Harris v. Holmes
Supreme Court of Vermont
Book Account. The auditor reported that the plaintiff’s account was for advertising in his newspaper a patent churn under the following circumstances: In April, 1853, Gardner C. Hall was the owner of a patent churn, and procured the plaintiff to advertise it in his newspaper from April 1, 1858 to October 1, 1854, in Hall’s name.
Read the full summary
Book Account. The auditor reported that the plaintiff’s account was for advertising in his newspaper a patent churn under the following circumstances: In April, 1853, Gardner C. Hall was the owner of a patent churn, and procured the plaintiff to advertise it in his newspaper from April 1, 1858 to October 1, 1854, in Hall’s name. In February, 1854, Hall and the defendant formed a partnership for making and vending said churns, and about that time the plaintiff met Hall and asked him if he wanted the advertisement changed and the name of the firm annexed to it, but that Hall said the firm…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Redfield, Ch. J.
The only questions reserved in the present case are, in regard to the admissibility of certain evidence by the auditor. In regard to such questions, we have to allow a wide range in the admissibility of evidence, in the trial of cases where the issue is not defined, and where, of course, at the time, it is often impossible to anticipate what questions may ax’ise in the course of the trial.
—The rule in such cases is, that the testimony should be received, if it is competent evidence in any view of the case wtiiol^rnny hp_ thereafter…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Burnham v. ButlerSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1879
- State v. HeaderSupreme Court of Vermont · 1881