clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
Volume 194, Page 493   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

1 & 2 P. & M. CAP 13, BAIL AND DEPOSITIONS. 493
a disability from sickness so as to be unable to travel is now, in England,
put on the same footing as death, by Stat. 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 17. But
if the witness be permanently disabled, as if bed-ridden, R. v. Hogg, 6 C. &
P. 176; R. v. Wilshaw, 1 C. & M. 145; or insane, though temporarily only,
R. v. Marshall, 1 C. & M. 147, provided he be shown to be sane when his
examination was taken, R. v. the Inhabitants of Eriswell, 3 T. R. 720, 721,
(and see R. v. Cockburn, 26 L. J. M. C. 136,) his deposition is admissible.
But the mere absence of the witness, as at sea, R. v. Hagan, 8 C. & P. 167;
or his residence in a foreign country, R. v. Austin, 25 L. J. M. C. 48, or
inability to find him, R. v. Scaife, 17 Q. B. 238, is no ground for admitting it.
To make such depositions admissible in such cases, they must appear to
have been taken on oath and in the presence of the prisoner, that he may
have had an opportunity for cross-examination, Errington's case, 1 Lew.
C. C. 142. It has been held that a deposition taken in his absence, and
afterwards read over in his presence to the deceased, who was re-sworn in
his presence, and assented to by the latter, is admissible, even upon the
trial of an indictment against the prisoner for a different offence from
that with which he was then charged, R. v. Smith, 2 Stark. 208, and see
note of the reporter; S. C, Holt N. P. 614; but in R. v. Beeston, 24 L. J.
M. C. 5, Alderson B., who had been counsel for the prisoner, said that he
still thought he was right in the objection to a deposition so taken, though
as to the other point depositions were admitted, not taken on the same
technical charge, but in the same case, the prisoner having had full oppor-
tunity of cross-examination. Depositions taken by a coroner are said to
be excepted from this rule so far as the presence of the prisoner is re-
quired, but Mr. Starkie, 2 Stark. Ev. 277, contends against it, and Mr.
Phillips, 2 Phill. Ev. 75, 8th ed., has altered his opinion expressed in the
previous edition to accord with that of Mr- Starkie. It should seem, too,
that depositions ought to be taken in the presence of the justice, as well
as of the prisoner, and an examination of the witnesses and writing down
their answers in his absence would be irregular, except of course under
2 & 3 P. & M. c. 13, which gives the justice two days in which to put the
examination in writing. Only the material parts of the witnesses' state-
ments are required to be put down in writing, R. v. Coveney, 7 C. & P. 667;
but if the prisoner makes any statement, during the examination of a wit-
ness in support of the charge, it ought to be taken down, R. v. Weller, 2
C. & K. 223.
The law presumes that the evidence of the witnesses wes reduced to
writing until it is shown that it was not, and parol evidence will not be
admitted to add to or vary the deposition, see R. v. Edmunds, 6 C. & P. 164;
Phillips v. Wimburn, 4 C. & P. 273; R. v. Peershire, 1 Leach, 202; R. v.
Jacobi, ibid. 309, and R. v. Weller, supra, nor can blanks left in them be
supplied, R- v. Morse, 8 C. & P. 605. A separate caption* or head- 373
ing to each deposition is not required, R. v. Johnson, 2 C. & K. 354, and
it was held not to hurt, where in the caption the word, "unlawfully," was
omitted in describing a charge of obtaining money, &c. by false pretences,
R. v. Langbridge, ibid. 975. So several depositions with one jurat may be
read, R. v. Osborne, 8 C. & P. 113.
The usual practice is for the witness to sign the depositions, but it is
not necessary under the Statute. See the case of Flemming and Windham,
2 Leach, 996.

 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
Volume 194, Page 493   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.

©Copyright  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives