Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

SAME CAUSE, 2 U.S. 143 (1792)

SAME CAUSE, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 143 (1792)

Type: Opinion
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1792-01-01
Topic: general

SAME CAUSE, 2 U.S. 143 (1792) SAME CAUSE JANUARY TERM, 1792. IN order to prove certain passengers, imported by the defendant into the State, to be convicts, and to have undergone punishment, in the Spiel-House of Hamburg, in Germany, a commission to examine witnesses in that city had been taken out. This was returned by the commissioners, containing a written report of the names of the persons confined in the Spiel-House, in 1786, and of the offences for which they had been convicted, certified by a clerk of the Chancery, to have been signed by the late directors of the Spiel-House, in his presence, and that of the commissioners. The return was objected to, and, BY THE COURT: — This is not a good execution of the commission. The testimony is not taken under oath: And, as to the paper being evidence in itself, it is not an official paper, certified by the proper officers, who had, at that time, the custody of the Spiel-House, or of the books.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed SAME CAUSE, 2 U.S. 143 (1792). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

SAME CAUSE,2 U.S. 143(1792)

SAME CAUSE

JANUARY TERM, 1792.

IN order to prove certain passengers, imported by the defendant into the State, to be convicts, and to have undergone punishment, in theSpiel-HouseofHamburg, inGermany, a commission to examine witnesses in that city had been taken out. This was returned by the commissioners, containing a written report of the names of the persons confined in theSpiel-House, in 1786, and of the offences for which they had been convicted,Page 144certified by a clerk of the Chancery, to have been signed by the late directors of theSpiel-House, in his presence, and that of the commissioners. The return was objected to, and,

BY THE COURT: — This is not a good execution of the commission. The testimony is not taken under oath: And, as to the paper being evidence in itself, it is not anofficialpaper, certified by the proper officers, who had, at that time, the custody of theSpiel-House, or of the books. They stile themselves thelatedirectors. This paper, therefore, is not admissible as evidence.