Skillenger v. Bolt
Supreme Court of Connecticut
THIS was an action of trover for a horse and carriage. The cause was tried at Danbury, September term 1814, before Reeve, Ch. J. and Edmond, J. On the trial on the issue of not guilty, it appeared that the defendant, as a sheriff’s deputy, plaintiff’s counsel described in the declaration, by direction of Thaddeus Betts, in a suit brought by him against one Wallace on a promissory note.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of trover for a horse and carriage. The cause was tried at Danbury, September term 1814, before Reeve, Ch. J. and Edmond, J. On the trial on the issue of not guilty, it appeared that the defendant, as a sheriff’s deputy, plaintiff’s counsel described in the declaration, by direction of Thaddeus Betts, in a suit brought by him against one Wallace on a promissory note. The defendant relied on the attachment for his defence, and offered Betts as a witness to prove his part of the issue. The plaintiff’s counsel objected to the competency of Betts on the ground that he was…
1Opinion of the CourtIngersoll, J.
It is my opinion that the court did right in excluding the witness. It seems, the discharge was given to the witness in order to qualify him to testify in a cause, in which he was directly interested, and in which he was bound by every honest principle to indemnify the defendant. In such a case, though a discharge be given to the witness, it comes in a very questionable shape, even if nothing more appears than the discharge itself. But if immediately after it be given, and at the very time when it is produced before the court, the witness says he considers it as nothing, the inference must…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Commercial Bank v. HughesNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Ayres v. FrenchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1874
- Gayle v. BishopSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848