Hodgkins v. Pearson , 82 Mass. 384 ( 1860 )

Chapman, J.

The judge had discretionary power to direct that the deposition should be received instead of the oral testimony, under St. 1839, c. 107, § 1. And after the claimants had put in theirs in reply, it was proper and conformable to the usual practice to limit the testimony of Howard to such facts as would tend to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence.

Exceptions overruled.