Abstracts of Recent Decisions [stub]

1877 The American Law Register (1852-1891)  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... ntent at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. ABSTRACTS OF RECENT DECISIONS. ABSTRACTS OF RECENT DECISIONS. to the defendant's credibility and not to his competency. We regard the rule thus laid down on that point as the proper construction of the law since defendants have been permitted to testify on their own behalf in criminal cases, and we still adhere to it. In a criminal cause the intent is a fact known to, and peculiarly within the knowledge of, the defendant, and we see no well-founded reason why he may not testify concerning it as he might as to any other fact of which he has knowledge. Because the intent is a fact which cannot in the nature of things be positively known to others, and is hence a matter about which other witnesses cannot directly testify, does not, in our opinion, affect the rule above laid down as to the competency of the defendant in that respect. We are clearly of the opinion, therefore, that the court below erred in excluding the proposed testimony of the appellant as to the intention existing in his mind when he came into the possession of the meat which he is charged with having stolen. There are other errors assigned on the record of this cause, and other causes for a new trial were assigned in the court below, but the view we have already taken as to the action of that court in excluding the proposed testimony of the appellant renders it unnecessary for us to consider any of the other alleged errors at present. The judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.