Supreme Court of Alabama June 15, 1842 (Hrabowski's Ex'rx v. Herbert, Daniel & Co.)

COLLIER, C. J.

It was certainly competent for the plaintiffs to show, that the watch, with the conversion of which the testator was charged, was once the property of the plaintiffs, and in their possession as such. Thus far the testimony of the -witness, Hartwell, is not here objected to. Whether it was admissible as to the other facts related by him, it is unnecessary to inquire.