Penfield v. Carpender
13 Johns. 350
Opinion
The admission of such testimony, was illegal and dangerous, and no subsequent caution or advice by the justice,-that the jury ought to. disregard'what the witnesses had sworn', can cure .the irregularity. • The law forbids such testimo;ny, hecaiise it mayAaiie anánfluence upon honest jurors, .who aré unconscious of the impressions which- they retain, inotwith^ standing;.the'effort of the court to obliterate-then}.' V. "
The tazation 'of costs .was alsoillegab
Judgmeht-reversedt-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Penfield v. Carpender, 13 Johns. 350 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1816).
13 Johns. 350 (Penfield v. Carpender) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Seckerson v. Sinclair
140 N.W. 239 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1913)
Chicago City Railway Co. v. White
110 Ill. App. 23 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1903)
Brown v. State
34 S.E. 1031 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1900)
State v. Rover
10 Nev. 388 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1875)
Meyer v. Clark
2 Daly 497 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1869)
Long v. Allen
2 Fla. 403 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1849)
Clark v. Crandall
3 Barb. 612 (New York Supreme Court, 1848)
Allen v. Town of Hancock
16 Vt. 230 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1844)
Hamblett v. Hamblett
6 N.H. 333 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1833)
Tuttle v. Hunt
2 Cow. 436 (New York Supreme Court, 1823)