Defrance v. Hazen

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Defrance v. Hazen

2 Pin. 228, 1 Chand. 195

DecidedJanuary 15, 1849

StatusPublished

This text of 2 Pin. 228 (Defrance v. Hazen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Defrance v. Hazen, 2 Pin. 228, 1 Chand. 195 (Wis. 1849).

Pincite

Opinion

Larrabee, J.

The witness offered by the defendants should have been allowed to testify, as the facts proposed to be shown would have tended to prove a want of consideration. It is not necessary for a party to disclose his whole defense, in order to entitle him to the admission of evidence having a tendency to prove it.

It is only in cases where the proposed evidence has no apparent relevancy, that it is necessary tosíate the whole ground upon which it is based.

Judgment reversed.

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

Larrabee, J.

The witness offered by the defendants should have been allowed to testify, as the facts proposed to be shown would have tended to prove a want of consideration. It is not necessary for a party to disclose his whole defense, in order to entitle him to the admission of evidence having a tendency to prove it.

It is only in cases where the proposed evidence has no apparent relevancy, that it is necessary tosíate the whole ground upon which it is based.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Pin. 228, 1 Chand. 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/defrance-v-hazen-wis-1849.