Rogers v. Bullock
This text of 3 N.J.L. 517 (Rogers v. Bullock) 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
Whatever may be the practiee laid down in the books, our statute gives the rule. A witness, to be entitled to protection from arrest, must be necessarily attending court or going to or from it, under a subpoena “previously and duly executed.”
It was also attempted to be made out, that although the defendant was not a party in the suit, yet that he was so connected with it, and had such a relation to it, as rendered his attendance necessary, and on that ground was entitled to privilege. This was not satisfactorily made out; and besides
[110]*110The court said that it was repugnant to the idea held out of his being attending as a witness.
Rule refused.
Criticised in Dungan v. Miller, 8 Vr. 183.
Cited in Jones v. Knauss, 4 Stew. 213.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
3 N.J.L. 517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-bullock-nj-1809.