Walthol v. Johnson
6 Va. 232
Opinion
There was nothing improper in submiting the evidence to the jury: But it might have been otherwise, if it had been gaming, usury or any other thing of that nature, which was to have been proved.
Judgment affirmed.
[* See Vaughn's adm'r. v. Winckler's ex'r. 4 Munf. 136; Lewis v. Long, 3 Munf. 136; Canty v. Sumter, 2 Bay, 93; Frear v. Evertson, 20 Johns. R. 142; and Carr, J. in Ben et al. v. Peete, 2 Rand./ 547-549.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Walthol v. Johnson, 6 Va. 232 (Va. Ct. App. 1800).
6 Va. 232 (Walthol v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Vaughan's Administrator v. Winckler's
4 Munf. 136 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1814)