The following Gentlemen were admitted to practice at the Bar of the Supreme Court of the United States, at January Term 1830. LIST OF CASES. American and Ocean Insurance Company, Canter's Admi nistratrix vs. Armor et al., Parsons v Bank of the United States et al. vs. Swan, Bank of Washington, Thornton's Executrix vs. Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Wistar, Price and Wistar, Bedford et al. Parsons vs. Bell et al. vs. Cunningham et al. 36 Chinoweth et al. vs. Haskell's Lessee et al. Clay vs. Smith, Common Council of Alexandria, Fowle vs. Coulter, The Patapsco Insurance Company vs. Cunningham et al., Bell et al. vs. D'Wolfe vs. Usher, Finlay et al. vs. King's Lessee, Fowle vs. The Common Council of Alexandria, Gordon vs. Ogden, Grundy, Boyce's Executors vs. Harris vs, Dennie, Haskell's Lessee et al., Chinoweth et al. vs. 210 12 307 92 Inglis, Demandant vs. The Trustees of the Sailor's Snug Har Meade's Executrix, Keene vs. New Jersey, The State of us. The State of New York, 1 461 Sailor's Snug Harbour, The Trustees of, Inglis, Demandant vs. Shanks et al. vs. Dupont et al. Silliman, M'Cluney vs. Smith, Clay vs. Smith vs. Honey, Stringer et al. vs. Young's Lessee et al. Swan, The Bank of the United States et al. vs. Thornton's Executrix vs. The Bank of Washington, Trustees of the Sailor's Snug Harbour, Inglis, Demandant vs. Union Bank of Georgetown, Magruder vs. United States vs. Buford, United States, Farrar and Brown vs. United States vs. Preston, Usher, D'Wolf vs. Watkins, Ex parte Tobias, 57 99 68 36 99 87 Willison vs. Watkins, Wistar, Price and Wistar, The Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. Young's Lessee et al. Stringer's Lessee et al. vs. THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES AT JANUARY TERM 1830. RICHARD R. KEENE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR 78. MARGARET MEADE, EXECUTRIX OF RICHARD W. MEAde, deceased, Defendant in ERROR. It A commission was issued in the name of Richard M. Meade, the name of the defendant being Richard W. Meade. This is a clerical error in making out the commission, and does not affect the execution of the commission. [6] may well be questioned whether the middle letter of a name forms any part of the christian name of a party. It is said the law knows only of one christian name, and there are adjudged cases strongly countenancing, if not fully establishing, that the entire omission of a middle letter is not a misnomer or variance. [7]. A witness, the elerk of the plaintiff, examined under a commission, stated the payment of a sum of money to have been made by him to the defendant, and that the defendant at his request made an entry in the plaintiff's rough cash book, writing his name at full length, and stating the sum paid to him, not so much for the sake of the receipt, as in order for him, the witness, to become acquainted with his signature, and the way of spelling his name. It is not necessary to produce the book in which the entry was made, and parol evidence of the payment of the money is legal. It cannot be laid down as a universal rule, that where written evidence of a fact exists, all parol evidence of the same fact is excluded. [7] It is not known that there is any practice in the execution or return of a commission, requiring a certificate, in whose hand writing the depositions returned with the commission were taken down. All that the commission requires is, VOL. III.-A [Keene vs. Meade.] that the commissioners, having reduced the depositions taken by them to writing, should send them with the commission under their hands and seals to the judges of the court out of which the commission issued. But it is immaterial in whose hand writing the depositions are; and it cannot be required that they should certify any immaterial fact. [8] A certificate by the commissioners, that A. B. whom they were going to employ as a clerk had been sworn, admits of no other reasonable interpretation than that A. B. was the person appointed by them as clerk. [9] It is not necessary to return with the commission the form of the oath administered by the commissioners to the witnesses. When the commissioners certify, the witnesses were sworn, and the interrogatories annexed to the commission were all put to them, it is presumed that they were sworn and examined as to all their knowledge of the facts. [10] ERROR to the circuit court for the county of Washington in the district of Columbia. In the circuit court the testator of the defendant in error Richard W. Meade, instituted an action against Richard R. Keene, the plaintiff in error, for money lent and advanced to him in Spain, where Mr Meade, at the time of the loan, resided, and carried on business as a merchant. In order to establish the claims of the plaintiff below, a commission was issued to Cadiz; and under the same, certain depositions were taken, which were returned with the commission. The commission was directed to the commissioners in à case stated to be depending in the court in which Richard M. Meade was plaintiff, and Richard R. Keene defendant; and it was returned to the court under the hands and seals of the commissioners, who certified that the "execution of the commission appears in a certain schedule annexed." In the schedule annexed to the commission was also the following certificate under the hands of the commissioners. "We the undersigned, appointed commissioners to examine evidences in a cause depending in the circuit court of the county of Washington in the district of Columbia, between Richard W. Meade plaintiff, and Richard R. Keene defendant, do hereby certify that we have severally taken the oath into the hands of each other prescribed in the herein annexed commission, and we further certify that we have likewise administered the oath prescribed by the same herein annexed commission, to Mr James M'Cann, the clerk we are going to employ for the execution of the same." |