Richardson v. Golden

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

Richardson v. Golden

20 F. Cas. 709, 3 Wash. C. C. 109

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 15, 1811

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 20 F. Cas. 709 (Richardson v. Golden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richardson v. Golden, 20 F. Cas. 709, 3 Wash. C. C. 109 (circtdpa 1811).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COÜBT.

Both objections are good. The first has been often decided here. The second is supported on this ground, that the mode pursued in this case, is calculated to produce perjury. It is worse than asking [710]*710leading questions, or telling the witness what to say; because, he is here reminded of the necessity of swearing to what he has before stated, or of suffering in his credit. The answers to these questions cannot be read.

The parties, by consent, withdrew a juror.

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

BY THE COÜBT.

Both objections are good. The first has been often decided here. The second is supported on this ground, that the mode pursued in this case, is calculated to produce perjury. It is worse than asking [710]*710leading questions, or telling the witness what to say; because, he is here reminded of the necessity of swearing to what he has before stated, or of suffering in his credit. The answers to these questions cannot be read.

The parties, by consent, withdrew a juror.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 F. Cas. 709, 3 Wash. C. C. 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richardson-v-golden-circtdpa-1811.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack