Edward T. Bartlett, J. (dissenting). I agree with the prevailing opinion that the i-espondent was without jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding, or to require the attendance oí witnesses; also with the suggested form of the information, and that it should be made under oath ; also that the language of the subpoena is suggestive of “ private ends and furtive aims.” This proceeding sought to lay bare…
Read the full opinion (source) ↗
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.