McKonkey Co. v. . Gaylord
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an issue of fraud under the Statute upon the return of a ca sa, tried before his Honor, Judge Ellis, at Fall Term, 1853, of Washington,Superior Court. Among other specifications, was one for concealing money beyond ten dollars in amount. It was proved by the plaintiff that a certain amount of money had been received by the defendant shortly before the issuing of the ca sa.
Read the full summary
This was an issue of fraud under the Statute upon the return of a ca sa, tried before his Honor, Judge Ellis, at Fall Term, 1853, of Washington,Superior Court. Among other specifications, was one for concealing money beyond ten dollars in amount. It was proved by the plaintiff that a certain amount of money had been received by the defendant shortly before the issuing of the ca sa. In order to show that .he had honestly disbursed this amount, the defendant offered a paper in writing, signed by a person living in the city of New' York : a witness (Mr. King) was called to prove the signature,…
1Opinion of the CourtNash, C. J.
There is no error in the ruling of the Court ffelow, or in admitting the testimony objected to: As to the latter, the testimony .of Mr. Nelly was clearly competent. The rule, as stated by Mr. StaRKIP, in his Treatise on Evidence, 2 vol., p. 372, is, that the witness must either have seen the party write, or have obtained a knowledge, of the • character of his writing, from a correspondence with him ¡upon matters .of business, or from transactions between •them, such as having paid bill of exchange for time, for ¡.which he has afterwards accounted. The witness testified ¡that he had…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Martin v. . KnightSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1908
- In Re Will of BartlettSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- State Ex Rel. Echerd v. VieleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913