Case ID: del-cas_1/html/0359-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "[Per] Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE v. FARSONS, a Negro Man.
    Court of Quarter Sessions. Kent.
    May, 1794.
    
      Bayard’s Notebook, 85.
      
    
    
      
      Bayard, for the State,
    objected to the competency of the witness on the ground of the Act of Assembly, February, 1787 12 Del.Laws 887], and cited Collins v. Hall, ante. Miller, for defendant, relied on the case of the State v. Bender, ante, and stated that Hut was the only witness present at the transaction.
    
      
       This case is also reported in Wilson’s Red Book, 21.
      
    
   [Per] Curiam.

Collins v. Hall has no application to this case; the State v. Bender was decided on the principle of necessity. The witness is not seeking redress and therefore not within the clause in the Act of Assembly relied on by the court in the State v. Bender. We consider him incompetent on the ground of the Act of Assembly.