366 iPEDEEAL REPORTER. �It is very elear that the motion must be granted. The defendant attended as a party before the examiner. The regularity of the exam- ination was recognized by the attendance of the plaintiff, by the arrangement he then and there made for future cross-examination by . Mr. Clark, and by the antedated written stipulation which Mr. Clark signed the next day. The examination was thus made a regular pro- ceeding in the suit in Massachusetts. The defendant had a right to attend upon it in person, whether he was to be himself examined as a witness before Mr. Thompson or not, and he had a right to be pro- tected, while attending upon it, from the service of the papers which were served in this suit. He attended in good faith, the examination waspending and unfinished, and he was served duringthe interval of an adjournment. The privilege violated was a privilege of the Mas- sachusetts court, and one to be liberally construed for the due admin- istration of justice. Juneau Bank v. MeSpedan, 5 Biss. 64 ; Brooks y. ^armU, 4 Fed. Ebp. 166; Bridges v.Sheldon, 7 Fed. Eep. 17, 42. �The only objections urged against the motion are technical ones — that the written stipulation was not signed till after the service was made ; that there was no order as to the examination entered in the Massachusetts court ; that no formai written notice of the intended examination was served; that the sitting before the examiner was, therefore, unauthorized; and that the written stipulation cannot have an effect as of a date earlier than November 3d. If these objec- tions were allowed to have force, the plaintiff would only be placed in the position of having, by the prior verbal arrangements made, sanctioned by the subsequent action of himself and his counsel there- under, decoyed the defendant to visit New York by deceptive induce- ments, and thus the case would be brought within the principle laid down in Union Sugar Refinery v. Mathiesson, 2 Cliff. 304, and in Steiger v. Bonn, 4 Fed. Eep. 17. The plaintiff and his counsel, by what they said and did, represented to the defendant that the proceed- ing before Mr. Thompson was' regular and orderly and authorized, and induced him to rely on that view. He had a right, as a party to the Massachusetts cuit, to attend a regular examination of wit- nesseS'in that suit in New York, and to be protected, while so attend- ing, from the service of the papers in this suit. The plaintiff is estopped frpin raising the objection as to regularity. �The motion is granted. ��� �
