Case ID: scl_12/html/0333-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice yohnstm\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The City Council vs. John Dunn.
    A person cannot, by his own oath, exculpate himself from the penalty, under the city ordinance of Charleston, against riding or driving faster than a walk in turning the corner of a street.
    THIS was an action in the City Court to recover a penalty imposed by a city ordinance, on persons riding or driving faster than a walk in turning the corner of a street. The same ordinance provides that if the party offending shall prove to the satisfaction of any one of the city wardens, that be was compelled to ride or drive by urgent causes, he should be exempted from a prosecution for that offence.
    The offence was clearly proved, and judge Holmes, the Recorder, overruled an objection made to the competency of the defendant to exculpate himself on oath ; and he was sworn, and the jury found for the defendant.
    A motion was made for a new trial, on the ground that the defendant was not an admissible witness.
   Mr. Justice yohnstm

delivered the opinion of the court.

I am not aware that there is any exception to the rule, that a party shall not be a witness in his own cause, but in cases where there exists a statutary provision expressly-authorizing it, and in the cases of merchants, shop-keepers, &c. The ordinance on which this prosecution is founded requires that the party shall prove to the satisfaction of one of the city wardens that urgent causes compelled him so to ride, &c. But the mode of proof is not pointed out, and It follows that the common law mock must be adopted, which excludes the party himself from being a witness.

Toomer, for the motion.

Crafts and Eckhard, contra.

The motion is therefore granted.

Justices Bay, Colcock, Richardson, Huger and Noti, concurred.