United States Gooding

CourtU.S. Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSTORY
CitationUnited States Gooding, 25 U.S. 460, 6 L.Ed. 693, 12 Wheat. 460 (1827)
Decision Date16 March 1827
PartiesThe UNITED STATES against GOODING

At the trial in the Circuit Court, the United States offered evidence that the defendant purchased of one McElderry the vessel called the General Winder, in the indictment mentoined, and that said vessel was built in the port of Baltimore, also in the said indictment mentioned. They further offered in evidence, that at the time said purchase was made, the said vessel was not completely finished, and that the same was finished under the superintendence of a certain Captain John Hill, who was appointed by the defendant master of said vessel on her then intended voyage. They also offered in evidence, that the defendant was, at the time when the offence laid in the indictment is charged to have been committed, and at the time of his purchase of the said vessel, and ever since has been, a citizen of the United States, and has constantly, from the time of the purchase of the said vessel, till the present period, been an actual resident of the said port of Baltimore.

They further offered evidence, that after the said purchase, and after the appointment of the said captain Hill as master as aforesaid, the said Hill ordered various fitments for the said vessel at the said port of Baltimore, which said fitments were furnished for said vessel, and afterwards, on the order of said Hill, were paid for by the defendant. They also offered in evidence, that some of these fitments were peculiarly adapted for the slave trade, and are never put on board any other vessels than those intended for such trade; a part of such fitments so ordered by captain Hill and paid for by the defendant, to wit, three dozen of brooms, eighteen scrapers, and two trumpets, were actually put on board the General Winder in the port of Baltimore, the residue of the equipments on board the General Winder at the time of her departure, being such as are usual on board vessels carrying on trade between said port and the West Indies. And the rest of such fitments, peculiar to the slave trade as aforesaid, were shipped at the said port of Baltimore, on board another vessel called the Pocahontas, chartered by the defendant: That the said vessel called the General Winder, sailed from the port of Baltimore, fitted as aforesaid, and with the said Hill as master, on or about the twenty-first day of August, eighteen hundred and twenty-four, having cleared for the island of St. Thomas in the West Indies. That the other vessel called the Pocahontas also sailed for St. Thomas from the port of Baltimore, with the part of the said fitments put on board her as before mentioned, some time in the month of September following. They also gave evidence that both the said vessels, the General Winder and the Pocahontas, afterwards arrived at St. Thomas, and that at that island the said peculiar fitments shipped as aforesaid in the Pocahontas, were there transhipped...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
179 cases
  • In re Yasiel R.
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 18, 2015
    ...to the facts of the particular case in order to determine the proper evidentiary rule. See, e.g., United States v. Gooding, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 460, 469, 6 L. Ed. 693 (1827) (The court rejected the defendant's claim that the witness' testimony regarding certain admissions made by the defend......
  • Local 1814, Intern. Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. N.L.R.B.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • July 20, 1984
    ...See, e.g., American Fur Co. v. United States, 27 U.S. (2 Peters) 358, 364, 7 L.Ed. 450 (1829); United States v. Gooding, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 460, 469-70, 6 L.Ed. 693 (1827) (Story, J.). The scope of employment doctrine has found frequent articulation in the NLRA context. In the seminal case......
  • Jelke v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • March 2, 1918
    ... ... v. Keitel, 211 U.S. 370, 29 Sup.Ct. 123, 53 L.Ed. 230; ... United States v. Rabinowich, 238 U.S. 78, 35 Sup.Ct ... 682, 59 L.Ed. 1211; United States v. Hirsch, 100 ... U.S. 33, 25 L.Ed. 539; Curley v. United States, 130 ... F. 1, 64 C.C.A. 369; United States v. Gooding, 12 ... Wheat. 460, 6 L.Ed. 693; Rosen v. United States, 161 ... U.S. 29, 16 Sup.Ct. 434, 480, 40 L.Ed. 606; Pettibone v ... United States, 148 U.S. 198, 13 Sup.Ct. 542, 37 L.Ed ... 419; Perrin v. United States, 169 F. 17, 94 C.C.A ... 385; Dunbar v. United States, 156 U.S. 195, 15 ... ...
  • Bourjaily v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 23, 1987
    ...admissibility of co-conspirators' statements was first established in this Court over a century and a half ago in United States v. Gooding, 12 Wheat. 460, 6 L.Ed. 693 (1827) (interpreting statements of co-conspirator as res gestae and thus admissible against defendant), and the Court has re......
  • Get Started for Free
4 books & journal articles