Proceedings of the Conference Held at New York, 1887 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1887 Excerpt: ...The paragraph as reported was adopted. The Secretary then read the next paragraph, as follows: "The following must appear by the certificate of the district or prosecuting attorney: " Mr. Phelps (Cal.): I move its adoption as read. The paragraph was approved as reported. The Secretary next read rule "a."-(See page 21.) Mr. Wright (Ga.): I move its adoption. Mr. Rusk (Wis.): I move to strike out the words, " in Roman capital letters." Mr. Brown (N. Y.): This rule was adopted in New York for the reason that many prosecuting officers were so careless in writing that it was at times impossible to tell what the names were. Mr. Wright (Ga.): In my experience I have found that to be very necessary. The Chairman: Does the gentleman from Wisconsin insist oh the amendment? Mr. Rusk (Wis.): Yes. The rule as reported by the committee was adopted. The following rules were read by the Secretary and adopted by the Conference as reported by the committee: "b" " c" " d" "e," "/," "g," "h." (See page 22.) The Secretary next read rule "t." (See page 22.) Mr. Phelps (Cal.): What is meant by the word " recent?" Mr. Barnard (N. H.): As ordinarily used. Mr. Strout (Me.): I must object to this rule. Mr. Phelps (Cal.): It is an elastic provision. Different attorneys will have different ideas of what is meant by "recent." It has been suggested that a thing is " recent" when it is within the statute of limitations. Perhaps it would be well to express it in that way. Mr. Barnard (N. H.): That matter was considered by the committee. Mr. Brown (N. Y.): It was a compromise. One reason for the rule was this: Suppose it appears on the face of the papers...