Case ID: johns_2/html/0188-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Burlingham against Deyer.
    whose favour der to receive £iven who m-dorses a reorder°mj be admitted as a necessity, in asiut relative to the goods, especially, if °^,ased° *A justice of the peace cannot decide on his own previous knowledge,' only on evidence produced before him in court.
    FROM the return to the certiorari in this cause, it appeared that the plaintiff below brought his action for a certain quantity of lead delivered according toa written order addresséd to the plaintiff below, and signed by the r • T , defendant, as follows, “ Sir, please to let Mr. E. Knight have that lead, and I will be accountable for the same.” On the order was indorsed a receipt by Knight, that he had received “twenty-three pounds of white lead, on the order at one shilling and six-pence per pound.” The - i i r defendant, by his plea, denied that he had ever received the quantity of lead. On the trial before the justice,. Knight was offered as a witness by the defendant, but he i • was objected to by the plaintiff,- on the ground that he Was interested. The defendant then desired that the witness might be sworn on his voir dire. The justice refused to let the witness be sworn, as well on the ground of the receipt, given by him on the back of the order, as on the “‘previous knowledge” oftlie justice, derived from a conversation, which passed between the witness and the defendant, before the commencement of the suit.
    The defendant then offered to release the witness, so as to make him competent; but the justice considered it improper to allow him to testify any thing contrary to the order and the indorsement thereon.. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff.
    KirMand, for the plaintiff in error,
    contended that the judgment ought to be reversed: 1. Because Knight was 
      improperly rejected as a witness. 2. Because the justice rejected the release offered by the defendant to the witness.
    
      Simonds, contra.
   Per Curiam.

The witness was a mere agent or servant, and must be considered as a competent witness, from necessity. A justice cannot act from his own previous knowledge of facts; but they must be proved before him. He must decide upon evidence produced in court. The justice ought not to have refused the release tendered by the defendant to the witness. The judgment below must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.