Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/16

 i FEDERAL REPORTKB. �practice it was usual to examine witnesses abroad by written inter- rogatories and cross-interrogatories. �The provision of rule 68, for taking testimony in an equity case, after it is at issue, by deposition, according to the acts of congress, is still in force. Under sections 863 and 1750 of the Revised Stat- utes, depositions de bene esse in civil causes may be taken in a foreign country by any secretary of legation or consular officer. The mode of taking such depositions under sections 863, 864, and 865 is by oral questions put at the time, if desired, and not necessarily by written interrogatories given to the officer before commeneing the taking. It is the same mode provided for by the amendment to rule 67. As, after either party bas given notice to the other that he desires the evidence to be adduced in the cause to be taken orally, the testimony is not, except for special reasons, to be taken other- wise, so, by analogy, where testimony in a foreign country can be taken orally, it ought not, except for special reasons, to be taken otherwise. What would in any given case be sufficient special rea- sons must be left to be decided in each case. In the present case the defendants are, I think, entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff orally. There is no reason why his direct examination should not be taken on written interrogatories if desired. ���Lewis v. Hitchcock and another. �{District Court, S. D. New York. January 26, 1882.) �Civil Rights Act — Dbmurkbr — Iiw — Restaurant — Videltcet. �In an action to recover a penalty of $500 under section 2 of the civil righta act of March 1, 1875, (18 8t. at Large, part 3, p. 335, Sup. Rev. St. 148,) the plaintift' must allege and prove that he is a " citizen." �Where the penalt}' is claimed fOr a deniai of the privileges of an " inn," under the first section of that act, the complaint will be held sufficient on de- murrer if it alleges a deniai of those privileges " at a certain inn, to-wit, a restaurant at No. 9 Chatliamstreet." The word " restaurant " hasuo flxedand certain legal meaning, and a place known by that name may or may not be an inn ; i. e., provide lodgings as well as food for guests. �The description of the place in question under a viddieet is not repugnant to the previoua description as an inn ; if it were, semble it would be disregarded. �Demurrer to Complaint. �Peter Mitchell and John F. Quarles, for plaintiff. �JV. J. Dittenhoefer and Albert Englehardt, for defendants. ��� �