McVeaugh v. Goods
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Certain goods of British manufacture being imported into the county of Philadelphia, contrary to the act of assembly, passed the 10th of September 1778, they were attached, and this information filed against them. The owners of the goods exhibited a claim, and the merits of the case were brought to trial, at an adjourned court, on the 10th of January 1782, when the following points of evidence were ruled.
Read the full summary
Certain goods of British manufacture being imported into the county of Philadelphia, contrary to the act of assembly, passed the 10th of September 1778, they were attached, and this information filed against them. The owners of the goods exhibited a claim, and the merits of the case were brought to trial, at an adjourned court, on the 10th of January 1782, when the following points of evidence were ruled. In support of the information, one Scull was called as a witness, who, being examined on the voir clire, said, that he assisted in making a seizure of the goods; and in case they were…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
It nearly concerns the administration of justice, that witnesses should be free from every kind of bias. It is true, that Scull has no positive promise of a reward ; but, we think, the expectation which he acknowledges, in case the goods shall be condemned, must create such an influence in his mind, as renders it improper for him to give testimony on this occasion.
Lewis offered in evidence a pass from a justice of New Jersey, permitting the goods in question to be conveyed through that state.
Sergeant objected, that the pass of a justice of New Jersey, could not be given in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lessee of Henry v. MorganSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1810
- Innis v. MillerSupreme Court of the United States · 1790
- Lewis v. ManlySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1797
3Cited by1 opinion
- (HC) Estes v. People of the State of CaliforniaDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2025