Hall v. Fox

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Hall v. Fox

11 F. Cas. 225, 3 Cranch 64

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedDecember 15, 1826

StatusPublished

This text of 11 F. Cas. 225 (Hall v. Fox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hall v. Fox, 11 F. Cas. 225, 3 Cranch 64 (circtddc 1826).

Pincite

Opinion

But

THE COURT

refused to permit him to be re-examined after tender of the release; saying that as he had already given his testimony, he was interested by all the pains and penalties of perjury, to affirm what he had already testified. But upon looking into 4 Starkie, Ev. 758; Callow v. Mince. 2 Vern. 472; Sikes v. Marshal, 2 Esp. 708; Heyl v. Burling, 1 Caines, 14; Doty v. Wilson, 14 Johns. 378; City Council v. Haywood, 2 Nott & McC. 308, — THE COURT (nem. con.) said it was an objection to the credit, and not to the competency of the witness. The release had been sent to Mr. C. Cox, upon his request by letter, in which he mentioned the name of the witness who was to be released. The release was signed and sealed without a subscribing witness, and a blank left for the name of the witness who was to be released, and inclosed in a letter from Mr. Carter to Mr. Cox, in which he approved of his suggestion to release the witness. Mr. Cox testified to these facts, and that he was acquainted with the handwriting of Mr. Carter, having received many letters from him, [226]*226in answer to liis own, upon business, but had not seen him write. He believed the release and Its signature to be in the handwriting of Mr. Carter. He filled up the blank, as he thought himself authorized to do.

THE COURT said that the execution of the release was sufficiently proved; and permitted the witness to be re-examined.

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

But

THE COURT

refused to permit him to be re-examined after tender of the release; saying that as he had already given his testimony, he was interested by all the pains and penalties of perjury, to affirm what he had already testified. But upon looking into 4 Starkie, Ev. 758; Callow v. Mince. 2 Vern. 472; Sikes v. Marshal, 2 Esp. 708; Heyl v. Burling, 1 Caines, 14; Doty v. Wilson, 14 Johns. 378; City Council v. Haywood, 2 Nott & McC. 308, — THE COURT (nem. con.) said it was an objection to the credit, and not to the competency of the witness. The release had been sent to Mr. C. Cox, upon his request by letter, in which he mentioned the name of the witness who was to be released. The release was signed and sealed without a subscribing witness, and a blank left for the name of the witness who was to be released, and inclosed in a letter from Mr. Carter to Mr. Cox, in which he approved of his suggestion to release the witness. Mr. Cox testified to these facts, and that he was acquainted with the handwriting of Mr. Carter, having received many letters from him, [226]*226in answer to liis own, upon business, but had not seen him write. He believed the release and Its signature to be in the handwriting of Mr. Carter. He filled up the blank, as he thought himself authorized to do.

THE COURT said that the execution of the release was sufficiently proved; and permitted the witness to be re-examined.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 F. Cas. 225, 3 Cranch 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hall-v-fox-circtddc-1826.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack