Harper v. Smith
This text of 1 D.C. 495 (Harper v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
refused to instruct the jury that the bond produced on oyer was not the bond of J. & D. Douglas, because they supposed the question not material to the issue. The averment in the plea was, in substance, that the bond in the declaration mentioned was executed in pursuance of the corrupt agreement, and the description of the bond, calling it the bond of J. & D. Douglas, was not necessary to be proved, the proof being that the bond in the declaration mentioned was given in execution of the corrupt agreement.
The allegation in the plea was, that the corrupt agreement was made on the day of November, and the evidence was, that the terms of the agreement were concluded in September.
The Court (nem. con.) said the variance was not material.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1 D.C. 495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-smith-dcd-1808.