The Gypsum King

Second Circuit

The Gypsum King

172 F. 1022, 96 C.C.A. 665, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5049

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedAugust 27, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 172 F. 1022 (The Gypsum King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Gypsum King, 172 F. 1022, 96 C.C.A. 665, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5049 (2d Cir. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

WARD, Circuit Judge.

Under the former practice of this court the parties might take new proofs at will, though the depositions of witnesses who had deliberately not been examined, or who might have been called at the trial, might be suppressed on motion. Singlehurst v. La Compagnie Genérale Transatlantique, 50 Fed. 104, 1 C. C. A. 487; The Venezuela, 52 Fed. 873, 3 C. C. A. 319. The present rules 1 and 7 of this court in admiralty changed the practice, permitting new proofs to be taken only by leave of the court. The appellant seeks to examine two sea-faring witnesses in this court. Its secretary swears “that at the time of'the trial in the District Court I made strenuous efforts” to secure the presence of these witnesses, but they were then not in port and so could not be produced. That they were competent and material witnesses evidently was known, and also that their occupation put them in the class of going witnesses. What these efforts were is not stated. It is not shown that any reasonable steps were taken before the trial, by subpoena or otherwise. The motion is denied.

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

WARD, Circuit Judge.

Under the former practice of this court the parties might take new proofs at will, though the depositions of witnesses who had deliberately not been examined, or who might have been called at the trial, might be suppressed on motion. Singlehurst v. La Compagnie Genérale Transatlantique, 50 Fed. 104, 1 C. C. A. 487; The Venezuela, 52 Fed. 873, 3 C. C. A. 319. The present rules 1 and 7 of this court in admiralty changed the practice, permitting new proofs to be taken only by leave of the court. The appellant seeks to examine two sea-faring witnesses in this court. Its secretary swears “that at the time of'the trial in the District Court I made strenuous efforts” to secure the presence of these witnesses, but they were then not in port and so could not be produced. That they were competent and material witnesses evidently was known, and also that their occupation put them in the class of going witnesses. What these efforts were is not stated. It is not shown that any reasonable steps were taken before the trial, by subpoena or otherwise. The motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 F. 1022, 96 C.C.A. 665, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5049, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-gypsum-king-ca2-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack