State v. Bower
40 A. 939, 17 Del. 302, 1 Penne. 302, 1898 Del. LEXIS 24
Opinion
The execution is his only authority. What the witness may say has nothing to do with it. He says he was authorized and had a right to be there. The defendant says he had not, and the only way to show that he had a right to be there is to produce the paper by which that authority is shown.
The testimony later developed that the prosecuting witness first put his hands upon the defendant, and the State thereupon entered a nolle prosequi.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Bower, 40 A. 939, 17 Del. 302, 1 Penne. 302, 1898 Del. LEXIS 24 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1898).
40 A. 939 (State v. Bower) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Garboctowski v. State
123 A. 395 (Supreme Court of Delaware, 1923)
State v. Sage
126 P. 403 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1912)
Wooddell v. Territory of Arizona
187 F. 739 (Ninth Circuit, 1911)
State v. Brewington
78 A. 402 (New York Court of General Session of the Peace, 1910)