Stockham v. Jones
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit. The oapias ad respondendum was served only on Jones and Kearney, two of the defendants, and was returned non est inventus, as to the ’ _ other. The plaintiff declared against the two that were arrested, and the other defendant as returned not found. Jerome never appeared or pleaded. The cause was tried at the Onondaga circuit, in 1812, before Mr. Justice Spencer.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trespass quare clausum fregit. The oapias ad respondendum was served only on Jones and Kearney, two of the defendants, and was returned non est inventus, as to the ’ _ other. The plaintiff declared against the two that were arrested, and the other defendant as returned not found. Jerome never appeared or pleaded. The cause was tried at the Onondaga circuit, in 1812, before Mr. Justice Spencer. It was proved that Jetome was jointly concerned in the trespass. The defendants J offered Jerome as a witness, but he was objected to as incomp©tent, and rejected by the judge. The…
1Per curiam
As Jerome was named in the writ and could not be taken, and was proved to be a party concerned in the trespass, he was an incompetent witness according to the old rule. (Bull. N. P. 286. Lloyd v. Williams, Cases temp. Hardw. 115.) But since the case of Bent v. Baker, and which has for many years been adopted by this court, as the proper rule, (Van Nuys v. Terhune, 3 Johns. Cases, 82.) the incompetency of a witness, on the ground of interest, must be confined to a legal fixed interest *23in the event of the suit. Jerome had no such interest, and the objection went only to his credit.
The verdict…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Wakely v. HartSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1814
- Forshee v. AbramsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1856
- Bigham v. CarrTexas Supreme Court · 1858
- Bohun v. CollinsNew York Supreme Court · 1826
- Bork v. NortonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois · 1841
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.