Case ID: njl_1/html/0259-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Kinsey, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[224] SHOTWELL AND SHOTWELL v. MORRIS AND DECAMP.
    Bail is not precluded from giving testimony against his principal, but he is not compellable to do so — it is altogether optional with him, and the objection must come from himself.
    In error from the Common Pleas of Middlesex. In debt on bond and plea of payment.
    On the trial of this cause in the court below, the plaintiff produced a letter from one of the defendants, acknowledging the debt, and called on Joseph Decamp to prove the handwriting. The counsel for the defendant objected to the introduction of his testimony, alleging that, as he was bail for one of the defendants, he was an incompetent witness. The court supported the objection, and overruled the testimony.
    
      M. Williamson, in support of the objection,
    cited Impey C. B. 183; Hawkins v. Perkins, 1 Str. 406; Fotheringham v. Greenwood, lb. 129; 2 Hawk. 610, B 2, c. 46, § 24. 
    
    
      Elisha Boudinot, contra.
    
    
      
      
         See 1 T. R. 164; 2 Esp. R. 604; Atwood v. Dent, 1 Str. 480; Bull. N. P. 164.
    
   Kinsey, C. J.

The law is, that bail cannot be evidence for his principal, and is not compellable to give testimony against him. In the latter case, if he is called he may refuse; the objection, however, must come from him, and it does not lie in the mouth of the principal himself to make it. In (he case before us he did not object to answer the question, and the court below were wrong in rejecting the testimony.

Judgment must be reversed.