Gardner v. Madeira

2 Yeates 466
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 15, 1799·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

By the court.

In general, the time of an injury being committed, is no more a material part of the complaint, than it is of a contract. Gib. Law Evid. 238. But where a trespass is alleged to have been committed between certain days, it would be a surprise on the defendant, not to confine the proof to the times laid, (Bull. Ni. Pri. 86,) in the first instance; after laying^a reasonable ground to infer an improper connection between the parties, within the limited period, the court will be more liberal afterwards, in receiving other evidence of indecent conduct at different times, tending to show the criminal views and acts of the parties.

The plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.

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

Gardner v. Madeira, 2 Yeates 466 (Pa. 1799).

2 Yeates 466 (Gardner v. Madeira) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilder v. Reno
39 F. Supp. 404 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1941)
Conway v. Nicol
34 Iowa 533 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1872)
Sherwood v. Titman
55 Pa. 77 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1867)
Foulks v. Archer
31 N.J.L. 58 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1864)