From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rickards v. Rickards

Court of Common Pleas of Delaware
Nov 20, 1798
1 Del. Cas. 207 (Del. Com. Pleas 1798)

Opinion

November 20, 1798.

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.


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.


Summaries of

Rickards v. Rickards

Court of Common Pleas of Delaware
Nov 20, 1798
1 Del. Cas. 207 (Del. Com. Pleas 1798)
Case details for

Rickards v. Rickards

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM RICKARDS v. THOMAS RICKARDS and ELIAS RICKARDS

Court:Court of Common Pleas of Delaware

Date published: Nov 20, 1798

Citations

1 Del. Cas. 207 (Del. Com. Pleas 1798)