People v. Newman

New York Supreme Court

People v. Newman

5 Hill & Den. 295

DecidedMay 15, 1843

StatusPublished

This text of 5 Hill & Den. 295 (People v. Newman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Newman, 5 Hill & Den. 295 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1843).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It seems to be settled in this court, that nothing short of the witness’ death can be received to let in his testimony given on a former trial. (Powell v. Waters, 17 John. 176; Wilbur v. Selden, 6 Cowen, 162; and see Jackson v. Bailey, 2 John. 17; Beals v. Guernsey, 8 id. 446; White v. Kibling, 11 id. 128; Crary v. Sprague, 12 Wend. 41, 44, 5.) But if the rule were otherwise in respect to civil cases, we are of opinion that it should not be applied to criminal proceedings. This was expressly adjudged in Finn v. The Commonwealth, (5 Rand. 701, 708.) It was there said by Brockenbrough, J, that even the death of the witness would not, in a criminal case, be allowed as a reason for receiving his former testimony; (and see 2 Ev. Poth. 229; 1 Tenn. Rep. (Overt.) 229;) though a different opinion was intimated in Crary v. Sprague, (12 Wend. 44, 5.) It is not now necessary, however, to decide that point, the present case being one of mere absence from the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

New trial granted.

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

Per Curiam.

It seems to be settled in this court, that nothing short of the witness’ death can be received to let in his testimony given on a former trial. (Powell v. Waters, 17 John. 176; Wilbur v. Selden, 6 Cowen, 162; and see Jackson v. Bailey, 2 John. 17; Beals v. Guernsey, 8 id. 446; White v. Kibling, 11 id. 128; Crary v. Sprague, 12 Wend. 41, 44, 5.) But if the rule were otherwise in respect to civil cases, we are of opinion that it should not be applied to criminal proceedings. This was expressly adjudged in Finn v. The Commonwealth, (5 Rand. 701, 708.) It was there said by Brockenbrough, J, that even the death of the witness would not, in a criminal case, be allowed as a reason for receiving his former testimony; (and see 2 Ev. Poth. 229; 1 Tenn. Rep. (Overt.) 229;) though a different opinion was intimated in Crary v. Sprague, (12 Wend. 44, 5.) It is not now necessary, however, to decide that point, the present case being one of mere absence from the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

New trial granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 Hill & Den. 295, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-newman-nysupct-1843.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack