State v. Williams

Superior Court of Delaware

State v. Williams

2 Del. 532

Superior Court of Delaware·Decided April 5, 1836·Published

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

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.

State v. Williams, 2 Del. 532 (Del. Ct. App. 1836).

Pincite

2 Del. 532 (State v. Williams) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.