¶1The verdict in this case stands upon the testimony of a witness who proved the demand, and who has denied in his answer, that any part thereof was for gaming, notwithstanding the proof to the contrary and hr *480knowledge of the fact: a verdict therefore under such circumstances ought not to be relied upon, and a new trial was ordered.
4 Va. 479
Verdier v. Hume
Decided February 15, 1810
Virginia Chancery Court · decided 1810-02-15
THERE was an injunction m this case, as to 3Si. 17s. . , , . „ part of a judgment at law against the puuntih,;«lavour oí one of the defendants, which the bill alleged was won at gaming, and that thej'udgment was obtained upon the testimonyof the other defendant, who, it ivas alleged, ivas a partner of the plaintiff at law, of which a discovery was sought. The answer denied the partnership, or that any 3 inoney was won at gaming.
Decided 1810-02-15