Giles v. Meeks

Alleghany County Court of Common Pleas

Giles v. Meeks

1 Add. 384

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County

DecidedMarch 15, 1799

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Add. 384 (Giles v. Meeks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Giles v. Meeks, 1 Add. 384 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

Opinion

President.

Though we have said, that proof of fraud in the entry of Giles is admissible, yet such proof [386]*386ought to be weighed with scrupulous caution, when set up against an official act. Every reasonable presumption ought to be made in favour of the certificate. It was not uncommon for one to enter the slaves of another his neighbour or friend, without the knowledge of this proper matter. You will consider to which of the witnesses Hull spoke the truth. If you disbelieve the testimony on the part of the plaintiff, or have sufficient ground to believe, that Giles was entered before January, 1783, though Hull knew it not ; you will find for the defendant. But if you believe, that Giles was not entered till after December, 1782, you will find for the plaintiff, notwithstanding the certificate of entry in December, 1782.

The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

Mr. Brackenridge moved for a new trial.

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

President.

Though we have said, that proof of fraud in the entry of Giles is admissible, yet such proof [386]*386ought to be weighed with scrupulous caution, when set up against an official act. Every reasonable presumption ought to be made in favour of the certificate. It was not uncommon for one to enter the slaves of another his neighbour or friend, without the knowledge of this proper matter. You will consider to which of the witnesses Hull spoke the truth. If you disbelieve the testimony on the part of the plaintiff, or have sufficient ground to believe, that Giles was entered before January, 1783, though Hull knew it not ; you will find for the defendant. But if you believe, that Giles was not entered till after December, 1782, you will find for the plaintiff, notwithstanding the certificate of entry in December, 1782.

The jury found a verdict for the defendant.

Mr. Brackenridge moved for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Add. 384, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/giles-v-meeks-pactcomplallegh-1799.