Case Name: Wells against Lane
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1811-10
Citations: 8 Johns. 462
Docket Number: 
Parties: Wells against Lane.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 462–463

Head Matter:
Wells against Lane.
In an action uu24 fiS8.)raí fora^OTa%,Vfov sKTe°UlofS the plaintiff,brought against a meinher of a religions called^ Shakers, that'society1’ is “a competent witness, although the members hold all things in common, and ship6 bite resign cerneasl'a religious sect.
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court.
Lane sued Wells, before a justice, for two penalties, of twelve dollars and fifty cents each, under the 14th section the act concerning slaves and servants, (sess. 24. c. 188.) for harbouring his slave Betty, on the 4th and 5th • J of November, 1810. The defendant pleaded, that Betty, the daughter of the plaintiff, was a member of the societ7 °f Shakers, and is a member of the society in which tj,e defendant resides. That she became a member of the society, by the consent and request of the plaintiff, and " by agreement between the plaintiff, the defendant, and Betty¡ and that she resided among the people called Shakers, '3y ‘hev own choice, without any compulsion. That she was of age and free, and not a slave, nor was the plaintiff her master, within the meaning of the act, nor had she been sold by fraud, nor liable to maintenance, as a pauper, See.
The cause was tried by jury. On the trial, the plaintiff proved that he bought Betty, and that she was a slave as the witness had heard, and was born before the plaintiff had married her mother. That the plaintiff bought the mother and Betty, -is slaves. That Betty was at the house of the defendant, and the plaintiff had forbidden the defendant to keep her.
The defendant proved that the plaintiff said, he had , , „ , , , r , - , bought Betty and her mother, to free them from slaverv. The plaintiff proved that the Shakers were all in partnership, and had one common interest, as brothers and sisters. The defendant offered several members of the society, as witnesses, to prove the allegations contained in his plea ; but the justice rejected the evidence of the Shakers, who were in full communion in their church. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, for 25 dollars.
Van Vechten, for the plaintiff in error.
Rodtnan, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The rejection of the witnesses offered by the defendant below, to prove the truth of his plea, was erroneous. Though the members of the society of Shakers may be partners in interest, as to their concerns, as a religious community, that copartnership cannot extend to the case of a penalty forfeited by either of the members, for a violation of a penal statute; and the objection could only go to the credit, not to the competency, of the witnesses offered. On this ground, and Without examining further into the merits of the case, the judgment is erroneous, and must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.