Penniman v. Jones

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Penniman v. Jones

59 N.H. 119

DecidedJune 5, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 59 N.H. 119 (Penniman v. Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Penniman v. Jones, 59 N.H. 119 (N.H. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Bingham, J.

No party can be compelled, in testifying, to disclose the names of the witnesses by whom, or the manner in which, he proposes to prove his own case. G. L., c. 228, s. 14. This provision, when first enacted, applied only to the taking of depositions. Laws of 1858, c. 2090, s. 1.” It was then construed not to excuse a party from testifying to what he knows about the matters in issue. Eaton v. Farmer, 46 N. H. 200. The questions which Jones declined to answer called for material facts, apparently within his personal knowledge, and capable of being proved by his own testimony, without an infringement of his asserted privilege, and he should have answered. On this conclusion it is not necessary to consider whether the statute limits the examination of parties in chancery.

Case discharged.

Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

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

Bingham, J.

No party can be compelled, in testifying, to disclose the names of the witnesses by whom, or the manner in which, he proposes to prove his own case. G. L., c. 228, s. 14. This provision, when first enacted, applied only to the taking of depositions. Laws of 1858, c. 2090, s. 1.” It was then construed not to excuse a party from testifying to what he knows about the matters in issue. Eaton v. Farmer, 46 N. H. 200. The questions which Jones declined to answer called for material facts, apparently within his personal knowledge, and capable of being proved by his own testimony, without an infringement of his asserted privilege, and he should have answered. On this conclusion it is not necessary to consider whether the statute limits the examination of parties in chancery.

Case discharged.

Stanley, J., did not sit: the others concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 N.H. 119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penniman-v-jones-nh-1879.