4 FEDERAL REPORTER.
practice it was usual to examine witnesses abroad by written inter—
rogatories and cross-interrogatories.
The provision of rule 68, for taking testimony iu an equity case,
after it is at issue, by deposition, according to the acts of congress,
is still in force. Under sections 863 and 1750 of the Revised Stat-
utes, depositions de bene ease in civil causes may be taken in a
foreign country by any secretary of legation or consular oflicer. The
mode of taking such depositions under sections 863, 864, and 865 is
by oral questions put at the time, if desired, and not necessarily by
written interrogatories given to the officer before commencing the
taking. It is the same mode provided for by the amendment to rule
67. As, after either party has given notice to the other that he
desires the evidence to be adduced in the cause to be taken orally,
the testimony is not, except for special reasons, to be taken other-
wise, so, by analogy, where testimony in a foreign country can be
taken orally, it ought not, except for special reasons, to be taken
otherwise. What would in any given case be suflicient special rea-
sons must be left to be decided in each case. In the present case the
defendants are, I think, entitled to cross-examine the plaintiff orally.
There is no reason why his direct examination should not beataken
on written interrogatories if desired.
LEWIS v. Hrrcncocx and another.
(District Court, S. D. New York. January 26, 1882.)
1. Crvu. Rrenrs Ao1·—DEMURRErz-I1~rN—REs*rAuRANr—V1oELicnr.
, In an action to recover a penalty of $500 under section 2 of the civil rights
act of March 1, 1875, (18 St. at Large, part 3, p. 335, Sup. Rev. St. 148,) the
plaintiff must allege and prove that he is a " citizen."
Where the penalty is claimed for a denial of the privileges of an "inn,"
under the first section of that act, the complaint will be held suiiicient on de-
murrer if it alleges a denial of those privileges “at a certain inn, to-wit, c.
restaurant at No. 9 Chatham street." The word " restaurant " has 1.10 Hxed and
certain legal meaning, and a place known by that name may or may not be an
inn; t. e., provide lodgings as well as food for guests.
The description of the place in question under a oidelicet is not repugnant to
the previous description as an inn ; if it were, seznble it would be disregarded.
Demurrer to Complaint.
Peter Mitchell and John F. Qumrles, for plaintiii.
N. J. Dittenhoefer and Albert Englehardt, for defendants.