![handle is hein.journals/caliilrev2 and id is 1 raw text is: CALIFORNIA LAW JOIURNAL.
[PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY 1Y THE LAW JOURNAL ASSOCIATION.]
VOL. IT. SAN FRANCISCO, MAY 20, 1863. NO. 1.
IT will be observed by our patrons that we, with this issue, commence our Second
Volume. The size of the paper has been somewhat diminished, but the amount of printed
matter is the same-it is only our margins that have been curtailed. This we have done for
the purpose of bringing our Volume into the more convenient octavo shape, as well as to
improve the paper upon which it is printed-our original size being so unusual that we found
it impossible to obtain paper in market suitable for it.
% WE would call the attention of the Bar and Bench to the publication in our columns of
the decisions of the present term of the Supreme Court of the United States. These decisions
we have procured at great expense, from Washington, and they are now published, for the
frst time, far in advance of any other Journal and of the regular Reports. We trust they will
appreciate our disposition to spare no pains or expense to make our Journal useful and
acceptable to the profession.
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
[REPORTED FROM WASHINGTON EXPRESSLY FOR THE CALIFORN1A LAW JOURNAL.]
DECEMBER TERM, 1862.-[CoNTINUED.]
WRIGHT vt. BALES.
Error to the Circuit Court United States,
for the Southern District of Ohio.
EVIDENCE.
1. The rules of evidence prescribed by the
statutes of a State are always followed in
the Courts of the United States when sitting
in the State, in commercial cases as well as
others. So held, where a party was offered
as a witness under a special statute of Ohio.
- J
OPINION OF THE COURT.
MR. JUSTICE WAYNE delivered the
opinion of the Court as follows :_
The plaintiff in error seek for a rever-
sal of the judgment in this case, for errors
alleged to have occurred upon the trial
of it in the Court below, but our atten-
tion having been called to the rejection
of a witness, we shall confine ourselves
to that assignment of error without con-
sidering such of them as relate to the
merits of the litigation or to the admis-
sion of the deposition of A. B. Dickerson,
taken de bene ease as evidence in the case.
The error complained of is that the
Court erred in refusing to allow one of
the plaintiffs, Mathias B. Wright, to tes-
tify as a witness in the cause.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/caliilrev2&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most