State v. Squires
Supreme Court of Vermont
SPECIAL rule. David Fay, State Attorney for said County, here moves the Court for a special rule to be served upon Truman Squires, attorney in this Court, to shew cause, if any he have, why he should not forthwith deliver to the grand jurors, duly impanelled, sworn, and charged by this Court, at this now term, diligently to inquire after and true presentment make of all felonious breaches of the law, for their inspection and examination, two certain promissory notes (which…
Read the full summary
SPECIAL rule. David Fay, State Attorney for said County, here moves the Court for a special rule to be served upon Truman Squires, attorney in this Court, to shew cause, if any he have, why he should not forthwith deliver to the grand jurors, duly impanelled, sworn, and charged by this Court, at this now term, diligently to inquire after and true presentment make of all felonious breaches of the law, for their inspection and examination, two certain promissory notes (which he holds in his hands as attorney to one Thomas Mailery,) for the sum of twenty-five dollars each, purporting to have…
1Opinion of the Court
Woodbridgb, Chief Judge.
The attorney in this case must be considered as the keeper of these notes for his client. If so, in contemplation of law they arc; in the possession of Thomas Mattery. I .doubt the propriety of ordering papers thus situated out of his possession for the purpose of making use of them against him. It is true there are search warrants for the discovery of stolen goods; and magistrates who may seize base coin, are authorised to examine persons through whose hands it may have passed, under oath. But these are statute provisions, which do not con ■ trovert the bill of…
2Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. Joseph P. PfingstCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1973
- Foster v. HallMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1832
- Durkee v. LelandSupreme Court of Vermont · 1832