¶1refused a continuance, because the testimony of the defendant’s witness would not be competent, on the principle that the declarations of a witness not under oath, shall not be adduced against the witness’ declarations on oath. Quaere. See Peake, Ev. 84, 85, and 3 Burrows, 1244. On motion, THE COURT granted a new trial.
11 F. Cas. 583
Harper v. Reily
U.S. District Court
Decided November 15, 1802
U.S. District Court · decided 1802-11-15
Trover for two hogsheads of sugar. The defendant moved for the continuance of the cause to the next term on account of the absence of a witness. The affidavit stated that the witness would prove a conversation be; tween himself and Gilpin, a witness who it was supposed would be produced on the part of the plaintiffs [Harper and Lyles].
Decided 1802-11-15