Case Name: Van Vechten against Hopkins
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1807-05
Citations: 2 Johns. 293
Docket Number: 
Parties: Van Vechten against Hopkins.
Judges: Tompkins, J. gave no opinion.
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 293–293

Head Matter:
Van Vechten against Hopkins.
A defendant in an action for a libel, was beld to bail for 1,000 dollars, by order of a judge, on an affidavit, stating that he was a traji- ■ slent person, and resided out of the state, and the. 'AOurt, on mb" tion, refused* discharge bim on ñling a eommj’n ap« pearance.
RlKER moved to discharge the defendant in this cause, on filing common bail,' or to reduce the sum for which he had been held to bail on his arrest. The action brought against the defendant was for a libel. ■ The publication was admitted in the affidavit of the defendant. The libellous paper was an affidavit of the defendant, signed by him, stating a conversation as heard by the defendant, between the plaintiff and another person, relative to articles of coalition between certain federalists and the friends of Governor Lewis, by which the latter engaged to support a federal candidate for governor, in the election for 1810, if the former would support governor Lewis at the approaching election, and which agreement in writing the defendant pretended to have seen in the office of the plaintiff.
On an affidavit, stating that the defendant was a tran-i sient person,'.and resided out of the state of New-Yorlc, the chief justice had granted an order to hold him to bail in the sum of one thousand dollars.
Riggs, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The publication charges the plaintiff with an act of political turpitude! immoral in its nature, and manifesting a want of principle. It is prima facie libellous, and that is enough on the present motion. The cause shown for holding to bail was sufficient, and is therefore one of the cases excepted .out of the general rule, that you cannot hold to bail for a libel. The sum required was not excessive.
Tompkins, J. gave no opinion.
Rule refused.