it was the duty of the defendant to take notice that depositions might be taken on any day to which an adjournment was made.
We think, also, the court erred in rejecting the depositions of Biddle, Jamieson, and others, mentioned in the bill of exceptions. They were offered to impeach the character or reputation of Thomas Noakes, a witness examined on behalf of the defendant. They had been taken regularly, and the only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Nathan
..."bad character" when it should have been "bad reputation." We think this point is of little or no consequence. Knode v. Williamson, 17 Wall. 586, 84 U.S. 586, 588, 21 L.Ed. 670. The court, after explaining to the jury the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence and that either......
-
Grant Bros. Const. Co. v. United States
... ... 88, 25 P. 187, 10 L.R.A. 515; ... Harris v. Wall, 7 How. (U.S.) 693, 21 L.Ed. 875; ... Garner v. Cutler, 28 Tex. 175; Knode v ... Williamson, 17 Wall. (U.S.) 587, 21 L.Ed. 670. Evidence ... taken by virtue of a commission cannot be received by the ... court, unless ... ...
-
Hyney v. United States
...Ed.) vol. 3, § 1615; Wharton's Crim. Ev. (10th Ed.) vol. 1, § 58; Waddingham v. Hulett, 92 Mo. 533, 5 S. W. 27; Knode v. Williamson, 17 Wall. (84 U. S.) 586, 588, 21 L. Ed. 670. Further, if we should venture to extend the rule to evidence of general reputation at points distant from Chicago......
-
LIBERTY COVE, INC. v. Missoula County
...that actual attendance and participation may constitute a waiver of alleged deficiencies of notice. See e.g. Knode v. Williamson, 84 U.S. 586, 589, 21 L.Ed. 670 (1873). Furthermore, the Montana Constitution's fundamental right of citizen participation guaranteed by Art. II, § 8, has been in......