Vance v. Feariss
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Case, non assumpsit and payment. The plaintiff to substantiate his claim to 1251I. us. 5d. Dominica currency, offered in evidence the deposition of George Fitzgerald, taken under a commission.
Read the full summary
Case, non assumpsit and payment. The plaintiff to substantiate his claim to 1251I. us. 5d. Dominica currency, offered in evidence the deposition of George Fitzgerald, taken under a commission. He was the clerk of the company in Dominica, and it appeared by his testimony that the original entries in the plaintiff’s daybook (of which copies were subjoined) were not made at the times the transactions happened, but that many of them were made some months afterwards, without distinguishing the regular from the irregular entries. No reasons were assigned in the deposition for the doing thereof, nor…
1Per curiam
We feel ourselves very liberal in a mercantile *321case of this nature, to allow almost every possible species of evidence to be given to the jury; but such mischiefs would arise from the testimony offered, that we cannot do otherwise than reject it. Fitzgerald gives no reasons in his answers to the interrogatories, .why such unusual deviations from the mercantile course have been made, nor distinguishes the proper from the improper entries; nor does it appear that he was conusant of the facts. To impute this conduct to a fear of the enemy is mere conjecture unsupported by proof; besides, a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Kessler v. M'ConachySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1829
- Poultney v. RossSupreme Court of the United States · 1788