Little v. Arrowsmith
This text of 16 N.J.L. 221 (Little v. Arrowsmith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
This was an action brought by Arrowsmith, as overseer of the highway, against Little, to recover a penalty under the 33d Beat, of the act concerning roads, R. L. 625. On the trial, the Justice admitted Arrowsmith to be sworn as a witness in support of his action • and upon his evidence, gave judgment against the defendant below. The. Justice states on his docket, that he admitted Arrowsmith as a witness, because by the statute, the money when recovered is to be expended on the road, and therefore Arrowsmith had no interest in the event of the suit. In this the Justice was mistaken. Arrowsmith was directly interested, for if he failed to recover, he was liable for costs. Besides, a plaintiff in a suit at law, can never be a witness in his own case. Let the Judgment be reversed.
Judgment Reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
16 N.J.L. 221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/little-v-arrowsmith-nj-1837.