Phenix v. Baldwin

14 Wend. 62
New York Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1835·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

UTICA,

July, 1835.

A defendant who has procured the testimony of a witness residing abroad to he taken under a commission, is not bound on the trial of the cause, upon the requisition of the plaintiff, to call the witness who is then in court, and examine him viva voce, but may read his deposition as taken under the commission; the plaintiff however may have the witness sworn and exam» ined, although he omitted to join in the commission.

And where in such case the defendant alleged that the testimony of the witness on the trial was materially variant from his deposition, and asked for a new trial on the ground of surprise, and that he could not fully establish his defence by other witnesses&emdash;the motion was denied, the court being of opinion that there was no variance in the testimony, and the defendant omitting to produce the affidavits of the persons by whom he alleged his defence could be established.

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

Phenix v. Baldwin, 14 Wend. 62 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1835).

14 Wend. 62 (Phenix v. Baldwin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Suken v. Metcalfe
123 Misc. 131 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1924)
Overton v. State
20 S.W. 590 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1892)
Gray v. Durland
50 Barb. 211 (New York Supreme Court, 1867)
Thayer v. Gallup
13 Wis. 539 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1861)
Hayward v. Barron
38 N.H. 366 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1859)
Bradley v. Geiselman
17 Ill. 571 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1856)
Frink v. Potter
17 Ill. 406 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1856)
Levy v. Brown
6 Ark. 16 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1850)
Hammock v. Wm. J.
6 Ga. 178 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1849)