Torrence v. Van Emburg

2 N.J.L. 106
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided September 15, 1806·Published

Opinion

By the Court.

— Here was a trial in the absence of the defendant, and no witness examined; the state of demand was not susceptible of proof in any other way than by witnesses, or the confession of the defendant. The defendant not being present, could have made no confession. So that here is a judgment, without evidence. It must therefore be reversed.

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

Torrence v. Van Emburg, 2 N.J.L. 106 (N.J. 1806).

2 N.J.L. 106 (Torrence v. Van Emburg) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.