Gardner v. Preston
Supreme Court of Connecticut
In the Court below, TTHIS was an action on the case, founded on a fraudulent combination. The declaration stated, that on the 20th of March, 1803, the defendants, then all residing in this state, combined and conspired to defraud such merchants and traders in Boston, as they might be able to deceive, by their arts and practices. The plaintiff was, at that time, a Boston merchant.
Read the full summary
In the Court below, TTHIS was an action on the case, founded on a fraudulent combination. The declaration stated, that on the 20th of March, 1803, the defendants, then all residing in this state, combined and conspired to defraud such merchants and traders in Boston, as they might be able to deceive, by their arts and practices. The plaintiff was, at that time, a Boston merchant. The particular scheme agreed upon, by the defendants, was, that Talman and Bacon should immediately go to Boston, and that Talman should give out to the merchants there, that he wished to purchase a great quantity of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
The general question is, Whether the testimony offered was admissible, to prove the combination *208and fraud, for the redress of which the plaintiff instituted his action ?
It is for the Court to decide, Whether the evidence conduced at all to the proof of the fact, which was to be ascertained. But this point having been determined, the question how far it conduced to prove the fact, is exclusively within the cognizance of the jury, (a)
Direct evidence, for the most part, is neither to be required nor expected ; and this remark is of peculiar importance, in reference to the proof of…
2Cited by15 opinions
- Hoxie v. Home InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1864
- Grant v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1822
- Williams v. MaislenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Ward v. County of HartfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1838
- State v. WalkerSupreme Court of Iowa · 1904
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.