Rudd v. Baker
New York Supreme Court
IN error, on certiorari$ from a justice’s court. A motion was made on the part of the defendant, that the additional return of the justice be received, An affidavit of the attorney for the defendant was read, stating, that until after joinder in error, he did not ^now t^iat t^le return of the justice was incorrect.
Read the full summary
IN error, on certiorari$ from a justice’s court. A motion was made on the part of the defendant, that the additional return of the justice be received, An affidavit of the attorney for the defendant was read, stating, that until after joinder in error, he did not ^now t^iat t^le return of the justice was incorrect. The justice also, in an affidavit, stated that the certiorari was delivered to him in November last, when he was from _ ■ home, and the clerk of the attorney, who delivered it, . , told him the return must be made that day, and to save him trouble he had drawn a return, which he…
1Per curiam
We cannot grant the motion. The justice since he made the supplementary return annexed to the notice of the motion, has made another, and declares in that return, that the supplementary return was drawn in haste, and is incorrect, and that the first return is most correct. It is impossible to know the truth in a case in which the magistrate acts so inconsistently, and appears tobe so weak in mind as to he at the power of the party who last advises him. The court have no alternative; .but must reject both supplementary returns, and deny the motion; but in doing it, they express their strong…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Crate v. PettepherWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Van Slyke v. Disbrow, New York County Courts1909
- Zabriskie v. WilderNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1884
- Ellis v. OrendorffAppellate Court of Illinois · 1928
- People ex rel. Hoke v. AmmonsIllinois Supreme Court · 1848
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.