1764.
April Term, 1764.
| Preſent | William Coleman, | Juſtices. |
| Alexander Stedman, |
The Leſſee of Albertson verſus Robeson.
Moved to admit a Witneſs to prove the Age of the Plaintiff, his Brother (about ſixty Years old) from the hearſay of their Father and Mother. Oppoſed, and refuſed by the Court.
The Votes of Aſſembly were admitted to prove the time of the notification of the Repeal of an Act of Aſſembly by the King and Council. But not anſwering the purpoſe fully, the Minutes of Council were ſent for, and given in evidence without oppoſition.
N.B. The Defendant ſupported his Title under a Decree of a Court of Chancery eſtabished by Act of Aſſembly; the Decree was a made two Months after the Act was repealed by the King and Council, but ſix Weeks before we had Notice of it.
The Court gave it in charge of the Jury, that the Act was not repealed, till Notification here; and the Jury were of the ſame opinion, by finding a Verdict for the Defendant.
The King verſus Philip Henry Rapp.
Indictment for Miſdemeanor, in marrying a Man to a Woman who had another Huſband living.—Moved, on the Part of the Defendant, to put off the Trial on Affidavit of material Witneſſes wanting, and that he had taken the proper ſteps to get them.–Oppoſed by the Attorney General, as being a criminal Caſe, and not within the Rules of civil Caſes. But granted by the Court, the Defendant being a Clergyman, and his Living depending on his acquittal: but declared not to be a Precedent.[1]
The King verſus Haas and others.
- ↑ In Rex verſus D’Eon 3 Burr 1513. The Court ſaid that in all Caſes, whether criminal, or civil, a Trial ſhall not be hurried on, so as to do injuſtice to the defendant.
