Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1856-12-24
The Law Of Evidence.

who takes some interest in the subject and who de-
sires to have it thus brought to the attention Of the
Legislature. Our friend-a gentleman of most res.
pectable legal attainments-,n writing 10 us, says:
II am not prepared to endorse all the views put
forth IN this article but there is certainly great need
of some reform. Every person in the habit of at
tending our Courts has observed the annoyance and
vexation, and frequent injustice, which are the re-
suit Of present rules. But it is hard to move
any old system. The roots run deep. and remain
long after the trunk and branches have fallen to de-
cay The work must be done gradually, in order
to be done well; and would suggest a starting
point the abolition of all rules which allow parties
to refuse to testify against themselves so that the
right to call each other to the stand may be urre
stricted. But do not propose to discuss the SUBJ
jeet my only object being to bring it to the aten-
ton Of the Legislature"
The article from the Globe is as follows:
THE Law OF EVIDENCE.
We subjoin the draft of a bill, now before the
New York Legislature which, if passed, will effect
great and important changes in the old English law
Of evidence. 1t seems to contemplate the removal.
in almost all civil cases. of all objections to the COM
potency of witnesses, on the ground of interest in
the result. The old law excluded entirely all wit
nesses having any interest in the which might,
by any possibility, have a tendency to influence
their minds for against either party to the suit,
| and even to cause them to pcrjure themselves to
bring about issue favorable to their interest
The proposed law strikes at the very foundation of
this principle of exclusion, by admitting the testi
mony of the plaintiff and defendant who are, of
| course, chiefly interested in the decision. England
| made similar change in her law in 1851. The
State of Connecticut had previously, in 1S49, made
like reform. Minnesota adopted it in 1851, Yer
mont in 1852, and Ohio in 1858.
To those who have been accustomed to look upon
the old restrictions the admission of evidence as
just reasonable, and safe, tine proposed change may
be startling. But such persons, we think, will find
on examination, that this change is, in reality,
beneficial one, and docs not deserve to be cassed
with the wild and reckless innovations frequen-
ty attempted in our day. The most eminent Judges
and lawyers of England who cannot well be accused
of rashneSs in legal reforms, said to approve 1t
most fully and in all the States of our Union, in
which it has been adopted the same warm APPROX
al has been expressed.
The eadngs ideas of the bill seem to be, that by
excluding the testimony of the parties to a suit,
much valuable information is lost which can be sup
piled from no othe. sources; that it would be bet.
ter therefore, as in courts Of equity, where both
parties give their written testimony under oath, to
let in the evidence OF against the other, and al
low the jury to Judge afterwards what it is all worth;
thus making the objection, if any there be, not to
their competency but to their credibility. No tes-
tiuony in any case before jury can of course, be
of ITSELF conclusive; it remains for the jury to be-
lieve or disbelieve it.
"7Ae people of the State of Neu York, represen-
ted in Senate and assembly. do enact ds totlons:
Sec l. Parties to civil actions and persons for
| whose immediate benefit they are prosecuted or de-
| Tended may =, witnesses therein in their own be.
| half or other se, in the same manner as If they
were not such parties or persons. But before par
ty can offer himself witness under this section
| on his own behalf, against adverse party, he
must give notice of his intention to do so at least
| ten DAYS before the time of examination.
"SEC. 2. When all the parties to the acton shall
be present in court at the time of trial either may
| be examined witness on his own behalf, al
though the notice required in the preceding section
! shall not be given.
! "SEc. 3. In no case shall party examined
witness in his own behalf be admitted to testify in
relation to facts which, if true, must be equally
within the knowledge of the opposite party. if such
opposite party be inhabitant ola foreign State or
country, and is not at the time within the jurisdc
ton of the court in which the action is pending.
"SEc. 4. When the action is prosecuted or defen
ded by the representatives Of deceased pei son, the
! opposite party, if examined witness on his own
behalf shall not be admitted to testify at all in rca
ton to facts which, if true must have been equally
! within the knowledge of such deceased person.
| "SEC. 5. When an executor, administrator, or
trustee, having interest beyond his liability to
costs, is party to the action, his examination as
witness shall be subject any other restrictions
or rules than that OF ordinary witnesses
SEC 6. The rules of evid ence in special proceed.
ings of civil nature shall be the same as in civil
actions"
The following letter from the Hon. N. II. Swayne,
one of the most eminent lawyers in Ohio expresses
the views Of many conservative and experienced
jurists of that State on this question:
COLUMBUS, January %, 1856.
Ny DEAR SIR: Yours of the 26til instant is
ceived. hasten to reply to it. Our law Of evidence,
to which you refer, took effect the LIST OF July,
1858. 1t has, consequently, been in operation be-
tween two and three We aDDrO3chcu the
ground it occupies gradually The prior steps were,
removing the objection Of interest to competency,
and allowing either party to call the other. Against
ali these measures, the present law especially, my
preJudlceS were very strong.
Experience. which. after all, is the only reliable
test in such cases. has proved that [ was wrong
Your own reflections have doubtless suggested to
you all that can say i'll regard to our existing law
! | will, however, mention few of its advantages
In my judgment, they actually belong to as effects
and consequences:
/. 1t promotes settlements and lessons litigation.
2. 1t lessons the costs Of litigation.
3. 1t facilitates the preparation Of causes for trial.
and accelcrates the administration of justice.
4. Brings out fully the facts and enables the
and jury to see where the truth aud justice of
the case lie
The only objection to the is, that it tends
to produce perjury. This tendency is greatly exag.
gerated The objection is much more plausible than
solid Indeed in my judgment, it has no real toun-
dation.
have, think, seen quite much of conflict
and perjury, in attended with cxcitement-be-
TORE since the passage of our present law. Many
such cases never come to trial. because the injured
purity can be aoitness. Where there is conflict be-
tween the parties to material facts careful ex-
animation rarely fails to give triumph TO truth and
justice. l have frequently felt, at the close of inn
portant trials, how we'll the examination OF the par
ties had worked, and how much Of injustice might
have been done without it. Indeed, in many cases
it is the only way to get at the real facts and the