There was no valid reason for rejecting the deposition of Bayley. It does not appear that the witness was dishonest or evasive in his answers. The failure to reply directly and intelligibly to a portion of the first cross-interrogatory was manifestly attributable to the careless and obscure handwriting in which the defendants caused the interrogatory to be written The magistrate who took the deposition, as well as the witness, misread the question, and it was put and answered under a mistake, which, on inspection of the original manuscript of the cross-interrogatories annexed to the commission, it appears might have been honestly made. Besides; notwithstanding this mistake, the question which the defendants intended to put was substantially answered by the witness in the last clause of his reply to the interrogatory.
The deposition of Merritt, the other witness, was rightly rejected. He was distinctly asked when and where a certain document, material to the issue, which purported to be executed on a certain day and at a certain place, was in fact made and
These were the only points on which exceptions were taken to the rulings of the court at the trial, and no others are open for consideration. The first deposition having been erroneously rejected, the order must be Exceptions sustained.
