8 Johns. 77
Decided May 15, 1811
New York Supreme Court · decided 1811-05-15
THE facts of this case were the same as in the preceding cause. The proof was, that the defendant had . . said, “ that his watch had been stolen at the widow Millev's, and that he had reason to believe that Tina Mdler had taken it.”
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1811-05-15
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently April 1877
3 state decisions
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 →
¶1This case brings up only one of the points decided in the last case, which is, whether after the charge of the plaintiff in error, that his watch had been stolen, the addition of the words, “ and he had reason to believe that the defendant in error took it,” is not a positive averment of the fact. The principle already laid down in the preceding case, is decisive in the present; and the judgment must be affirmed.
¶2Judgment affirmed.