Waight v. United States

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

Waight v. United States

28 F. Cas. 1337, 1844 U.S. App. LEXIS 442

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia

DecidedJune 4, 1844

StatusPublished

This text of 28 F. Cas. 1337 (Waight v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Waight v. United States, 28 F. Cas. 1337, 1844 U.S. App. LEXIS 442 (circtddc 1844).

Pincite

Opinion

This cause being argued by counsel,

THE COURT

gave the following opinion:

That the criminal court did not err in allowing evidence to go to the jury that the prisoner had represented himself to the Rev. Dr. Haw-ley, a witness in the cause, as a son of the collector of the port of St. Johns, Nova Scotia, or that the prisoner had represented himself to James M. Cutts. another witness in the cause, as being named Scott. But the criminal court erred in allowing evidence to go to the jury that the prisoner had obtained money from the said Dr. Hawley by means of the representations set out in the bill of exceptions. The judgment of the criminal court was reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to award a venire facias de novo.

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

This cause being argued by counsel,

THE COURT

gave the following opinion:

That the criminal court did not err in allowing evidence to go to the jury that the prisoner had represented himself to the Rev. Dr. Haw-ley, a witness in the cause, as a son of the collector of the port of St. Johns, Nova Scotia, or that the prisoner had represented himself to James M. Cutts. another witness in the cause, as being named Scott. But the criminal court erred in allowing evidence to go to the jury that the prisoner had obtained money from the said Dr. Hawley by means of the representations set out in the bill of exceptions. The judgment of the criminal court was reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to award a venire facias de novo.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 F. Cas. 1337, 1844 U.S. App. LEXIS 442, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waight-v-united-states-circtddc-1844.