In re Gephard

Decided July 15, 1799

New York Supreme Court · decided 1799-07-15

Hopkins moved, on an affidavit, stating that Gephard had been removed by the court of common pleas of the county of Delaware, from the office of an attorney of that court, for a rule, that the judges of that court show cause by the first day of the next term, why a mandamus should not issue commanding them to restore him to his office.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1799-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1878

2 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The affidavit is insufficient. It is not shown that the court below acted improperly, or that the fact charged against Gephard, on which hé was removed, was founded in error or mistake.(a)

¶2The motion must be denied.

¶3N. B. The affidavit was afterwards amended, on which the court granted the rule.

¶4 The affidavit should contain a precise substance of facts, and it will be insufficient if the allegations be not so positive, that an indictment for perjury could be maintained upon them if false. Rex v. Sargent, 5 T. R. 466 It must also appear that the applicant is entitled to the relief he prays. Rex v. Bishop of Oxford, 7 East, 345.