Haight v. Turner
New York Supreme Court
PlSK, in behalf of the defendant, moved for a mandamus to be directed to the judges of the court of common pleas of the«county of Orange, commanding them to give judgment in this effuse, then pending before them. He offered affidavits of the facts on which his motion was founded, and which were entitled Reuben Turner adsm.
Read the full summary
PlSK, in behalf of the defendant, moved for a mandamus to be directed to the judges of the court of common pleas of the«county of Orange, commanding them to give judgment in this effuse, then pending before them. He offered affidavits of the facts on which his motion was founded, and which were entitled Reuben Turner adsm. James Háight. objected to the reading of the affidavits, because they were wrongly entitled. that FisJc might proceed'to read the affidavits, and'they would afterwards consider of the formal objection. The affidavits stated, that the suit in the court below was brought to…
1Opinion of the Court
# Per Curiam.
It is a settled rule of practice m the Jbn~ glish courts, that on a motion for an information, or in air affidavit to hold to bail, the affidavit must' not be entitled* and if it be entitled, it cannot be read. The reason assigned is, that there is, at’ the limeno cause pending' in "the court, and' an indictment for perjury in malting such an affidavit, must fail, as it could not be shown that such' a cause existed in the court in which the affidavit was^ made.* The present case comes within, the reason of the _ , r _ 7 English rule. The cases' of Brooke v. Ewer, and Bayley v.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hull v. SupervisorsNew York Supreme Court · 1821
3Cited by1 opinion
- Quarles v. RobinsonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1849