Schenck v. Stevenson
Supreme Court of New Jersey
A member of the board of Freeholders, may be a witness in a suit commenced by their order. Affidavit of a juror not allowed to prove what was the ground of the verdict. Thus was a motion to set aside the inquisition of the jury of inquiry, which had been had in the cause. There was someevidencc that this suit was prosecuted at the instanceof the board of chosen freeholders of the county of Hunter-don ; the board had actually paid money, towards carrying on the suit.
Read the full summary
A member of the board of Freeholders, may be a witness in a suit commenced by their order. Affidavit of a juror not allowed to prove what was the ground of the verdict. Thus was a motion to set aside the inquisition of the jury of inquiry, which had been had in the cause. There was someevidencc that this suit was prosecuted at the instanceof the board of chosen freeholders of the county of Hunter-don ; the board had actually paid money, towards carrying on the suit. One objection raised against the inquisition, was, that the sheriff admitted Andrew Reader, one of the members of the hoard, as…
1Opinion of the CourtPennington, J.
— Observed—That even if the witness was a party on the record, that itself would not disqualify him; that it all turned on the question of interest. He recollected a case where an action was brought against the governors of a hospital; several of the governors were offered as witnesses and objected to; but Lord Kenyon admitted them, on the ground of their having no personal interest in the action. He believed, however, it was a modern case, and could not be read.*
[*] Mr. Maxwell said — That in the case alluded to, Lord Kenyon had drawn a distinction between parties who were mere trustees of a…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Rolette v. RoletteWisconsin Supreme Court · 1843