MORALES, EXECUTOR V. PANAMA BAN-KING CO.

objeclted to and excluded by the court. This witness had already stated that he knew the deceased in the Philippine Islands for a long period of time; that he often saw him write his name; that since he had been on the Canal Zone, deceased was under him as a policeman for nine months, and (luring that time lie often saw him write his name and make out his reports, and that he was familiar with his signature; and that he, the witness, had been the manager of the deceased's place for some months prior to his death and in that capacity had seen much of his writing and signatures, and, in addition to this, stated on cross-examination the months he had seen these signatures of the deceased, and finally was asked the question which was objected to.
While we can see no reason to conclude that the court was in error in excluding this question under the circumstances, it is not necessary that we should pass on the same for the reason that during the course of the trial the witness was recalled to the stand and the judge offered the attorney for the defendant an opportunity to ask and receive an answer to the question if he so desired. The attorney did not avail himself of this. Having been offered this opportunity, he is estopped from making any point with regard to the matter.
Sixth, the defendant placed on the stand a witness by the name of Roberts and asked him if he was the official interpreter in Colon. Referring to a document, asked him if that was the signature, and both being answered in the affirmative, the attorney asked "'Would you kindly state what this document is?" This was objected to and the objection was sustained. At this point the defendant's attorney stated to the court that he tendered the document in evidence, saying it was a deposition of Charles George Cleel, taken before the First Circuit Judge of Colon-on the 18th day of January, 1913.
Attorney for the plaintiff objected to this for the reason, as he stated, that there was nothing to show that the plaintiff had received notice of the taking of such testimony. This objection was sustained by the court and exceptions noted.
There is nothing in the record to show what this document was or what it contained. Ordinarily a deposition must speak for itself and it can not be concluded that any deposition take without notice to those interested, can be offered and received in evidence in any court of the Canal Zone. It seems to have been admitted that plaintiffs had not been given notice. The document

299