Court Opinion

ID: 9808033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 20:25:51.847948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:19.994234
License: Public Domain

Hall, Judge,
dissentiente. — 1 am inclined to think that proof of the wife’s acts, in this respect, ought to have been received in evidence: when received, they are not at'all decisive of the question; but the Jury are at liberty to draw such inferences from them as they may think right and just. One reason given why the wife shall not be a witness for or against the husband, is, that perjury might be committed in suffering a person to give evidence who la-bours under so great a bias; that reason does not hold good in this case.
It appears to me also, to be relevant, for the defence made by the Defendant was, that the Plaintiff was as well acquainted with the slave as the Defendant was. If the Plaintiff was proved to have seen and fed the negro, when run away, and just before ho bought him, it would certainly be proper evidence to be left to the Jury. If the wife was proved to have acted in the same way, although weaker evidence, it appears to me to be evidence of the same character. It is not conclusive, but a circumstance of which the Jury ought properly to judge.
I therefore, think, the rule for a new trial, should be made absolute.