¶1(ThRuston, J. contra,) refused to issue the commission, because it has jurisdiction to compel the attendance of a witness, if within one hundred miles; and, therefore, he does not reside out of this province, within the meaning of the act of Maryland, whose object was to obtain the testimony of a witness whose personal attendance could not be obtained. It may be difficult to compel the marshal of the district in which the witness may reside to do his duty; but this will not authorize the Court to dispense with the personal attendance of the witness, and admit his deposition to be taken in chief, and to be used absolutely upon the trial.
4 D.C. 191
Gustine v. Ringgold
Decided December 15, 1831
Mr. Marbury moved for a commission to take the deposition of a witness residing within one hundred miles of this place, but out of this district, and relies upon the Maryland law of 1773, c. 7, § 7, which authorizes the court to issue such a commission when there are material and competent witnesses “residing or living out of this province,” and contended that a witness, residing out of this district, was residing out of this province, within the meaning and spirit of the…
Decided 1831-12-15