Bevan v. Krieger, 289 U.S. 459 (1933)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 289 U.S. 444, click here.
Bevan v. Krieger
No. 784
Argued May 8, 9, 1933
Decided May 22, 1933 *
289 U.S. 459
APPEALS FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Syllabus
1. Witnesses subpoenaed by a notary public to give depositions, pursuant to § 11529 of the General Code of Ohio, failed to attend, and when attachments were issued by the notary under § 11511 commanding that they be brought before him to give their testimony or to answer for contempt, they surrendered themselves to the sheriff, who held the process. They then immediately applied to the state court of appeals for writs of habeas corpus, with the result that, after hearings, they were remanded by that court to the custody of the sheriff, and the judgments were affirmed by the supreme court of the state, from which they appealed here. Held that, by their conduct, they were precluded from asserting that they were denied a hearing by the notary. P. 463.
2. In Ohio, as generally elsewhere, testimony by deposition is taken subject to the right of the parties -- not of the witness -- to object to its admissibility at the trial. P. 463.
3. A witness in a deposition proceeding (Gen.Code of Ohio, § 11529,) who flatly refuses to answer any further questions is guilty of a patent contempt, and his commitment by the presiding notary (id., § 11512) without further hearing is consistent with due process of law. P. 464.
So held irrespective of whether the notary would have been empowered by the state law to pass upon objections, if raised by the witness on the ground of privilege, and without considering whether if he lacked that power the hearing in court afforded by § 11514 of the Code, to review commitment by the notary, would satisfy due process.
4. Commitment of a witness, subject to review by the state courts, because of his refusal to give a deposition before the committing officer is not lacking in due process because the officer’s statutory fees and his charge for extra copies are measured by the folios of testimony taken. Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, distinguished. P. 465.
126 Oh.St. 126, 184 N.E. 343, affirmed in No. 784.
In Nos. 785 and 786, appeals dismissed for want of a federal question.
Appeals from judgments affirming judgments of the Court of Appeals of Ohio in habeas corpus proceedings whereby the petitioners, Bevan et al., were remanded to the custody of the sheriff. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is reported in 12 Oh.Law Abstract 598. A collateral remedy was sought by habeas corpus in a federal court, as to which this Court refused a writ of certiorari, 287 U.S. 665.