Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/618

 606 FBDEBAL KBPPRTER. �M. Service of such order by the marshal or his deputy of the district whereof the non-resident defendant is an inhabitant, or where he is found, and the return thereof in the usual form or by affidavit, are suffloient. Id. See, as to service on non-resident corporation, Parrott v. Alahama Qold Life Ins. Oo. 5 FED. Eep. 391; Fe7inoyer v. ITef, 95 U. S. 714.— [Ed. ���Matthews v. Pufpbe and others.* {Circuit Uourt, 8. D. New York. January 18, 1882.) �1. Pkactice— Service op Subpœna— PurviLEOED Attendancb. �Where a motion to set aside the service of a subpœna, on the ground of priv- ileged attendance within the district, had been denied on the ground that the defendant had failed to show that he was a non-resident of the state, held, on a renewal of such motion without leave, that the fact of non-residence shonld have been proven on the former motion. It is not a newly-discovered fact. �2. Same— Samb— Waiver of Pktvilbge. �An objection to the service of a subpœna as made while defendant was pro- tected by a privilege, may he waived by not being promptiy availed of . �In Equity. Motion to set aside service of subpœna. �A. V. Briesen, for plaintifif. �E. C. Webb, for defendant, �Blatohfobd, C. J. The defendant Alvin D. Puffer heretofore made a motion to this court, founded on affidavits, to set aside the service made on him of the subpœna to appear and answer herein. The suit is one for the infringement of letters patent. The motion was opposed and denied by an order made December 30, 1881. The reasons set out in the motion papers, as grounds for the motion, were that the service waa made upon the said defendant while he was attending the examination of witnesses in the office of the counsel for the plaintiff herein, in the city of New York, in a cause of interference then pending between him and the plaintiff before the United States patent-office, and when he was lawfully attending at said office "in his right as a party to said interference cause." The moving affi- davits did not show where the defendant resided, or where he carried on business; but merely that he "went to New York" to attend such examination, not stating from what place he went. The motion was made upon the bill as a part of the moving papers. The bill speaks �♦Reported by S. Kclson While, Esq., of the New York bar. ��� �