Guardian of Stephen v. Coleman

Supreme Court of South Carolina

Guardian of Stephen v. Coleman

3 S.C.L. 232

DecidedApril 15, 1803

StatusPublished

This text of 3 S.C.L. 232 (Guardian of Stephen v. Coleman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guardian of Stephen v. Coleman, 3 S.C.L. 232 (S.C. 1803).

Pincite

Opinion

The Court,

Wattes, Bay, and Trezevant, Justices,

[Brevard J,, had been retained in the cause while at the bar, and there,fore gave no opinion,]

refused the motion. 1st, Because although the exemplification was slovenly, and liable to some suspicion, yet it appeared to, be authentic, and was sufficiently full. 2d. Because although the question of identity might very properly have been made at the trial, yet it was a question for the jury to decide and there was evidence which might authorize their decision.

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

The Court,

Wattes, Bay, and Trezevant, Justices,

[Brevard J,, had been retained in the cause while at the bar, and there,fore gave no opinion,]

refused the motion. 1st, Because although the exemplification was slovenly, and liable to some suspicion, yet it appeared to, be authentic, and was sufficiently full. 2d. Because although the question of identity might very properly have been made at the trial, yet it was a question for the jury to decide and there was evidence which might authorize their decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 S.C.L. 232, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guardian-of-stephen-v-coleman-sc-1803.