Opinion ID: 1120644
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Disqualification of witness.

Text: The challenge to the testimony of the witness Blake Probert is based upon the assertion that he is a person directly interested in [this lawsuit against the estate] and that the facts must have been equally within the knowledge of both the witness and    [the] deceased person    and is thus precluded from testifying by Sec. 78-24-2, U.C.A. 1953. (The so-called dead man's statute.) While this statute obviously has a salutary purpose, in many instances its effect is to suppress inquiry into the truth rather than to assist in its discovery. For that reason this court has heretofore indicated that it should be construed and applied strictly; and that it will only disqualify a witness who has an interest in the particular subject matter of the action in which he is challenged as a witness. [3] More specifically applicable to the issue before us is the holding in our case of Clark v. George, [4] that in an action for specific performance the challenged witness must have a direct interest in the contract which was the subject of the action in order to fall under the ban of the statute. The trial court correctly ruled that the fact that Probert had a claim of a similar nature against this estate would not disqualify him as a witness. Incidentally, plaintiff attempted to show that Probert had divested himself of his claim anyway. However, defendant charges that this transfer was not bona fide but was done for the ulterior purpose of removing his disqualification. In that connection we think it appropriate to observe that a different situation might exist if one having an actual interest in the same claim against the estate should purportedly, but not in fact, divest himself of such interest, and thus engage in subterfuge to circumvent the effect of the statute and become qualified as a witness.