Ex parte Roelker

20 F. Cas. 1092, 1 Sprague 276
CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedDecember 15, 1854
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 20 F. Cas. 1092 (Ex parte Roelker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ex parte Roelker, 20 F. Cas. 1092, 1 Sprague 276 (D. Mass. 1854).

Opinion

SPRAGUE, District Judge,

said, that a similar question had heretofore arisen as to experts, and he had declined to issue process to arrest, in such cases. When a person has knowledge of any fact pertinent to an issue to be tried, he may be compelled to attend, as a witness. In this, all stand upon equal ground. But to compel a person to attend, merely because he is accomplished in a particular science, art, or profession, would subject the same individual to be called upon, in every cause in which any question in his department of knowledge is to be solved. Thus, the most eminent physician might be compelled, merely for the ordinary witness fees, [1093]*1093to attend from the remotest part of the district, and give his opinion in ■ every trial in •which a medical question should arise. This is so unreasonable, that nothing but necessity can justify it. The case of an interpreter is analogous to that of an expert. It is not necessary to say what the court would do, if It appeared that no other interpreter could be obtained, by reasonable effort. . Such a case is not made, as the foundation of this motion. It is well known, that there are in Boston many native Germans, and others skilled in both the German and English languages, some of whom it may be presumed might, without difficulty, be induced to attend, for an adequate compensation. Motion denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Commonwealth v. Belete
640 N.E.2d 511 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1994)
Boynton v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
36 F. Supp. 593 (D. Massachusetts, 1941)
Burnett v. Freeman
103 S.W. 121 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1907)
Barrus v. Phaneuf
32 L.R.A. 619 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)
Clark
104 Mass. 537 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1870)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 F. Cas. 1092, 1 Sprague 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ex-parte-roelker-mad-1854.