Clark v. Smith
Supreme Court of Connecticut
A new trial having been granted in this cause, (9 Conn. Rep. 380 — 388.) it was tried again at New-London, September term, 1832, before Bissell, J. It was admitted, that Lodowick Bill was the deputy of the defendant; and that the plaintiff’s writ was put into his hands for service, as stated in the declaration.
Read the full summary
A new trial having been granted in this cause, (9 Conn. Rep. 380 — 388.) it was tried again at New-London, September term, 1832, before Bissell, J. It was admitted, that Lodowick Bill was the deputy of the defendant; and that the plaintiff’s writ was put into his hands for service, as stated in the declaration. To prove that Bill had attached the property of Crandall, the plaintiff introduced one Nathan Minard as a witness, who testified, that in a conver-gation with Bill, he stated that he had served the attachment on such property, and that the reason why he did not return the writ, was,…
1Opinion of the CourtBissell, J.
A new trial is moved, in this case, on two grounds : 1. that evidence was improperly admitted; and 2. that the rule of damages laid down in the charge is incorrect.
1. It is contended, that the declarations of Bill, which were drawn from the witness Minard, upon his cross-examination, should not have been received in evidence.
*5The testimony is objected to, first, on the ground that it is irrelevant. This objection is, manifestly, resolvable into that, • which is made against the charge to the jury. If the rule of damages there laid down be correct, the testimony was clearly pertinent. The…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Weld v. BartlettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
- Burrell v. LithgowMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Middlesex Turnpike Co. v. WentworthSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1832
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. CastonguaySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
- State v. SavageSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1971
- Rokus v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Sullivan v. NesbitSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1922
- Isenman v. BurnellSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1925
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.