Case ID: yeates_1/html/0083-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Cur.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Abraham Cornogg against Isaac Abraham and Jane his wife, Daniel Cornogg and George George, executors of Daniel Cornogg, deceased.
    Objection to a witness, when the matter is doubtful, shall be restrained, to his credit.
    A witness who has no decided interest in .the event of the cause shall be received.
    A clear mistake appearing in the award of arbitrators shall be rectified.
    Assumpsit for iol. specie and 700I. continental money, devised to the plaintiff by his father’s will.
    The defendants gave in evidence an agreement signed by the eight-different children and devisees, referring the division of the estate of the testator to the three persons amicably chosen between them, and the award of the arbritrators thereon, filed in the register’s office. They contended that six of the said children had conformed to the award, and had received tbeir distributive shares in pursuance thereof, and that the plaintiff was concluded thereby at common lav/, the same being made by judges of his own choosing.
    'The plaintiff urged that the arbitrators had on full consideration agreed on a prior award, and signed the same, which was shewed to the said children, and was variant materially from the present; and that the plaintiff and one Thomas Francis, who had married with a daughter of the testator, understanding that the arbitrators were about to reconsider the same, and make a new award, had revoked their authority, and directed them not to proceed further, and cited i Bac. Abr. 134, 137; Dali. 335.
    The said Thomas Francis was offered to prove these facts, and was objected to by the defendant’s counsel, as interested in the question to be tried, inasmuch as his distributive share of the estate remained unpaid. Vide 10 Mod. 290, 292; 1 Stra. 129; 3 Burr. 1857.
    It was also insisted for the defendants, that in the case of commoners, no commoner is allowed to give evidence in an ac * tion concerning the right of common in another, pgg So in the case of underwriters, they are never per- *- mitted to be called as witnesses in an action on the same policy, which they have subscribed, though they are not interested in that suit, as the verdict cannot be given in evidence in any other action. Bull. Ni. Pri. 279, 4to. ed. 283. 12-mo. ed. Neither can a co-obligor give evidence in an action on the bond which he himself has executed, because interested in the question to be put to him. 1 Term Rep. 297, 303. They therefore concluded that Francis was an incompetent witness, and further cited 5 Burr. 2729. French v. Backhouse and Foulston. Dali. 372. Steinmetz et al. v. Currie.
    
      E contra it was argued for the plaintiff,
    that the objection to the witness goes to his credibility and not to his competency, and the tendency of the courts of law of late years had been to confine rather than to increase objections to the competency of witnesses. Whatever may be the verdict in the present cause, it cannot be given in evidence either for or against the witness in any future suit which he may bring for his distributive share. The case in 5 Burr. 2729, is not applicable to the present; the suits there were brought not against each .defendant for his proportion of the insurance money, but against each for the whole of it; and consequently the verdict against one of the joint owners would affect the other of them, because that other would be obliged to contribute. They also cited and much relied on 4 Burr. 2251. Abraham qtii tarn v. Bunn, and a case determined in the Supreme Court, M’Kimm v. Elton and M’Farland, wherein one Eevinz, though interested in the question to be tried, was allowed to be a competent witness, after long argument.
   Per Cur.

‘1 The distinction between interest which goes ‘ ‘ to the. competence of a witness, and influence, which goes ‘ ‘ to his credit, is clearly settled since the case of Abrahams “z/. Bunn; and the rule is now established, that where the “matter is doubtful, the objection shall go to his credit.” 4 Burr. 2255. Francis is not interested in the event of the present cause. He can derive no certain decided gain or loss from the determination of this action. The verdict cannot be given in evidence in any suit brought by him against the defendants as executors of his father. He does not come forward to invalidate his own act; he is produced to prove that the arbitrators have pursued the authority delegated to them, and have made an award, which should be sanctioned. We think with Rord Hardwicke, that “objections similar to the present, should be restrained to * “ the credit rather ‘ ‘ than the competency of the witness, unless it is like “to introduce great perjury, because it tends to let in light “to the cause;” (Hardw. Cas. 360,) and with Justice Buller, that “the most solid ground is to confine the objection to “a witness to an interest in the event of the cause.” (x Term Rep. 302.) We therefore apprehend the witness should be sworn and his evidence lift to the jury, who ought calmly and dispassionately to weigh the prejudice, influence, or bias upon the mind of the witness, and judge of his credibility.

Francis was sworn accordingly. Vide 3 Term Rep. 27, 34, 36, 309, 310.

The award of the arbitrators, relied on by the defendants, contained the special statement of their administration account. It appeared that the testator had died in March 1780, possessed of 610I. 17s. continental money, and that the bulk of his personal estate had been appraised in the inventory at the specie value, which had been carried out in the account into a continental column at the rate of 40 for 1. The different items of payments in continental currency credited to the executors amounted to 2039I. 7s. 6d. exceeding the amount of the continental money he died possessed of, by the sum of 1429I. os. 6d. It was evident therefore on inspection of the account, that if all those payments had been made in March or April 1780, when the scale of depreciation fixed the value of continental money at 61 for 1, the executors would have derived a profit of at least 6s. 7d. in each pound specie, thus carried out at 40 for 1, to pay the balance of 1429I. os. 6d.; consequently there was a clear mistake in calculation apparent on the face of the account, which every principle of justice and law called on the court to rectify. The court having expressed their sentiments fully on this head, that the account required re-examination, and that the executors were only entitled to a credit of the real value of the said 1429I. os. 6d. according to the true depreciation of the different payments by them made, it was at length agreed to withdraw a juror, and submit the account of the executors by rule of court, to three judicious men, to be re-examined and settled by them.

Messrs. Sergeant pro quer.

Messrs. Wilcocks and T. Ross pro def.