Case ID: del-cas_1/html/0144-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Bassett, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAM HARRIS’ LESSEE v. JAMES GORDON and THOMAS FOSTER.
    Court of Common Pleas. Sussex.
    May 4, 1797.
    
      Wilson’s Red Book, 165.
    
    
      Wilson for plaintiff. Peery and Hall for defendants.
    John Stockley offered as a witness by plaintiff to prove a line to which he claimed himself on the south side, defendant on the north; which same line, extended on, was the question in dispute between the parties to the suit.
    Defendants’ counsel objected that this evidence might prevent himself from being sued, [2] Esp.N.P. 705, and said that it was not necessary that the witness should be interested in the event of that cause to disqualify him, Bull.N.P. 273. If a witness apprehends himself interested it is sufficient, Str.
    
      Wilson.
    
    Interest should be certain in the event of that cause and not merely in the questions, 6 Com.Dig. 355. The witness in the case from Strange thought himself interested in that determination or cause. This verdict will not be evidence against the witness, and it does not appear that the witness has a doubtful right.
    Bassett, C. J. This question has undergone a great variety of discussion, what shall go to the credit and what to the competency. And, where there is such doubt, I agree with Lord Mansfield that it is safest to let it go to the credibility and not to the competency. We join in opinion the witness is competent, for no verdict can be evidence against him.
    Johns, J. I do not found my opinion upon the principle that an interest in the question will in no case disqualify him, for I think in some cases it may, but I think the interest of this witness is not certain — his title may be older than defendants’, for what we know.
    Rodney, J., accordant.
   Bassett, C. J.

(Charge.) As this cause turns upon location, the bounds of the lands are to be ascertained by you. Wherever a tract is located by boundaries which can be proved, it must go to them, for they are more certain then than course and distance, but if the boundaries cannot be proved you are to be confined to course and distance.

Verdict for plaintiff.