English citations of subpœnæd

Verb:

edit
1800
ME « 15th c. 16th c. 17th c. 18th c. 19th c. 20th c. 21st c.
  • 1800 C.E., A History of the Rise and Progress of the People Called Quakers, In Ireland, From the Year 1653 to 1700, 2nd. ed., William Phillips, George Yard, Lombard Street, pages #125–126:
    This year (1673) friends addreſſed the lord-lieutenant and council for relief from their ſufferings on many occaſions, and particularly this, that whereas they durſt not on any account take an oath, as being forbidden by Chriſt, wicked man laid hold on this their conſcientious ſcruple to enſnare and defraud them, by cauſing them to be ſubpœnæd into chancery, where their anſwers without an oath would not be admitted; for inſtance, in the county of Wexford, Thomas Holme having about 200l. due to him from captain Thornhill, for which judgment was obtained againſt him in common law, was ſubpœnæd into chancery by the ſaid Thornhill, where he we;; knew Thomas could not anſwer upon oath, and ſo this friend loſt his debt: and in Dublin, James Fade having about 40l. due to him from one Ezekiel Webb, was by the ſaid Webb ſubpœnæd into chancery, and becauſe the friend could not give in his anſwer upon oath, he not only loſt the ſaid debt, but was conſtrained to give above 70l. to get clear of the debtor: and indeed this iniquity continued in practice, and friends were expoſed to ſufferings on this account, even until the rein of our late gracious ſovereign George the Firſt, when they were delivered from this yoke of oppreſſion.
1921
ME « 15th c. 16th c. 17th c. 18th c. 19th c. 20th c. 21st c.
  • 1921 C.E., The Southern Reporter, West Publishing Co.; Volume 88, page #846:
    This is a motion of plaintiff to retax cost of issuing and executing subpœnas on ten witnesses and the fees for their attendance, on the ground that they were not examined in the case, and none were subpœnæd for any good purpose
1948
ME « 15th c. 16th c. 17th c. 18th c. 19th c. 20th c. 21st c.
  • 1948 C.E., Barsky et al. v. United States, No. 9602:
    The indictment alleged that appellants were members of the governing body of an unincorporated association known as the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee and that, having been subpœnæd by the Congressional Committee known as the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives, to produce the records of their association relating to the receipt and disbursement of certain money and certain correspondence with persons in foreign countries, they willfully failed to produce those documents.