Hunscom v. Hunscom
15 Mass. 184
Opinion
The disbelief of a future state of existence goes only to the credibility of a witness
This was a libel for a divorce a vinculo. On the trial, a witness being offered to prove the adultery, Wilson, for the respondent, objected to his being sworn, and founded his objection to the competency of the witness upon his professed disbelief of a future state of existence, and offered to prove his repeated declarations of such disbelief. But the Court admitted him to be sworn, and said the objection went only to his credibility,
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Hunscom v. Hunscom, 15 Mass. 184 (Mass. 1818).
15 Mass. 184 (Hunscom v. Hunscom) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Abercrombie
126 S.E. 142 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1925)
State v. Belton
24 S.C. 185 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1886)
Central Military Tract Railroad v. Rockafellow
17 Ill. 541 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1856)
Thurston v. Whitney
56 Mass. 104 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1848)
United States v. Kennedy
26 F. Cas. 761 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Illinois, 1843)
Smith v. Coffin
18 Me. 157 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1841)
Cubbison v. M'Creary
2 Watts & Serg. 262 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1841)
Blocker v. Burness
2 Ala. 354 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1841)
Brock v. Milligan
10 Ohio St. 121 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1840)
State v. Townsend
2 Del. 543 (Superior Court of Delaware, 1837)
Atwood v. Welton
7 Conn. 66 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1828)
Butts v. Swartwood
2 Cow. 431 (New York Supreme Court, 1823)