State v. Carr

Supreme Court of New Jersey

State v. Carr

1 N.J.L. 1

DecidedApril 15, 1790

StatusPublished

This text of 1 N.J.L. 1 (State v. Carr) 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.

Bluebook

State v. Carr, 1 N.J.L. 1 (N.J. 1790).

Pincite

Opinion

The court overruled the motion and rejected the witness.

Note. — In an information for a misdemeanor, the Attorney-General offered to examine one of the defendants as a witness for the king, which the court would not permit until a nolle prosequi was entered. Bull. N. P. 285. And where one was through mistake made a party, the court gave permission, after issue joined, to strike his name from the record, and admitted him as a witness. Siderjin 441. So where one was made a defendant for the express purpose of excluding his testimony, if nothing he proved against him, he may be admitted as a witness. Bull. N. P. 285. But the [2]*2fact must clearly appear that there is no evidence to inculpate him. Addison 352, Pennsylvania v. Leach. And where a verdict has passed against a defendant, or for him, or he has suffered judgment to go by d e-fault, (Bull. 285,) or on submission has been fined, (Rex v. Fletcher, 1 Str. 633,) he is a competent witness. In such case the confessions of the party who makes default, may be given in evidence to show the amount of damages. Bostwick v. Lewis, 1 Day’s Cases 33. See Peake's Evid. 160; Gilb. Evid. 134; Stockham, v. Jones et al., 10 Johns. 21; The People v. Rill, 10 Johns. 95 ; 2 Caines 79, nota; 2 Campbell N. P. 333, nota.

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

The court overruled the motion and rejected the witness.

Note. — In an information for a misdemeanor, the Attorney-General offered to examine one of the defendants as a witness for the king, which the court would not permit until a nolle prosequi was entered. Bull. N. P. 285. And where one was through mistake made a party, the court gave permission, after issue joined, to strike his name from the record, and admitted him as a witness. Siderjin 441. So where one was made a defendant for the express purpose of excluding his testimony, if nothing he proved against him, he may be admitted as a witness. Bull. N. P. 285. But the [2]*2fact must clearly appear that there is no evidence to inculpate him. Addison 352, Pennsylvania v. Leach. And where a verdict has passed against a defendant, or for him, or he has suffered judgment to go by d e-fault, (Bull. 285,) or on submission has been fined, (Rex v. Fletcher, 1 Str. 633,) he is a competent witness. In such case the confessions of the party who makes default, may be given in evidence to show the amount of damages. Bostwick v. Lewis, 1 Day’s Cases 33. See Peake's Evid. 160; Gilb. Evid. 134; Stockham, v. Jones et al., 10 Johns. 21; The People v. Rill, 10 Johns. 95 ; 2 Caines 79, nota; 2 Campbell N. P. 333, nota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.J.L. 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-carr-nj-1790.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack