Bulkley v. Richards

Connecticut Superior Court

Bulkley v. Richards

1 Kirby 203

DecidedJanuary 15, 1787

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Kirby 203 (Bulkley v. Richards) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bulkley v. Richards, 1 Kirby 203 (Colo. Ct. App. 1787).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

The whole of Prince’s creditors, who directed the officer to levy on those articles, are answerable, if the property appears not to have been in Prince at that time; and afterwards to relinquish the claim, and restore the things taken, does not purge the wrong.— The witness is consequently inadmissible.

The chief justice was inclined to admit the witness, on the ground that his interest in the event was so minute, that it could not be supposed to influence his testimony.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court.

The whole of Prince’s creditors, who directed the officer to levy on those articles, are answerable, if the property appears not to have been in Prince at that time; and afterwards to relinquish the claim, and restore the things taken, does not purge the wrong.— The witness is consequently inadmissible.

The chief justice was inclined to admit the witness, on the ground that his interest in the event was so minute, that it could not be supposed to influence his testimony.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Kirby 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bulkley-v-richards-connsuperct-1787.