Bowyer v. Chesnut
Supreme Court of Virginia
Debt on a bond for 200 dollars, brought by Chesnut against Bowyer in the county court of Bath. Bowyer craved oyer of the bond, and pleaded non est factum. It appeared from the bond (set out on oyer) that one Sophia Burk was the subscribing witness to the execution thereof.
Read the full summary
Debt on a bond for 200 dollars, brought by Chesnut against Bowyer in the county court of Bath. Bowyer craved oyer of the bond, and pleaded non est factum. It appeared from the bond (set out on oyer) that one Sophia Burk was the subscribing witness to the execution thereof. At the trial, the defendant Boivyer filed a bill of exceptions to an opinion of the court, stating, “ That on the trial of the issue, the plaintiff to support the same on his part, introduced testimony to prove various acknowledgments of the defendant, of sums of money he had borrowed from or owed to the plaintiff, said to…
1Opinion of the CourtCarr, J.
The question is not as to the sufficiency or weight of the evidence, but as to its admissibility; and if under any circumstances which could exist in the cause, this evidence was admissible on the issue joined, the judgement of the courts below must be supported. Suppose, for instance, the plaintiff had introduced the subscribing witness to prove the execution of the bond, and her character was assailed, or facts and circumstances adduced tending to discredit her evidence; would not the plaintiff have a right to resort to circumstantial evidence to corroborate and support her? This cannot be…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Raines v. Philips ex'or.Supreme Court of Virginia · 1829
- Cottom v. CottomCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1826