
    STATE v. SAMUEL PATTISON.
    Supreme Court. Kent.
    October, 1814.
    
      Clayton's Notebook, 27.
    
    
      Clayton and Brincide, for the defendant,
    moved for his discharge, and produced witnesses to prove that no contempt was in fact committed.
    
      Hall, for the State,
    objected that witnesses ought not to be permitted to contradict the return. The return is conclusive until falsified by the verdict of a jury on a demurrer in an action for a false return. He cited 3 Bac.Abr. 439 in notis and said that the Chancellor (Ridgely) had so decided in two cases upon a full consideration of the law.
   Cooper, J.

My practice has always been to hear witnesses as to the truth of the facts, and I believe it to be agreeable to the spirit of our Act.

The defendant, was discharged on the ground that there had been no contempt in fact.  