Case ID: h-j_4/html/0440-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hambleton vs. Tenant.
    whereih&.iudg. ty courtis revers-rem1ttednSw¡thaia writ of ’proceden-• coiu-u a'?dConnta man gi'vi du'te-mentón the «ame Xme^withThe Í“dstí"entcouftVofas appeals — such plaf,mraust °be aP¿ Srmed. ■
    -Appeal from Talbot County Court. This cause was before this court at December term 1811, (3 Harr. & Johns. on the appeal of the now appellee, and the judgment the county court was reversed, and the case remitted to that court, with a writ of procedendo directing a new trial, At the new trial in November 1816, the same testimony was offered in evidence by the parties which had been offered by them in the former trial. And to the reading in evidence the deposition of E. N. Hambieton, the defendant,' the first trial again objected, on the ground of-its being illegal and incompetent evidence, and that it was in the nature of parol evidence, tending to contradict or substantially vary the legal operation of the patent of the tract of land called Neglect,, and prayed the court that it might not be read: But the court, {Earle, Ch. J. and Worrell, A. J.] were of opinion, (considering themselves bound by the judgment of the Court of Appeals, delivered upon the same point in the bill of exceptions heretofore taken in the same cause) that the deposition was legal and competent evidence, and ought to be read, suffered it to be read to the jury. The defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this 'court.
    ' The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. and Johnson, Martin,' and Dorsey, J.
   JUDGMENT AFFIRMED 
      
      
        ) The reason for affirming the judgment in this case is given by the court in Clerklee vs. Mundell’s Lessee, (Post.)