Case ID: johns_5/html/0351-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

White and Hall against Hawn.
    í 'ttv; ¡ evidence, by a justice, ofa record of a former trial, and judgment be. tween the same parties before hi.u, is illegal; and if objected to at the time, is sufficient ground for reversing hí¡i judgment.
    IN error, on certiorari. The defendant below pleaded a former judgment in bar, and on the trial, the justice (who was the same justice before whom the former trial between the same parties was had) gave parol evidence of his own record, though the plaintiffs objected to such evidence.
    Hildreth, for the plaintiff in error.
    Cady, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The mode of proving the former trial and judgment was incompetent; and being objected to, ought not to have been permitted. In the case of Lawrence v. Houghton, (5 Johns. Rep. 129.) no objection was made to such proof, at the trial. The judgment below must be reversed,

Judgment reversed.