The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1914-01-11
SOME. NEEDED LEGISI ALTON

modern times. Tho test of udmlssi.
Diiity OF evidence should be Its help
fulness In settling the question a.
issue. and the class OF incompetent Wit
nesses should BIO reduced to n minimum
In other words. If tho evidence Is rele-
want to tho issue, objection should be
TO Its weight and not to It's admissi-
bility. In this State. the statute pro-
vides that person convicted OF
FELONY shall not be witness. unless
ne has been pardoned or punished, and
q person convicted of perjury shall not
be witness. although pardoned or
punished Similar statutes prevail in
a lumber of States The objection to
the statute Is that 1t goes 10 the com
potency OF the witness to testify at
all, and not merely TO the weight to
be given 10 his testimony.
Conviction does not tako place until
Judgment has been entered on the yer.
dict Now let us apply the statute
TO concrete case. One of your hes.
citizens. in tho sudden heat OF blood,
wounds another, and tho jury lind hin,
guilty or unlawful wounding with in
'ent to kill and fix his punishment at
5000 and elk months In jail and judg-
inent Is entered accordingly. Now the
wounding has no earthly relation to
veracity, and any one In the comnuni-
~ would readily believe any statement
the party would make. yet the statute
excludes him as Witness altogether.
Again. If he pays the fine and serves
his term. no becomes competent once
moro. What has this to do with We
racity? Again. after verdict and before
Judgment he ls competent, but Just
as soon as tho Judgment Is pronounced
he is Incompetent In tho Allen cases
about four months elapsed between
inf ~ x.,Ie
suspended so as not to disqualify tho
parties from testifying in other cases
Here then. lis n case where witness
was competent for four months. and
then without another word or act on
his part. In 1--WE minutes Is rendered In
competent. Ought not the objection to
DO directed to tho weight of tho testi-
mony and not to the competency Of
the witness?
Now tako the objection on accoun,
or perjury This does affect credibili-
~. and objection on that ground is
good. but when called rs Il witness II
liz generally on behalf OF some inno-
cent third person. and no should not
DO excluded altogether. but the obiec-
uon should go to the weight to BIO
given his testimony. II perjury is to
exclude. IT would seem immaterial
whether the perjury was committed in
this State or another State. or In tho
United States courts, but tho courts,
In their efforts to get away from the
effect OF such statutes. have held that
the perjury which Will exclude a Wit
ness as incompetent, must have been
in the Jurisdiction In which the party
Is offered as a witness So IL Federal
court Is sitting on one side OF the
street In Richmond and State court on
The other. conviction of perjury In one
OF the courts will not debar the party
from testifying In the other This does
not seem reasonable, and the statute
should be so amended as to direct the
objection to credibillty and not COM
potency.
Generally you can contract with
corporation only through the medium
or one OF Its agents Under statute
OF this State, II you make such n con-
tract with corporation dealing
through an agent, and die before ac
tlon Is brought on the contract, the
agent can testify, but IL you survive
and the Rent7dies. you cannot testify.
The statntc lacks mutuality. and is an
uHiair discrimination In favor OF cor
porations.
Section 1916 OF the Code aboIlshes the
common law disqualification OF inter-
est. The next section states the quail
ncations OF the preceding section in
TWO paragraphs. The hrst paragraph
excludes from tho operation OF sec
ZION 1888 husband and wife. and Wit
nesses 10 deeds and Wills, and as 70
these II is declared that their comma
tency shall be determined by the law
in foroe the day before this Code takes
eHect. or as at common law As TO
husband and wife. the law has been
entirely changed since tho Code was
adopted, and tho present law Is now
round In section S346-a of the Code
Oso4. Hence this part of section
aSio should be correspondingly changed.
AS 10 the disqualification of husband
ana wife imposed by the first para
graph OF section S346-a, this might
Wen be omitted altogether. as well rs
also that part OF section 1886 relating
to witnesses to deeds and wills.
AS to tho second paragraph of SEQ
tion 1886. relating to tho survivors OF
transaction, or where tho opposing
party is Insane or Infamous, this
might well be omitted altogether. and
leave that whole matter to no to the
weight to be given to the testimony
rather than to the competency Of the
witness and such is tho tendency OF
modern legislation. This paragraph
has given rise to more litigation than
probably all the residue of the chan
ter on evidence. Its elimination would
get rid OF this flood Of litigation. and
ono or two other sections OF the code
Tho sum total Of these suggestions
is: Repeal sections Ssas, Ss4s and s34q
OF the Code. Amend action 1896 by
inserting. In lieu of paragraphs marked
'hrsp and second what now consti-
tute paragraphs . and OF section
8346-a, and In section 9743 strike out
the words "or giving evidence as
witness"
Process Against Corporations.
Under tho present law. IL Is possible
TO take personal Judgment against n
domestic corporation which Is a going
concern, actively engaged In the prose
cution OF its business. without the cor
poration. or any OF Its officers or agents
knowing anything about II until after
judgment has been rendered and exc
cution issued on II. 1t Is then too late
to SGT up any defense This, it would
seem. ought not to be allowed to so
remain. but the statute should be so
amended as to provide that where nro