Burlingham v. Deyer
New York Supreme Court
FROM the return to the certiorari in this cause, it appeared that the plaintiff below brought his action for a certain quantity of lead delivered according toa written order addresséd to the plaintiff below, and signed by the r • T , defendant, as follows, “ Sir, please to let Mr. E. Knight have that lead, and I will be accountable for the same.”
Read the full summary
FROM the return to the certiorari in this cause, it appeared that the plaintiff below brought his action for a certain quantity of lead delivered according toa written order addresséd to the plaintiff below, and signed by the r • T , defendant, as follows, “ Sir, please to let Mr. E. Knight have that lead, and I will be accountable for the same.” On the order was indorsed a receipt by Knight, that he had received “twenty-three pounds of white lead, on the order at one shilling and six-pence per pound.” The - i i r defendant, by his plea, denied that he had ever received the quantity of lead.…
1Per curiam
The witness was a mere agent or servant, and must be considered as a competent witness, from necessity. A justice cannot act from his own previous knowledge of facts; but they must be proved before him. He must decide upon evidence produced in court. The justice ought not to have refused the release tendered by the defendant to the witness. The judgment below must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
2Cited by1 opinion
- Beaver v. Van EveryNew York Supreme Court · 1823