Miller v. Miller , 8 Johns. 77 ( 1811 )

Per Curiam.

This case brings up only one of the points decided in the last case, which is, whether after the charge of the plaintiff in error, that his watch had been stolen, the addition of the words, “ and he had reason to believe that the defendant in error took it,” is not a positive averment of the fact. The principle already laid down in the preceding case, is decisive in the present; and the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.