
    Norris versus Vinal.
    The defendant offered two depositions, the captions of which stated, “ that the adverse party was notified to attend.” Annexed to one of the depositions was an original notification, upon which was a return by an officer ; but the caption contained no reference to that notification, which was as follows : —
    
      “ Penobscot ss. Oct. 18, 1850.
    “ I have made search for the within named adverse party, or E. G. Rawson, his attorney, and can find neither within my precinct. I have therefore left a true attested copy of the within for said Rawson at the Bangor House in Bangor, as his last place of abode in my precinct.” “ J. H. Wilson, Deputy Sheriff.”
    The plaintiff objected to the depositions, because no legal notice of the taking had been given ; and he introduced Mr. Rawson, who testified, that about one month before the date of the officer’s return, he settled his bill of board at the Bangor House, and left, removing all his things, with the intention of not returning to that house to live, and went a journey for his health ; and did not return until after the caption ; that when he did return, he stopped at the Bangor House for a day or two only, as a guest; and that he afterwards boarded at another house in Bangor; that he never intended to abandon his residence in Bangor; that he had no actual notice of the taking of the depositions ; that when the notice was served and the depositions .taken, he was out of the State.
    The objection was overruled and the depositions were read. The plaintiff, (the verdict being against him,) excepted.
    Cutting, for the plaintiff.
    
      Washburn, for the defendant.
   Shepley, C. J., orally.

— The caption of each deposition shows a notice. In neither of them is any reference made to the officer’s return on the notification. That return is not, therefore, to be considered as a part of the caption. Neither that return nor the absence of Rawson controls the certificates in the captions.

Exceptions overruled.  