
    Nathaniel Heacock against Philo Stoddard.
    It is not valiobjection to the po&° ftadr tiie attorney to the adverse party was not notifiedjthough living within the ypkceS of caption.
    It is not a coined ion in a party’s family by intermarriage with his daughter, but avdiiiterest in the cause, whicli. incapacitates a person from writing or j drawing up a deposition. <
    
    IN this cause the plaintiff’s counsel offered to read the deposition of P. II.
    
    The counsel for the defendant took two exceptions to the caption :
    First. That although the defendant lived at Mid-dletown, Rutland County, more than thirty miles from the place of caption, yet the plaintiff’s known attorney lived in Middlebury, where the deposition was taken, and ought to have been notified. Secondly. That the deposition is drawn in the hand-writing of G. an attorney by profession, and son-in-law to the plaintiff, and so interested.
   Sed per Curiam.

The statute requires, that the adverse party, and not the attorney, shall be notified of the taking of a deposition, if living within thirty miles of the place of caption.

As to the second exception, the words of the statute are, “ that no agent, attorney, or person intei’estcd in the cause, shall write or draw up the deposition of any witness to be used in such cause.” Here it does not appear that G. was the agent or attorney'of the plaintiff. The interest supposed to result from his connection by marriage with the plaintiff’s family, is not that contemplated by the statute, for it must be an interest in the cause, which incapacitates a person from writing or drawing up a deposition.

W. C. Harrington and Amos Marsh, for plaintiff

Daniel Chipman, for defendant.

Deposition .admitted to be read.

Tyler, Judge,

dissenting. He considered G. to have been the agent of the plaintiff, within the purview of the act.  