Phelps v. Hall
Supreme Court of Vermont
SCIRE FACIAS. The plaintiff declared, That on the 21st of March, A. D. 1799, he prayed out a writ of attachment against Jonathan Henry, returnable to Rutland County Court, November term, A. D. 1799. That he delivered-the writ to Gardner Clark, constable of Wallingford, to serve and return, who returned that he had arrested Henry, and took the defendant as bail for his personal appearance, &c. that by the consideration of the same County Court he recovered judgment against…
Read the full summary
SCIRE FACIAS. The plaintiff declared, That on the 21st of March, A. D. 1799, he prayed out a writ of attachment against Jonathan Henry, returnable to Rutland County Court, November term, A. D. 1799. That he delivered-the writ to Gardner Clark, constable of Wallingford, to serve and return, who returned that he had arrested Henry, and took the defendant as bail for his personal appearance, &c. that by the consideration of the same County Court he recovered judgment against Henry for 56 dols. 8 cts. damages, and 11 dols. 37 cts. costs of suit, and in due time took out his writ of execution, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Sed per Curiam.
Objections to the competency of witnesses have of late failed to have that weight in *401Courts of Justice which they anciently had. Indeed some distinctions, which exclude some and admit others to testify, seem very nice. The remainder man cannot, say the books, be a witness, but the heir at law may; although his ancestor may be on his death-bed, expiring with old age. The rule which has governed this Court is, that the interest which shall exclude a person from testifying must be a direct interest in the event of the suit; not a contingent, remote, or possible interest; and in…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Willey v. HunterSupreme Court of Vermont · 1884
- Hardwick v. HookSupreme Court of Georgia · 1850