Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 Vt. 657

Barnard v. Flanders

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided April 15, 1840

Supreme Court of Vermont · decided 1840-04-15

This was an action on the case. The plaintiff, in his declaration, alleged in substance, that on the 20th day of March, 1838, one Abner K. White prayed out a writ of attachment in his favor, against Barnard, the plaintiff in this suit, made returnable before the defendant, Flanders, a justice of the peace within and for the county of Lamoille, at J. Sawyer’s office, in Hydepark, on the second Thursday of April, 1838; that said writ was duly served upon the said Barnard, and…

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1840-04-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently October 1880

3 state decisions

1018401850186018701880decided

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 →

¶1. The opinion of the court was delivered by

Williams, Ch. J.

¶2— The present action was instituted against the defendant, complaining of his conduct as a justice of the peace, in a suit wherein one White was plaintiff and the said Asa Barnard defendant. The defendant introduced a certified copy of the record in that action, and the question is, whether it was admissible in evidence, and what was its effect ? If it became necessary in the trial, to show the proceedings in that case, or any part of them, the record was evidence. They could only be shown by the record, and I can see no objections to its being introduced, either on the one side or the other. If the suit of White v. Barnard, had proceeded so far as to authorize or require the justice to make a record, such record was the proper if not the only evidence to show it. There was no valid objection, therefore, to the admission of the original files and minutes and the certified copy of the record, and none appears to have been made in the county court. When admitted, it is to have the same effect as other records, and cannot be impeached or falsified by parol testimony in any case collaterally, when it is introduced in evidence. In the case read from the 12th of East, 67, no record was introduced, nor is a magistrate’s court, in England a court of record. In that case, however, the conviction protected the magistrate. It was of no consequence when the record was made and put into form. The parol testimony, which was offered to invalidate the record and show it to be false, was not admissible, and the court would not have been justified in permitting the party to argue to the jury a question arising on the papers produced, and on which it was the exclusive province of the court to decide. The judgment of the county court is, therefore, affirmed.

/12/vt/657 · .json · Public domain