Mudd v. Clements

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

Mudd v. Clements

17 F. Cas. 954, 3 D.C. 3, 3 Cranch 3

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1826

StatusPublished

This text of 17 F. Cas. 954 (Mudd v. Clements) 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

Mudd v. Clements, 17 F. Cas. 954, 3 D.C. 3, 3 Cranch 3 (circtddc 1826).

Pincite

Opinion

But the Coukt, {nem. con.) permitted the evidence to be given for the purpose of showing the means by which the defendant accomplished the seduction; and the defendant took a bill of exceptions. See Starkie on Ev. part 4, p. 1309, 1310; Peake’s L. E. 355; and Elliot v. Nicklin, 5 Price, 641.

The defendant’s counsel then prayed the Court to instruct the jury that this action upon the case would not lie, and that the action had been misconceived.

But the Court {nem. con.) refused, saying that they might move it in arrest of judgment, if it were a substantial objection. (See 1 Chitty, Pl. 138 ; 2 Ib. 265, 315, 271, 422; 3 Starkie on Ev. 1307, 1308, Am. Ed. note 1; Bennet v. Alcott, 2 T. R. 167; Woodward v. Walton, 2 N. R. 476; Macfadzen v. Olivant, 6 East, 387; Parker v. Elliot, Gilmer, 33, and S. C. 6 Munf. 587.)

The defendant took his second bill of exceptions.

Verdict for plaintiff $2,000. There was no motion made in arrest of judgment, nor any writ of error issued.

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

But the Coukt, {nem. con.) permitted the evidence to be given for the purpose of showing the means by which the defendant accomplished the seduction; and the defendant took a bill of exceptions. See Starkie on Ev. part 4, p. 1309, 1310; Peake’s L. E. 355; and Elliot v. Nicklin, 5 Price, 641.

The defendant’s counsel then prayed the Court to instruct the jury that this action upon the case would not lie, and that the action had been misconceived.

But the Court {nem. con.) refused, saying that they might move it in arrest of judgment, if it were a substantial objection. (See 1 Chitty, Pl. 138 ; 2 Ib. 265, 315, 271, 422; 3 Starkie on Ev. 1307, 1308, Am. Ed. note 1; Bennet v. Alcott, 2 T. R. 167; Woodward v. Walton, 2 N. R. 476; Macfadzen v. Olivant, 6 East, 387; Parker v. Elliot, Gilmer, 33, and S. C. 6 Munf. 587.)

The defendant took his second bill of exceptions.

Verdict for plaintiff $2,000. There was no motion made in arrest of judgment, nor any writ of error issued.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 F. Cas. 954, 3 D.C. 3, 3 Cranch 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mudd-v-clements-circtddc-1826.