
    George versus Nichols.
    In a notice for the taking of a deposition, if there be a defect as to the place of the taking, it is waived by the attendance of the party notified.
    In depositions, taken out of the State, it is not essential that the magistrate be a commissioner, appointed by the authorities of Maine.
    Exceptions from the District Court, Hathaway, J.
    The defendant had been notified to attend the taking of a deposition at the office of Henry W. Fuller in Boston. It was in fact taken at the office of Henry H. Fuller in Boston.
    It was offered by the plaintiff, and objected to by defendant, for the foregoing reason, and also because the magistrate was not a commissioner, appointed by the Governor and Council of Maine, to take depositions. The presiding Judge admitted the deposition, but gave the defendant an election whether to take a continuance or to proceed to trial with the deposition in evidence. The defendant elected to proceed, and the deposition was used by the plaintiff. To its admission the defendant excepts. The caption of the deposition shows that defendant was present by himself and counsel at the taking. The case was submitted without argument.
   Tenney, J.,

orally.—The first objection was obviated by the defendant’s attendance at the taking.

It is not requisite that the magistrate should be a commissioner. It does not appear that he was not authorized by the laws of his State to take depositions. Depositions taken out of the State may be received at the discretion of the court. R. S. c. 133, § 22. Exceptions overruled.  