Halsted v. Brice
Supreme Court of Missouri
APPEAL EIIOM DALLAS CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The evidence is conclusive and uncontradicted, that the plaintiff owned and possessed the tools sued for, and the verdict is clearly against evidence. 2. The testimony admitted by the warrant is in the light of a justification of the trespass ; it is clearly inadmissible.
Read the full summary
APPEAL EIIOM DALLAS CIRCUIT COURT. 1. The evidence is conclusive and uncontradicted, that the plaintiff owned and possessed the tools sued for, and the verdict is clearly against evidence. 2. The testimony admitted by the warrant is in the light of a justification of the trespass ; it is clearly inadmissible. It is entirely void by constitutional provision, being without oath; and a party cannot justify a wrong by evidence made by himself, and make by it a title by his own • oath, if it had been sworn to. Rev. Stat. p. 24, § 18. The counsel for the appellee insists that the warrant now in…
1Opinion of the CourtBirch, J.
This was an action of trespass, for taking and detaining certain tools of the plaintiff, upon which the defendant took the statutory issue. After testimony upon both sides, as to the ownership of the property, the plaintiff introduced a witness who testified-that he saw the box of the plaintiff, broken open by one Mizer, under the defendant’s direction, and under the authority, of an alleged warrant for that purpose. The defendant objected to the evidence thus given, “ as to the manner of taking the tools,” but it was overruled. The same witness having further stated that he was summoned by…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Wolf v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- Dunn v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1928
- Wolf v. ColoradoSupreme Court of the United States · 1949