Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1850-11-20

tons of the common law. until il was
found that either both Of the parties. or
one Of them. were permitted. or might be
required. 10 testify. in about twenty O: the
ditferen, form. of civil and Judicial pre-
ceedings. These changes having proved
sa.u,ary. it was at las; deemed safe and
espedisnt 10 throw open the door entirely.
There appears no tendency TO 90 back ;
and q soon as the new system IS firmly
established. think il viii be matter Of
surprise tina, any other should ever have
obtained.
It would seem to be a principle Of nat
urai Justice. that a person whose rights
are a, sake. should at least have the priv
iie2e Of telling his own story. and making
his own xplanations-Iha at he should have
HE right Of saving 10 the law. strike but
near Generally. he must know more OF
the facts than any body else. The ohiec-
lion OF course IS. tina, his testimony IS not
10 be relied upon on account Of his inter-
est. Bu, think the presumption of false
hood from HAT cause. in the ma or:ty OF
Instances. Is not W arrat4tet by experience.
Such a presumption exists no where ex-
cept in a tribunal of justice. In the daily
TRANSACTIONS Of life it finds no place. Bust
ness could hardly be done. or society be
held together, il men in fact lied whenev-
or II was for their interest. The first per-
sons 10 whom we ordinarily 90. in search
ing for the true facts Of an occurrence,
are the parties themselves.
DOUBT again whether me new rule viii
lead 10 an increase OF perjury. Men who
would be guilty Of that crime themselves.
can usually fnd others 70 commit il for
them: especially when there IS no danger
Of a contradiction. Thi, IS frequently ex-
empifed il the proof Of pretended dec
larations and confessions,
Nor do believe il viii Increase lit:ra-
ton Ndny .uit IS brought or defended
solely because the mouth 5 shut. whose
voice would be conclusive 10 defeat or
sustain H. Much Of the time Of courts,
and the property Of sutors. is spent IN
settling questions Oh this subject. and es
pecla!ly the nice distinctions between
credibilitv and competency. The common
law is SAID - be the accumulated wisdom
of thousand years Ia accommodating
It's wisdom on thls branch, il has probably
cost millions Of money.
The moons stencies Of the common law
on this point, are too papable 10 escape
notice. A witness IS excluded VINO is in
terested 10 the value of cent IN THE
EVENT OF \ SUIT but is not, if interested
10 the amount OF thousands. or his whole
estate in the QUESTION at issue. The
party himself is excluded. but not his
father or child. though their bias may be
equal. or their interest really IDENTICAL
\ party claiming to be injured may be
witness in criminal suit instigated bv
l.. 81, 6,
cause, though his feelings. interests and
pass ons may be involved alike in both
4 member Of a..pubic corporation. as
town. NAV testify. bat ! member of a pr,
va,e one. as turnpike company, though
each NAV be interested IN the same man
ner and 10 the same extent; as. for in
stance. 10 avoid the liability arising from
defective bridge. There is large class
Of cases where a person Interested IS ai-
n,it'ed. from what is called the necessity
Of the case II this means because he is
the best or the only witness. why should
not the rule be co extensive with the rea-
But am expressing opinions and giving
reasons when | suppose YOU simply ex
pectei facts. Nv excuse is the earnest
ness OF my conviction on the sun Jet
Trusting confidently. that. here or else
where The change viii be found most i'm
Improvement in the admnistra-
ton OF justice.
| am, very respectfully,
You friend and obedicnt servant.
CHARLES J. McCUDDY.
The distinguished Judge Of the district
cour, Of the United States for the dislric,
Of Missouri, Judge Wells, writes also Oh
the same subject as follows:
Il entirely concur with YOU in the op;n-
ion that all rules for the exclusion of ev-
ilence. are rules for the exclusion of light.
| am satisfied that every sensible man
irving a cause would BE- glad 70 hear.
aud would find great advantages in hear
ing. every thing that could be saie. upon
the subject. Those who object TO jur;es
hearing every thing relative 10 the cause.
object wholly upon the ground that jurors
are unable properly 10 discriminate be-
tween evidence that is credible and that
which ought not 10 be credited Inc OBJ
jecfors are. however. all perfectly compe-
tent 10 make such Discrimination. The
truth. however. believe to be. that Jurors,
from their business and intercourse with
all classes. are much more able 20 make
lust determinations than are the judges,
There is another objection 70 those rules.
In their apple alton. nice distinctions are
10 be taken. and decisions made. which
cause reverSals. expense and delay. Il |
were preparing a Code. would not. there
lore. hesitate IN permitting the parties 10
testify in their own favor
We shall refer 10 this matter again. \
wan, OF room prevents further remarks at
this time.
Rail Roads.
O. The city council of Louisville. on