State v. Hunt

Decided April 15, 1796

Supreme Court of New Jersey · decided 1796-04-15

<p>Where the Sessions have made a return to a certiorari which was adjudged incomplete, and another return made, the court will not refer to the first in order to settle any ambiguity in the second; but a rule may be taken upon the Sessions to amend their second return.</p>

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently May 1934

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1796-04-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

The Court

¶1were of this opinion, and refused to hear the first return read, considering it as a nullity.

¶2The Attorney-General then applied for permission to enter a rule upon the Sessions, requiring them to amend their return in this particular, by certifying the time when, &c., which was opposed by Stockton, on the ground that it was too late, this return having been filed so long ago as September term last.

Per Curiam.

¶3If any fact of importance in the case appears doubtful on the return, the Attorney-General ought to have leave to suggest it on the record, and to have the ambiguity removed.

¶4Eule granted.