Case ID: h-mch_2/html/0120-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      The Court\n     \n      The Court\n     \n      The Court\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MAY TERM, 1785.
    The State of Maryland against Charles Ridgely.
    THIS was an indictment for murder. In the course of tjie trial the Court gave the following opinions.
    
      Question. Whether the declaration of the prisoner, antecedent to the fact, is admissible, when it tends to explain and reconcile his conduct?
   The Court

allowed the declaration, tp be evidence. The Court also determined it was improper to mention to the witñess, ifi the course of the examination, What the witné&S sWOrC formerly.

The Court

also determined, that path! evidence is admissible, to prové a man a convict, transported from Great -Arziamf nAd that a convict Cannot be restored to his credit, ‘ without actual service during the seven years.

The Court

also determined, that the declarations of the deceásed, antecedent to the stroke which occasioned the death, are not admissible evidence, and made á distinction between the declarations of the deceased and those of the prisoner. In the latter case declarations are evidence, because they tend to discover quo animo the fact was committed.