Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-05-31
LIZ LNTELLrGEN1CE.
20 rME EpIroRs on rME ENeuIRrn

TO THE EDITORS OF THE Enquirer.
Gentlemen: / observe in the papers, a notice,
81 late decision in South Carolina, that an in
dorscr on anoe, may be competent witness TO
inyalidate the note" New York Editor re-
marks upon Tins, that it has been settled in that
state, that an indorser is not competent witness
10 any facts that 20 TO inr0iidate a note an its
inception, though admissible, TO prove facts, aris
ing subsequent to the due execution of the note
these things have brought 10 my miad. a decision
lately made by our Court OF Appeals this vex-
Cd and litigated question. The will, no doubt
be reported in due course; but as it may be twelve
or eighteen months before the Sd Vol. of Ram
doph's Reports will appear; and the point is in
teresting the legal and commercial world, l have
thought, ii might be sniss, give TO the public
at once, brief statement of the decision.
Beck Gs. Taylor, Sc.
This was Joint action. under our act Of As
.embly, against the maker and indorsers of me-
gotiabe One of the ,indorsers, rendered
confession of judgment, which was receiv ed and
ordered TO be entered up by the court, though OBJ
jected 10 by the plaintiff. The other defendants
pleaded 10 the action, and the trial. called the
party who had confessed Judgment TO give evil
dence for them 1t was objected, that this witness
was incompetent, on two grounds. LIST. That
whether interested not, he could not be received
to invada,e negotiable security, to which he was
a party. I'd. That he interested The Is OBJ
lection brought before the court for the first time
the clashing authorities of Walton & Shelly, list
T. R. 296,) and Jordaine VS.. Lashbroook 9th, II.
r. 60i.) The former case deciding, that Z" a party
shall not be permitted 10 impeach deed or paper,
20 which he has put his name, though not inter
ested in tire event of the The rule was res
uicted TO negotiable paper by Bent & Baker, Sd,
Il. X. 27) The latter case, exploding the rule,
with its restriction, and laying down the doctrine
broadly, that in action by ndorser of bill of
exchange, against the acceptor the latter may call
the payee 10 prove, that tue hill void in its
creation.
The case was twice argued By Leigh and Sta
nard, with all that ability and research, for which
they remarkable. The second argument was
directed by the court, account of the imp
and difficulty Of the points presented; and had
before a full court. The unanimous opinion of
four judges [the 9Th being absent the decision)
was, that a party to q negotiable Instrument,
4Hay be tCiflseSs to iqpeach it, If not interested
in the cause. The Judges stated at considerable
length, the grounds OF their opinion. These, it is
neither my purpose, Is 1t in my power, to give
YOU in crteJrso the lawyers will get them when
the book comes out, l may, however, attempt TO
state, such of the heads of their arguments as my
memory retains.
Il was laid down as general and we'll establish
ed rule, that every person capable of being sworn
is competent Witness unless lie has been convict
ed OF an infamous crime, is directly interested
in the cause. That the exception to ths rule, (at-
tempted 10 be taken by WALTON s. Sbelly,) that
a party shall not be received 10 impeach a deed or
paper to which ne hiss put his nsme;" has no au-
thority in it's support while there are many cases
10 the contrary, among which were cited cases
where the witnesses TO will had been called TO
prove the insanity OF the tcstator; where a man
who had conveyed land, was called 10 prove that
he had no title, &c. &c. That this exception as
restrained by Bent and Baker, to negotiable paper
had no better foundation in law for the
protection which the policy Of commercial law,
gives to such paper, consists in the nature of the
defence which it prohibit5-not in the Kind of ep-
ids1tee BY which the defence may be supported;
for instance, in the hands of the innocent holder
the consideration of the paper, shall not be i'm
peached, inquired into, By any euieUces except,
in cases where by statute it is declared void; as for
usurY, gaming, &C. Here. the original faint adj
heres to thepaper, in whose hands You
may plead the usury or gaming, and in the evidence,
by which you are to support the plea, you cannot
be confined within limits, narrower than those,
sign cd by the general rule of law. II was also said
that the maxim Quoted from the civil law, but
: - to be .ound here) memo aHcgans Guam tuTpi-
= 90. IN est atdiendus, could not possibly he I'M
s+' - apply to the exclusion of witnesses as
:. = 10 'oce it had always been the settled
l,-.o.;Io Lo,b IN e-imina and civil cases, TO adj
mas witnesses testifyinS 10 tneH own turpi'uoe-
Thus in the case Of accom-" gus oiaSs)
who cone 10 acknowledge sF -. -
crimes OF the deepest dye: an" s"Hy, w was
,i3elS ,bs lie Of the citizen Is not TO be guarded
with less care Gan the rights Of property or the
Interests c{ ccmmeacs. As 20 civil cases Lar
gs. shee. (qu1ong others was quoted (CowP; Hep;
l97 ) where Lord Mansfield himself (tte ia'heI OF
Walton and sbelly.) admitted clerk 70 pro"e 'ps'
he had embezzled his masters money, and BROKE
positive statute, and in this decision his Aoldsbip
founded himself, upon case, in whch g witness
who had taken The oath against bribery, vas ado
mitted 10 prove, that he himself had received ?
bribe; thus alIegans epau, tuypitudi1eD1 doubly,
perjury and bribery combined The court con
Guided, both from reason and authority, that or
dame and Lashbrook, was sound law; and had set
tied the rule Of evidence, upon its ancient and uue
foundation.
with regard to the 2nd question, the interest Of
H. witness, it was commended BY counsel, that he
cold OF be considered, in the slightest degree in
sre.ted. in The eysst Of the trial between the stbef