¶1delivered the unanimous opinion of all the judges, that the District Court had properly allowed the defendant to plead the additional plea. That it did not appear that any serious inconvenience would result from allowing several distinct and apparently inconsistent pleas, and the courts have been of late liberally inclined to allow them, where they do not appear to be intended to delay or embarrass, and may be necessary or properly advantageous for the defendant.
4 S.C.L. 163
Hamilton v. Waring
Supreme Court of South Carolina
Decided April 15, 1807
Supreme Court of South Carolina · decided 1807-04-15
Debt on bond. Plea, non est factum. At the first court, after issue joined, in Richland district, before Bkevakd, J., on motion in behalf of the defendant, he was allowed to plead in addition to the general issue, performance oí the condition of the bond. The bond was conditioned for the due performance of the duties of commissioner oí the public treasury. This additional plea was objected to as inconsistent, and incompatible, but the objection was overruled.
Decided 1807-04-15