Trelawny v. Keynell

Circuit Court of North Carolina

Trelawny v. Keynell

1 N.C. 116

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of North Carolina·Decided July 1, 1793·Published

Opinion

Jones, J.

In the Common Bench, if the original be bad, it is amendable by statute. But I doubt how this can be taken to be the same writ; and if it is not, then it is no writ at all. But in this court, there can be no doubt; for now it is certified and it appears to be the fame writ; and therefore it is not amendable.

Doderidge, J. concurred.

Nevertheless a day was given over. Postea, p. 225. 259.

Rolls cited Pollard’s and Blygh’s case 10 Jac. supporting Justice Jones’ opinion. Crew, C. J. and Whitlock, J. absent. 2 Cr. 479. 674. Palm. 428.

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

Jones, J.

In the Common Bench, if the original be bad, it is amendable by statute. But I doubt how this can be taken to be the same writ; and if it is not, then it is no writ at all. But in this court, there can be no doubt; for now it is certified and it appears to be the fame writ; and therefore it is not amendable.

Doderidge, J. concurred.

Nevertheless a day was given over. Postea, p. 225. 259.

Rolls cited Pollard’s and Blygh’s case 10 Jac. supporting Justice Jones’ opinion. Crew, C. J. and Whitlock, J. absent. 2 Cr. 479. 674. Palm. 428.

Trelawny v. Keynell, 1 N.C. 116 (circtnc 1793).

Pincite

1 N.C. 116 (Trelawny v. Keynell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.