Case Name: Cooke vs. Curtis, et al. Lessee
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jurisdiction: Maryland
Decision Date: 1823-06
Citations: 6 H. & J. 93
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cooke vs. Curtis, et al. Lessee.
Judges: The cause was argued before Buchanan, Earle, Martin, Dorset, arid Stephen, J.
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the General Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, form 1800 ... [to 1826]
Volume: 6
Pages: 93–94

Head Matter:
Cooke vs. Curtis, et al. Lessee.
Appeal from Baltimore county court. -Ejectment for a tract of land called Barman's Forest. The general issue was pleaded; and'at the trial the defendant (now appellant,) offered to read, and did read in evidence to the jury, the following affidavit, having first proved the deponent’s death, and the same having been taken at the time it bears date, and haying been agreed to be read in evidence in case the deponent should die, viz. “State of Maryland. Baltimore county, sc. On this 17th day of July 1819, before the subscriber a justice of the peace in and for the county aforesaid, comes Dr, Bichará S. Kingsmore, of Baltimore county, and makes oath on the Holy Évangely of Almighty God, that in the year 1809 or 1810, or thereabouts, be delivered Bebeccct Cooke, wife of William, Cooke, of Patapsco iYee/s, of a female child, that the child was born alive, that he assisted in the dressing it, and left it alive in five or six hours after its birth, that the child had arrived at maturity, and gave as satisfactory and full evidence of life as any child could give; that the child had been,'injured in the attempts to bring it into the world before he arrived, and lie supposes these injuries produced its death after he went away. Sworn to before
John F. Harris, Justice of Peace, Balio. Cy.?’
The plaintiff then offered to prove, by several competent whnesses, that the child to whose birth the said deposition refers, was not born alive as stated in the said deposition, but dead; and that the deponent, Dr. Kingsmore, was not present at the birth of any of the children of the Mrs. Cooke mentioned in the said deposition. The defendant then, to corroborate the testimony of the said deponent, offered to prove by a good and competent witness, that said Kingsmore, two or three days after the birth of the child mentioned in the deposition, and before the date of the deposition, did declare the same facts stated as. he had deposed to. Which testimony the courtipjlliSnand Ward, A. J.] refused to let go to.Üi»*W^ii8reconrt being divided in opinion; ,1^mjij!lu.?uiL excepted, and the verdict and .j.udgtñénff'being against him, he appealed to this court.
If a tvitness swears tharhe was present at the birth of a and the opposite party proves that hn was not present, suelt proof is snbsiantiatty to defeat the credit oi the witness,and bis testimony may he «orroborateá by proof of' hi* prior declination*
The cause was argued before Buchanan, Earle, Martin, Dorset, arid Stephen, J.
7?. Johnson, for the appellant,
referred to 1 Lofft’s Gilb. 279. 2 Bac. Ab. tit. Evidence, (K) 663, and 2 Esp. Dig. 519.
No counsel appeared for the appellee.

Opinion:
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Büchánan, J.
We can perceive.no good reason why the evidence offered and rejected should not have been re» ceived in corroboration of wha.t was sworn to in the deposition of Doctor Kingsmore, a sufficient foundation for that corroborating testiipony being laid by the plaintiff, in offering evidence that Kingsmore was not present at the birth of- any of Mrs. Cooke's children, which was substantially to impeach his credibility. And where the credibility of a witness is attacked by the opposite party, his prior declarations may be given in evidence to show his consistency. We think, therefore, that the court below erred in not suffering the evidence offered in this case in support of the testimony of Kingsmore, as contained in the deposition, to go to the jury.
lUyGMENT REVERSED, AND PROCEDENDb AWARDED»