Case ID: njl_8/html/0383-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "By the Court—(Stopping Vroom, contra)", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel Skellinger v. Elias I. Howell.
    OB CERTIORARI TO THE COMMON PLEAS OF MORRIS—IN TROVER.
    1. Where two witnesses are examined before the Court of Common Pleas in an appeal, and one states the value of the articles in dispute between the parties to exceed one hundred dollars, and the other states the value not to exceed that sum, if the Court give credit to the latter and thereby sustain their jurisdiction, it being matter of fact, this Court will not inquire into the propriety of their determination.
    2. A party may not give evidence of a general bad character to impeach or discredit a witness whom he has called and examined; but if the witness state matters which operate against him, he may call witnesses to prove those matters to be otherwise.
    In the Court of Common Pleas on tbe trial of tbe appeal, Flowell tbe appellee and plaintiff below, having given evidence of property and conversion, inquired of a witness tbe value of tbe chattels in question, who stated their value in detail at sums which amounted to $102.58, and then rested. ■Skellingei moved for a non-suit, because the demand exceeded the jurisdiction of a justice. The appellee thereupon offered and was admitted by the court, notwithstanding an objection from the appellant, to examine another witness as to the value, who stated the value of the chattels at a sum not exceeding $100, and the court refused the non-suit.
    
      Scudder, for the appellant
    now plaintiff in certiorari, moved to reverse the judgment.
    1. The value of the chattels was shewn to have been $102.58. Hence neither the justice nor Common Pleas had jurisdiction, which is given only where the debt, balance or matter in dispute, does not exceed the sum or value of $100. Rev. Laws 429. He cited Penn. Rep. 54, 258, 950, 951; 2 South. 822; 1 John. cas. 20; 2 Cranch. 147; 4 Cranch. 93.
    
      2. The examination of the second witness was illegal, for to disprove the facts stated by a witness is to discredit him, and a party is not permitted to impeach his own witness. 1 Phil. Ev. 212; 1 Dal. 63; 1 Campb. 210, 217.
   By the Court—(Stopping Vroom, contra)

A party may not give evidence of general bad character to impeach or discredit a witness whom he has called and examined; but if the witness state matters which operate against him, he .may call witnesses to prove those matters to be otherwise. Hence the second witness was rightfully examined; and the two witnesses differing as to the value, presented a question to the court to decide which should be preferred. They adopted the valuation of the second witness, and of the propriety of their determination, being matter of fact, we have-no authority to inquire.

Let the judgment be affirmed.