Bulkley v. Richards

Connecticut Superior Court

Bulkley v. Richards

1 Kirby 203

Connecticut Superior Court·Decided January 15, 1787·Published

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.

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

Pincite

1 Kirby 203 (Bulkley v. Richards) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.