Case Name: United States v. G. N. Lyles
Court: United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1806-07
Citations: 1 Cranch 322
Docket Number: 
Parties: United States v. G. N. Lyles.
Judges: (Duckett, J., absent.)
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 1
Pages: 322–323

Head Matter:
United States v. G. N. Lyles.
A mere honorary obligation to indemnify a prosecutor, -who is liable for costs, is not a sufficient interest to exclude the testimony of the -witness.
' Indictment, for assault and battery on Joshua Biddle. John Johnston’s name, as prosecutor, was indorsed on the indictment. Joshua Riddle was examined as a witness on the part of the prosecution, and on cross-examination said he felt himself bound in honor to indemnify Johnston, in case he should be obliged to pay costs; but he had made no engagement; that Mr. Taylor, his counsel, had managed the business, and that he had no conversation himself with Johnston. See Peake’s L. E. 93, 104, 105; 1 Str. 129.
Mr. Youngs, for the defendant,
prayed the Court to instruct the jury that Riddle was not a competent witness, being disqualified by his interest.

Opinion:
The Court
(after considerable deliberation and doubt) refused to give the direction.
(Duckett, J., absent.)
The general principle seemed to be that it must be a direct interest, and not ideal or imaginary. Here was no promise, no direct engagement, no legal obligation.