Case ID: njl_8/html/0104-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John I. Jones v. Jonathan Oliver.
    The judgment of a justice in favor of Oliver against Jones brought into this court by certiorari returned to - term, 1813, having been affirmed at November term, 1823, William Halsted for Jones now moved that satisfaction of the judgment of affirmance should be entered, and produced a receipt, dated 2d January, 1814, and divers affidavits to prove the handwriting of Oliver to the receipt, and other matters to establish its validity. Vroom, for Oliver resisted the motion, on the ground that the receipt was a forgery, read divers affidavits to prove that the handwriting was not that of Oliver, to discredit the subscribing witness Samuel Broatman, and to disprove the facts contained in the affidavits on the part of Jones in corroboration of the receipt; He prayed the court to impound the receipt declaring it to be the intention of Oliver to apply to the Grand Jury for an indictment against Jones.
   By the Court

It has been truly remarked by one of the ■counsel that the present case is a pure question of fact, involving many important considerations of the genuineness of handwriting, of the credibility of witnesses, and a variety of contradictory testimony. It is much to be desired therefore that it should be brought before that tribunal so congenial to the feelings and habits of the country, and so well adapted to decide questions of fact, a jury; but to direct an issue would expose the parties to unwarrantable expense, and to stay or set aside the execution which has been issued, leaving Oliver to an action upon the judgment of affirmance, would afford a mode of trial probably by no means satisfactory : moreover it is stated by the counsel of Oliver to be his determination to prosecute Jones on a criminal charge, and an expression of opinion on our part respecting the receipt would create an influence on the one side or the .utter; we stall therefore suspend the decision on the present .application until after the next Oyer and Terminer of the proper county, and direct the receipt to be placed in the hands of the clerk of this court that it may be produced there if required. If an indictment is not found, we shall render our decision; if found, we shall await its trial. In directing this course we are not to be considered as intimating any opinion against the validity of the receipt, nor do we recommend the prosecution of an indictment.