State v. Hughs

Delaware County Court of Quarter Sessions

State v. Hughs

1 Del. Cas. 7, 1793 Del. LEXIS 1

CourtDelaware County Court of Quarter Sessions

DecidedFebruary 7, 1793

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Del. Cas. 7 (State v. Hughs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Delaware County Court of Quarter Sessions primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Hughs, 1 Del. Cas. 7, 1793 Del. LEXIS 1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1793).

Pincite

Opinion

Objected that he might have restitution, that he was interested, and that the practice had been otherwise; and cited Gilb.Evid. 135, 1 Salk. 283, 2 Hawk.P.C. 433, [2] Str. 728, 1043, 1104. Were cited in answer for the State: 2 Str. 1229, 4 Burr. 2252, and [1] Dall. 110.

Court took the opinion of the Bar who, except Miers Fisher, were against the admission. But the Court (a majority) overruled the objection.

N.B. Although by 2 Str. 1043, 1104, 1229, a party interested in a note can give evidence in a criminal prosecution on it for forgery, perjury etc., yet by 1 Morg.Ess. 271, and 1 Term 296, it seems the law was not so before Chief Justice Lee’s time (vide 2 Hawk.P.C. 610, 611 and 1 Morg.Ess. 438). And to this day if the witness is to be a gainer or loser by the event of the cause, he cannot be a witness; and before 21 Hen.VIII, c. 11, in larceny the party robbed being a witness could not have the stolen goods as per 4 Bl.Comm. 356.

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

Objected that he might have restitution, that he was interested, and that the practice had been otherwise; and cited Gilb.Evid. 135, 1 Salk. 283, 2 Hawk.P.C. 433, [2] Str. 728, 1043, 1104. Were cited in answer for the State: 2 Str. 1229, 4 Burr. 2252, and [1] Dall. 110.

Court took the opinion of the Bar who, except Miers Fisher, were against the admission. But the Court (a majority) overruled the objection.

N.B. Although by 2 Str. 1043, 1104, 1229, a party interested in a note can give evidence in a criminal prosecution on it for forgery, perjury etc., yet by 1 Morg.Ess. 271, and 1 Term 296, it seems the law was not so before Chief Justice Lee’s time (vide 2 Hawk.P.C. 610, 611 and 1 Morg.Ess. 438). And to this day if the witness is to be a gainer or loser by the event of the cause, he cannot be a witness; and before 21 Hen.VIII, c. 11, in larceny the party robbed being a witness could not have the stolen goods as per 4 Bl.Comm. 356.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Del. Cas. 7, 1793 Del. LEXIS 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hughs-paqtrsessdelawa-1793.