OCR Text |
Show 7511 Voorhees- D 5490 their putting in their case, the depths of the stream, whether was so shallow that boats with the various drafts indicated by their witnesses could not go up or down without impediment. If they are to be permitted to re- open this case just to show some more cumulative testimony on the question of depths, boats getting stuck, and we in turn ask to re- open our case, we can keep the court here for as long as it has been here, with more testimony from different witnesses who were not used,-- merely cumulative. THE SPECIAL MASTER: Why isn't it merely cumulative, Mr. Blackmar? A large part of your case, of course, was necessarily concerned with the existence or non- existence of the depth of the channels of these rivers. The state introduced evidence to contradict your testimony in that respect, in respect to the existence or non- existence of a channel and in respect to the depth of the channel. Now you offer to show that one of the witnesses of the state testified in that respect contrary to what your witnesses had testified. I don't exactly see how this is rebuttal. MR. BLACKMAR: I do not think any narrow rule of rebuttal should be enforced in a case of this kind. Here is a witness who has some experience on the river; the |