Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/288

 274 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Van Hoesen, Albert H.'Yan Hoesaii, Amasa G. AIdrich, Nicholas H. Ilaynes, Orrin Pratt, James B. Share, Emma Share, Eben Daley, and Thomas Ballard, (another deposition of each of the witnesses Matthias Van Hoesen, Seth AIdrich, and Thomas Ballard, In the Leland suit, beiug g,lso presented, al- though the notice in this suit mentions the name of each only once as a wit- ness.) �Under a like stipulation and a like notice, the following deposi- tions, taken at the following dates, in the said suit against Leland, are made evidence for the plaintiffs in this suit : �August, .1880, Nelson "W. Green, Joseph L. Galt, J, A. Todd, John M. Fargo, John West, Frank Fargo, Augustus Harrington, Horace Dibble, Hlram Cran- dall, Jay Bail, James S. Squires, William P. Kandall, Charles 0. Taylor, John Wheeler, De Witt G. McGregor, Merton M. Waters, Stephen Brewer, Matthias Van Hoesen, Seth AIdrich, Thomas Ballard, and Ira Hazard, (the remark before made as to the two depositions of Matthias Van Hoesen, Seth AIdrich, and Thomas Ballard being applicable herealso;) August and September, 1880, Abraham P. Smith ; September, 1880, Eustace D. Dibble, Noah J. Parsons, Stephen D.Freer and William S. Copeland. �The plaintiffs' record makes 1^305 printed pages; the defendant's, 208. The case came on for hearing on the tweiity-^first of March last. AU the testimony taken directly fqr thC' defendant in this suit had been filed. Bat the defehdant had not'|):riiited any of it, nor had he printed, as required by the stipulation, the testimony of the three witnesses for the defendant in the Leland suit before mentioned, Tallman, Vandenburgh, and Woolston, or any of it, nor had he filed a copy of any of it. On the fifteenth of March, thefirstday of the sitting of the court, the defendant applied to the court ' to' postpone the hearing of the cause, but the application was refused. There- upon the cause stood for hearing for the 21 st, but. Mr. Storke, the soliciter and counsel for the defendant,' who had attended on the 15th and made said application, did not attend any more, and the defendant was not represented on the hearing. The case was not argued for the defendant, nor was any brief furnished for him. The plaintiffs' counsel argued the cause orally, and submitted a printed brief, and subsequently a printed report of his oral argument. The -plaintiffs also filed a certified copy of, and printed and submitted to the court, all the testimony before referred to as testimony for the defendant, and all their own testimony, before mentioned, has been heifore the court in print. Under these circumstances, the testimony Jjas all of it been read and the case is to he disposed of. It is very much to be regretted that the court has. not had the benefit of the views of counsel on the part of the defendant as to the questions of fact ��� �