State v. Williams
This text of 2 Del. 532 (State v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
One purchasing restitution money is not a competent witness; thoughthe party entitled to restitution is so from necessity. John Williams was charged with stealing the goods of Charles B. Harris, of the value of $15. Jacob E, Griffin was offered as a witness for the state; and, being examined on the voire dire, he stated that he had given Harris $20, for the restitution money that should be adjudged. The court held him not to be a competent witness. The owner of goods stolen is from necessity, and from motives of public policy, a competent witness; but there was no such necessity for the admission of a speculator. Such a purchase is an improper interference with public justice, and should not be encouraged. State vs.Williams. Kent, April Sessions, 1836.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 Del. 532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-williams-delsuperct-1836.