Dare v. Ogden

1 N.J.L. 91
CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey
DecidedSeptember 15, 1791
StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.J.L. 91 (Dare v. Ogden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Dare v. Ogden, 1 N.J.L. 91 (N.J. 1791).

Opinion

Per Cur.

Dare appeared and craved a jury, he made no exceptions at the time: this exception is disallowed. Another is, that the jury received evidence of the plaintiff's demand, after their departure from the bar. One Ryleyjim. a juror, swears, that an account of the plaintiff's demand, was handed in to the jury, but by whom he does not kupw: this is an [92]*92ese parte affidavit, taken without notice, in the absence of the opposite party and his attorney.

Note.~-Ryley further swore that he did not agree to the ver» diet, as he thought it. unjust, and was induced to assent from being unwell. The court said, that he had acted by his own confession, contrary to his solemn oath as a juror in so doing, and directed the affidavit to be handed to the Attorney General, to lay before, the Grand Jury of Cumberland, as the foundation of a presentment for misbehavior.

:The court therefore reject the affidavit and Affirm

the judgment.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 N.J.L. 91, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dare-v-ogden-nj-1791.