The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1895-05-03

fully competent for either party by a
release or extlnguishment in good
faith of his interest upon which good |
faith the trial judge shall decide a. q
preliminary question. Act of May
2;rd 1857, p. l.. SIS. 1t is suggest
ed that she is not bound by the re
lease. but we cannot agree with the |
counsel in this position. We discover
no evidence to warrant it, nor is it the |
case of person selling his title and
his testimony with it. The right OF
the estate of Mary G. Nandershce in
and under the paper in question does
not depend in any degree upon the |
assignment or release, but is entirely
complete without it. The case comes
within the rule which existed prior TO
the statute that where an action Is
brought by an executor or admlnls,ra
tor on behalf of an estate, legatse
or distributee who has been absolute
" paid his legacy or has released or
assigned all interest in The verdict, Is
competent. Miller on Competency
Of Witnesses, S.; Heit vs.. Os,e, I,T
Pa. 744, and cases cited Ai;er this
rule was argued the defendants
counsel. upon notice to the plaintiffs
counsel, submitted to me copy OF
the testimony, or portion thereof
OF Agnes Nanderslice given before
the auditor which it is claimed is in
consistent in some particulars with
that given by her on the trial Clearly
We cannot consider this upon the
ground that it is after discovered.
Whether II be offered to prove fact
or to impeach the witness BY proof
Of contradictory statements, it was
available at the trial and If offered
then it might possibly have been ex
planned. To say nothing OF the rights
Of the parties, 1t was due to the witness
that she should have an opportunity
to explain. CIR. Ey., Sec. +62.
THIRD and SEVENTH.
The purpose Of the offer Of the will
OF Mary Snyder was to show her DIS
position towards Daniel Snyder and
his creditors. We think the cour;
went to the extreme limit 10 admitting
testimony as to the acts and declara.
tons of Mary Snyder for this purpose.
: but the testimony admitted related
= to acts and declarations so near the
time when the paper in question bears
u date as to tend to show the improbable
: ity of her having executed it, but thC
: will was signed two years afterwards
anG was too remote from the transac
!; ton to throw any light upon the ques
" ;ion. Still more clear IS 1t that tht
account of the executor Of Mar,
Snyder was not competent evideuc
: for the purpose for which it was offer
i ed. The value OF her estate in IS7
: might possibly have been pertinen
u fact, but its value in 1899 clearly va
, not and the account filed in ISo
: would not even tend to show its yalu
= in 1911.
, EIGHTH.
= We do not think that there can b
n any doubt that Mr.. Funk was an il
in competent witness as 10 the fac
:. referred 10 in the defendants offer O
* page s. Of the notes Of testimony
~ which We assume this reason relate
:: IRE offer includes evidence OF conyers
IS lions had prior to the death OF Ma
ou q. Nanderslice not in the presence
n. any person adverse in interest TO Ma
al. Snyder or OF any one who was cal'
ch to testify in behalf Of the estate
: ? Mary G.. VandersIce, and as a legal,
to under the will OF Mary Snyder /
4. witness was interested adversely
he the right represented by the plaintl
in The fact that these conversations We
er. had in presence Of witnesses who We
al. called in behalf OF the defenda
the would no, make the witness compete
oa. under the act of 1901. To,h's esta
,ns $50 Pa. 36I, Cake vs.. Cake, I62 P
m So. krumrine vs.. Greuoble, I65 !
are 9S, Thomas vs.. Miller, I65 Pa, /,
lch The remaining reasons alege n
.riy conduct an the par. OF one Of /
no Jurors, (I) in forming and express
10 an unzlIerab.e opinion on the mel
ure before the close Of the case; (2)
Al permitting other persons, no, jurC
site 10 converse with him concerning
5 of merits OF the case in such language
ted TO prejudice him against the cause
ave the defendant. and then accepting
ON. invitation 10 dirk at their expeu
,ion II IS not alleged that the parties TO
PIN case were in any way concerned
-gu the matter, but We DO no, thin
ilIy can be questioned tha, il the St.
evil men,s OF fact contained in the
the dayIts upon which the rule was q
Ind ed be true there was such miscond
j in on the part Of the Juror as would
ison quire the granting Of new triaL ,
the difficulty Is not IN the sufficiency
hen the facts alleged. but in the pr
rty The material allegations are empha
ared ally denied by the juror, and as TO
nos: conversation on Friday evening h
,elng cOyrOboratsd by two men with wi