¶1overruled the objections, saying that it is not reasonable that the party should have all the benefits of being present *248in court, and not liable to its disadvantages. The benefit of the act might be entirely avoided by the party concealing himself, or the opposite party may not know his residence. But the Court not being satisfied that the witness had departed and Was out of the District of Columbia at the time of the trial, rejected the deposition ; upon which, a juror was withdrawn by consent, and the cause continued.
1 D.C. 247
Bowie v. Talbot
District of Columbia District Court
Decided July 15, 1805
District of Columbia District Court · decided 1805-07-15
Case against a common ’ carrier, for negligence in carrying tobacco from Bladensburg in a scow. offered the deposition of William Barry, a seafaring man, taken under the Act of Assembly of Maryland, 1721, c. 14. objected that the notice was only to himself, as attorney, on the day before the taking, which was not reaspnable notice. Every departure from the general rules of evidence, must be taken strictly. The act requires notice to the adverse party.
Decided 1805-07-15