State Ex Rel. Medford v. Spence

Superior Court of Delaware

State Ex Rel. Medford v. Spence

2 Del. 348

Superior Court of Delaware·Decided July 5, 1838·Published

Opinion

Hand-writing may be proved by a person who never saw the party write, if he have otherwise a knowledge of the character of his hand-writing.

At the trial a witness was called to prove the hand-writing of the subscribing witness to the bond. He had never seen the party write, but he had seen a long account acknowledged by him to be his handwriting ; and from this he offered to swear to his belief of the signa» *349 ture. The testimony was objected, to and admitted by the court. (See 2 Stark. Ev. 373, &c.)

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

Hand-writing may be proved by a person who never saw the party write, if he have otherwise a knowledge of the character of his hand-writing.

At the trial a witness was called to prove the hand-writing of the subscribing witness to the bond. He had never seen the party write, but he had seen a long account acknowledged by him to be his handwriting ; and from this he offered to swear to his belief of the signa» *349 ture. The testimony was objected, to and admitted by the court. (See 2 Stark. Ev. 373, &c.)

State Ex Rel. Medford v. Spence, 2 Del. 348 (Del. Ct. App. 1838).

Pincite

2 Del. 348 (State Ex Rel. Medford v. Spence) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.