Street v. The Progresso

E.D. Pennsylvania

Street v. The Progresso

48 F. 239, 1891 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 21, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 48 F. 239 (Street v. The Progresso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Street v. The Progresso, 48 F. 239, 1891 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161 (E.D. Pa. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Butler, J.

The exceptions must be dismissed. As respects the mileage of witnesses brought from beyond the district, the clerk’s ruling corresponds with our practice. Depositions might have been taken abroad and the costs avoided. Inasmuch as the testimony could only be heard by deposition, there was no advantage in bringing the witness here. The rule on this subject is not harmonious throughout the country, but any discussion of the subject in support of our practice, in view of what has been said heretofore respecting it, would be a waste of time. In The Vernon, 36 Fed. Rep. 115; Wooster v. Hill, 44 Fed. Rep. 819; Haines v. McLaughlin, 29 Fed. Rep. 70; Buffalo Ins. Co. v. Providence & Stonington Steam-Ship Co., Id. 237, — the subject was fully discussed.

As relates to the $4.50 claimed by the libelant for his attendance as a witness, the clerk’s ruling is sustained. Ordinarily, where a party is present at the taking of testimony, his presence is, presumably, necessary on his own behalf, whether his personal testimony is required or not. The instances must be rare where he can safely absent himself, and where he does not avail himself of the opportunity thus afforded of forwarding his interest in the cause generally. Parties have not been allowed witness fees in this district, and I think should not be, except in case their presence is required by the other side.

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

Butler, J.

The exceptions must be dismissed. As respects the mileage of witnesses brought from beyond the district, the clerk’s ruling corresponds with our practice. Depositions might have been taken abroad and the costs avoided. Inasmuch as the testimony could only be heard by deposition, there was no advantage in bringing the witness here. The rule on this subject is not harmonious throughout the country, but any discussion of the subject in support of our practice, in view of what has been said heretofore respecting it, would be a waste of time. In The Vernon, 36 Fed. Rep. 115; Wooster v. Hill, 44 Fed. Rep. 819; Haines v. McLaughlin, 29 Fed. Rep. 70; Buffalo Ins. Co. v. Providence & Stonington Steam-Ship Co., Id. 237, — the subject was fully discussed.

As relates to the $4.50 claimed by the libelant for his attendance as a witness, the clerk’s ruling is sustained. Ordinarily, where a party is present at the taking of testimony, his presence is, presumably, necessary on his own behalf, whether his personal testimony is required or not. The instances must be rare where he can safely absent himself, and where he does not avail himself of the opportunity thus afforded of forwarding his interest in the cause generally. Parties have not been allowed witness fees in this district, and I think should not be, except in case their presence is required by the other side.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 F. 239, 1891 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/street-v-the-progresso-paed-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack