Case ID: del-cas_1/html/0207-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bassett, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAM RICKARDS v. THOMAS RICKARDS and ELIAS RICKARDS.
    Court of Common Pleas.
    November 20, 1798.
    
      Wilson’s Red Book, 222.
    
    
      
      Ridgely for plaintiff. Wilson for defendants.
    Evidence. That defendants claimed the rollers. Plaintiff was in possession of them. They were found cut in the morning, when many people had come to assist plaintiff to move his vessel. That one of defendants had said he could cut them, and that plaintiff would find himself brought to bed of a mistake.
   Bassett, C. J.

The counsel do not materially differ in their statements of the law. Although the justification plea must of itself confess the fact, yet it is often put in with non culpa and does not confess the fact under that issue. Violent presumption amounts to full proof; [the] probable is to be regarded. Wherever the presumptive evidence satisfies the mind that the fact was the one way or the other, that is sufficient. There are a variety of cases of that kind that excludes full proof, and in such cases what is sufficient to satisfy you of the fact, that is sufficient evidence.

Verdict, twenty dollars.