1 Johns. Ch. 368
Decided July 1, 1815
New York Court of Chancery · decided 1815-07-01
<p>A witness who has been examined before a commissioner, by consent of parties, on affidavit that his testimony was not truly taken down by the commissioner, who had mistaken it materially, was ordered to be re-examined before the examiner, there being no suggestion of any tampering with the witness.</p>
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 1875
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1815-07-01
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1Here is no suggestion of any tampering with the witness, and Í am bound to presume there is a mistake or misapprehension on one side or the other. The cases of Griells v. Gansell, and of Darling v. Staniford, (2 P. Wms. 646. Dickens, 358.,) show, that re-examinations have been allowed in such cases ; and, in the latter case, the court took the re-examination from the examiner into their own hands. Let the witness be re-examined before one of the examiners of the court.
¶2Rule accordingly.