Pierce v. Hoffman
Supreme Court of Vermont
Trespass for a wagon. Plea, the general issue, and notice that defendants would prove, that defendant Hoffman was a creditor . of one Joel Butterfield, that said wagon was attached and sold as the property of said Butterfield, defendant Fisher acting as officer. Trial by jury.
Read the full summary
Trespass for a wagon. Plea, the general issue, and notice that defendants would prove, that defendant Hoffman was a creditor . of one Joel Butterfield, that said wagon was attached and sold as the property of said Butterfield, defendant Fisher acting as officer. Trial by jury. On trial, the plaintiff gave evidence tending to prove, that he purchased the wagon of said Butterfield, about the first of June, A. D. 1850, before the same was finished, for the price of forty dollars, and executed his note to sqid Butterfield for that amount; that plaintiff bought and paid for iron axletrees for the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The only question in the present case is, whether the testimony of other fraudulent dealings between the parties about the same time of the one in question, was properly admissible in the case. The general rule of evidence will undoubtedly exclude other independent transactions. But in a question of intention, like the present, such evidence is admitted, even in criminal cases of the gravest importance.
It is usually the only mode of proving such matters. Purpose and intention, especially when there is an obvious motive for disguise, is only to be reached by inference, and safe…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Eastman v. PremoSupreme Court of Vermont · 1877
- State v. WhiteSupreme Court of Vermont · 1897
- Bradley Fertilizer Co. v. FullerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1885
- Dyer v. TaylorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1887