¶1There is nothing erroneous in the judgment complained of; the concealment of Helms’ interest, *94and producing him as a witness, whereby the acquittal was procured, was a fraud and imposition, not only upon the libellant, but upon the law and upon the court, for which cause a new trial ought to be granted.
1 Root 93
Pruden v. Northrup
Decided July 1, 1784
Connecticut Superior Court · decided 1784-07-01
Wkit op ERROR is brought to reverse a judgment of the Maritime Court in granting a new trial upon tlie petition of Northrup v. Pruden, etc. alleging that be seized and libeled a certain vessel and cargo, belonging to them, for contravening the Embargo Laws; and that upon trial the vessel and cargo was acquitted: That be has since discovered that one Helms, who was the principal witness for the claimants, and by whoso testimony the vessel, etc. was cleared, was interested in…
Decided 1784-07-01