South Carolina · Case in reporter volume
State v. Arden
Bay’s second edition reports State v. Arden, a 1795 South Carolina case. After Arden pleaded pregnancy before sentence, the court summoned a jury of matrons and adjourned pending its finding. The report states that the jury found her not pregnant, after which sentence and execution followed.
Complete cited case in partial volume. Collection target: Second edition, with additional notes and references, Volume I, 1809
Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Superior Courts of Law in the State of South-Carolina, Since the Revolution
Elihu Hall Bay · Volume I · Second edition, with additional notes and references, Volume I, 1809 · 1809
Partial volume with cited case complete The printed title page identifies Elihu Hall Bay, Volume I, the second edition, I. Riley, New York, and 1809. The case is reported under 1795. Keep the decision date separate from the retained edition’s publication date. This is a partial volume. Printed pages 282–283 are absent. PDF page 299 is printed page 281, and the next PDF page, 300, is printed page 284. The complete Arden report at printed pages 487–490 is present and was visually reviewed. The 549-page PDF matches all 549 repository scan records. That numerical match does not make the volume complete, because the underlying scan omits two numbered pages. The printed-to-PDF offset changes across the missing pages. Use verified locators for the cited case rather than applying one offset to the entire volume. The scan is mostly black and white, with spots, marks, skew, and occasional blur. The cited case pages are readable. Repository OCR is inaccurate and entirely absent on some readable image pages. The images control quotations. The repository metadata do not identify the contributing library. The final scan page displays a Stanford Law Library barcode. That marking is evidence about the copy, not proof that the court or a later writer consulted it.
Open reader → Download this PDF
The printed title page identifies Elihu Hall Bay, Volume I, the second edition, I. Riley, New York, and 1809. The case is reported under 1795. Keep the decision date separate from the retained edition’s publication date.
This is a partial volume. Printed pages 282–283 are absent. PDF page 299 is printed page 281, and the next PDF page, 300, is printed page 284. The complete Arden report at printed pages 487–490 is present and was visually reviewed.
The 549-page PDF matches all 549 repository scan records. That numerical match does not make the volume complete, because the underlying scan omits two numbered pages.
The printed-to-PDF offset changes across the missing pages. Use verified locators for the cited case rather than applying one offset to the entire volume.
The scan is mostly black and white, with spots, marks, skew, and occasional blur. The cited case pages are readable. Repository OCR is inaccurate and entirely absent on some readable image pages. The images control quotations.
The repository metadata do not identify the contributing library. The final scan page displays a Stanford Law Library barcode. That marking is evidence about the copy, not proof that the court or a later writer consulted it.