The Montreal Law Reports; Cases Determined in the Superior Court, Montreal. Superior Court Volume 3 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1887 edition. Excerpt: ...to state my decided opinion that the reading was in this, as in other cases required by law. If that were really the point on which this case depended, it might be useful as well as easy to go further with the same result; but the real point now is not Whether the reading was required by law; but, granting it to be required, What is the efiect of the certificate which does not mention the fact f? Is it that the fact of the reading not being mentioned in the certificate or elsewhere, we are to hold that no reading has taken place, or is it on the contrary, that the fact not being required to be mentioned in the certificate by the 51st section of the statute, we are to assume, until the contrary is made to appear, that it has been done I? That is the point, and if we had proof that the depositions were not read, probably there could be no waiver of his right by the respondent's acquiescence or participation---the consent of course applying to what is past--and not to what is to come; and the participation being ended with the cross-examining, and not reaching to the reading afterwards. The 51st section says: " The judge may employ a short"hand writer to take down the depositions of the Wit" nesses at the trial of the petition. Such shorthand writer "shall be sworn by the judge, and the transcribed notes "given by him ot the various depositions shall be drawn "up and certified correct by him under the oath he has " so taken." What is the difference, in any case, between shorthand and longhand in reference to the question of reading What has been taken down to the witness I? Shorthand has, of course, the advantage of being written as rapidly as the words are spoken; but it has the...