Van Deusen v. Van Slyck

New York Supreme Court

Van Deusen v. Van Slyck

15 Johns. 223

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1818

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 15 Johns. 223 (Van Deusen v. Van Slyck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Van Deusen v. Van Slyck, 15 Johns. 223 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case comes before the court on a writ of error to the common pleas of Montgomery county. It was an action of assault and battery; and upon the trial no evidence having been given against the defendant, John G. Van Deusen, application was made to the court for his discharge, that he might be examined as a witness for the other defendant. The court admitted that there was no testimony against him upon which he could be found guilty, but decided that they could not discharge him, because both defendants had joined in one plea. In this they erred. In actions for torts against several, although they join in the plea of not guilty, one may be found guilty and the other not guilty. The rule has been long and well settled, in such actions, that where there is no evidence against one of the defendants, he is entitled to his discharge, and may be examined as a witness for the other defendants. If this were not allowed, great injustice might be done by including witnesses in the suit, for the express purpose of shutting out their testimony. (2 Esp. Dig. 364. Phil. Ev. 61. 6 Bin. 316. 14 Johns. Rep. 122.) The judgment must, accordingly, be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

This case comes before the court on a writ of error to the common pleas of Montgomery county. It was an action of assault and battery; and upon the trial no evidence having been given against the defendant, John G. Van Deusen, application was made to the court for his discharge, that he might be examined as a witness for the other defendant. The court admitted that there was no testimony against him upon which he could be found guilty, but decided that they could not discharge him, because both defendants had joined in one plea. In this they erred. In actions for torts against several, although they join in the plea of not guilty, one may be found guilty and the other not guilty. The rule has been long and well settled, in such actions, that where there is no evidence against one of the defendants, he is entitled to his discharge, and may be examined as a witness for the other defendants. If this were not allowed, great injustice might be done by including witnesses in the suit, for the express purpose of shutting out their testimony. (2 Esp. Dig. 364. Phil. Ev. 61. 6 Bin. 316. 14 Johns. Rep. 122.) The judgment must, accordingly, be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Johns. 223, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-deusen-v-van-slyck-nysupct-1818.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack