The national Republican., 1867-05-09

DISTRICT SUPREME CoURr - GENERAL
TERM-PrsssntJ Justices DIN, Wyiie, and Fisher.
Jones VS.. Kasche Judgment Of Circuit Court
affirmed.
Alison Nailor vs Violet A. Williams, admins
tratrix Of VIM. il. Williams. This swas an action
brought by Nailor to recover one-haif 70 IL, 500
Of the sum for which certain negroes were sold BY
VIM. II. Williams, appellee's intsstato. The
faots Of the case as stated In the bills Of eIoep
tions, and claimed by the appellant, are as fol.
lows:
VIM. II. Williams and one - Davis, jointly
purchased certain convict negroes from the State
Of Virginia In the year 1910. Williams, In trans
porting these negroes TO the State Of Texas, car
ried them to the State Of Louisiana, whore they
were seized by the authorities Of that State under
its municipal regulations prohibiting importa.
tions Of convict negroes. Williams, after many
years, successfully defended his title to the no.
groes, and they were. In 1857, returned to hin,
who sold them for several thousand dollars.
In the meantime (l847) Davis made and deliV
cred an assignment Of ali his interest in the me-
groes to tho plaintiff, Nailor, and who, . short
time after, notified Williams Of the assignment.
Upon this notice to Williams. ho promised to pay
onehalf Of the value OF the negroes TO the plain
tiG, NailOr, when he should receive the money.
In order to prove this notice and promise to
pay, the plaintiff introduced as 4 witness one
Dickerson Nailor, and whose testimony was
specially confined by the plaintiff to the proof ol
the notice of the assignment and Williams prom.
ise. On crOss-examinatiOn, the witness was
asked
l. If the plaintiff, at tho date of the assign.
msnt, was engaged In trading in negroes? and
O. II he, the witness, was not, at the date Of
the agreement, also engaged In trading in ne
groesH
To each Of these questions the plaintiff ex.
| cepted The court oyerruled the obJeotionsi and
whether there was error in these. rulings Is the
question for consideration.
1t Is submitted that the court erred In allow
| ing the first question to be asked, because
| !. 1t was irrelevant.
Davis vas the debtor Of Nailor; and, In order
to secure this Indebtedness assigned his interest
in these negroes as collateral security and the
sole questions before the court and jury were
| Had Williams notice Of this assignment aud did
he promise as above stated Whether he had
such notice Is not in the slightest manner af
| fected by the business Of Nailor, and can throw
no light upon the Issues
2. 1t was new matter, not responsive 10 tn,
examination In chief and Notwithstanding 1t may
have been relevant, 1t could not have been aske(
on cross.exAmination. The defendant, II II wa
relevant, should have called the witness himsel
when he came to make his defence. The Phila
delphia and Trenton Railroad Company VS.
Simpson, IA Peters, 46l.)
On either Of these grounds the question wa
inadmissible, and, inAsmuch rs Its evident effec
was to raise prejudice against the plaintiff, h,
| Is entitled TO new trial.
The second exception is
/. 1t Is not admissible TO impeRch the credi
or respeotabillty Of q witness by inteTrogatinI
him as to the character Of his business, when tha
business has no reference to the subject. matter
Of the suit, and can In no manner eluoidate tn,
Issue. (GrssnlsAf on Evidence, SEQ. 458)
2. That, even II such evidence Is admissible, Il
should have been confined to the business carried
on by the witness at the time of the trial, Ant
not extend back some ten ysArI-thS date Of thl