Case Name: MONFORT against HOGLAND
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1806-11
Citations: 2 N.J.L. 145
Docket Number: 
Parties: [106] MONFORT against HOGLAND.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 134–135

Head Matter:
[106] MONFORT against HOGLAND.
ON CJEETIOEAEI.
One reason assigned for the reversal of this judgment, was, that the justice refused to nonsuit the plaintiff below, for that the plaintiff did not prove his demand, as stated before the justice. But it appeared, that a number of witnesses wei'e examined, in support of plaintiff’s demand. The court could not say, but that the justice did right in suffering the cause to go to the jury. The principal reason, however, relied on by the plaintiff’s counsel, for reversing the judgment of the justice, was, that the justice admitted illegal evidence .to go to the jury.. To make this out, he stated that one of the charges in the state of demand, was founded on a pretended agreement between the plaintiff and defendant below, that if the plaintiff below, would take up a certain note, given by the defendant below, to one Martha Hogland, that he, the defendant would pay him the money for the note. That to prove this agreement, William Hogland, an executor to Johannis Hogland, deceased, was called as a witness. That 'this William Hogland, as executor as aforesaid, had assigned the note in question, to the plaintiff below; and therefore, was called to support his own interest, as the note might come back on [*] him. It did not appear how the executors of Johannis Hogland, had as such, any concern with the property of Martha Hogland, nor what relation Martha and Johannis stood in to each other. It appeared, however, from the transcript of the justice, that the plaintiff below had released the witness, and that the justice admitted him to be sworn and examined. The interest of the witness was no way satisfactorily made out.
M’Donald, for plaintiff.

Opinion:
Kirkpatrick, C. J.
— Upon inspecting the return of the justice, I see no cause of reversal.
Rossele and Pekkikgtoh, Justices, concurred.
Judgment affirmed.