Case Name: THE STATE to the use of JOHN U. KIRKLAND v. ELLISON G. MANGUM
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1867-01
Citations: 1 Phil. 177
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE STATE to the use of JOHN U. KIRKLAND v. ELLISON G. MANGUM.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 61
Pages: 177–178

Head Matter:
THE STATE to the use of JOHN U. KIRKLAND v. ELLISON G. MANGUM.
"Previously to the act of 1866, in relation to Evidence, the relatin', in an action brought in the name of the State, was not competent as a witness.
Scire Facias, to revive a judgment obtained upon an award made in the course of a suit brought upon a constable’s bond. Upon the trial, before his Honor, French, Y, at Fall Term, 1864, of the Superior Court of’Orange, as is stated in the case sent up, “ the counsel for the defendant submitted various objections to the judgment, and to the scire facias as varying therefrom. These having been overruled, they offered the relator as a witness, to show that the judgment had been satisfied as to him. This, was done as a foundation for offering a paper 'in the handwriting of the person alleged to be substantially the relator, going to show that the judgment, in great measure, had been satisfied as to him. The witness Avas held to be incompetent.”
Yerdict for the plaintiff; rule for a new trial; rule discharged, and appeal to the Supreme Court.
Graham, for the plaintiff.
No counsel for the defendant.

Opinion:
Reade, J.
The only question which Seems to be presented in the case is, whether the defendant had the right to compel the relator to testify as a witness ?
The relator is substantially the plaintiff, and we are not aAvare of any case in which, it was held that he was compelled to testify, and it is certainly against general principles. There is a recent statute making parties competent witnesses; but it was passed since the trial of this case, and •of course did not apply.
If any other points were intended to be presented, they were not made at the bar, and are so obscurely stated that they are not considered.
Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.