Hollingsworth v. Leiper
COMMON PLEAS, Philadelphia
County.
HOLLINGSWORTH verʃus LEIPER.
A
RULE had been obtained to fhew caufe, why the report of Referrees fhould not be fet afide, on the ground of their having hears a witnefs interefted in the event of the fuit ; and, after argument, THE PRESIDENT pronounced the decifion of the Court.
SHIPPEN, Preʃident.–The determination of earnfes by referrees under a rule of Court, has become fo inequoent ufeful a practice, and is attended with fo many advantages towards the fummary adminiftration of juftice, that it would be extremely mifchievous to fhake their reports by captions objections, where the fubftantial rules of juftice are not violated. The merits of the caufe are folely fubmitted to them, as judges of the parties own chufing, and are not afterwards enquired into by the Court, unlefs there fhould appear a plain miftake of the law or fact.
1786.
As to the forms of their proceeding, both parties fhould have an opportunity of being heard, and that in the prefence of each other, that they may be enabled to apply their teftimony to the allegations. The witneffes, on both fides, are likewife, to give their evidence in the prefence of the parties, that they may have an opportunity of crofs examining them. No fuprife is permiited, fuch as refufing the parties a reafonable time to bring forward their witneffes, or refufing to hear them when they are brought. Thefe rules, or fimilar ones, are founded in natural juftice, and are abfolutely neceffary for the due adminiftration of juftice every form whatever.
As to the kind of evidence which the referrees may hear, there always has been, and muft neceffarily be, in this kind of tribunal, a very great latitude. The parties, generally unaffifted by counfel, are permitted to relate their own ftories, and confront each other ; their witneffes are heard even without an oath, unlefs the contrary is ftipulated, or the referrees require it. Books and papers are infpected and examined by them, without regard to their being fuch as would be ftrictly evidence in a Court of law. And this practice being known to both parties before they agree to the reference, and the advantages arifing from it, being mutual, there feems no juft reafon to complain of it.
In public trials in Courts of law, the judges fit to fuperintend the evidence and no interefted witneffes are, in general, permitted to give evidence to the jury ; but referrees occupy the office both of judge and jurymen ; their are generally unacquainted with the artificial rules of law, they muft be guided principally by their own reafon. If we were once to fet afide a report, becaufe the referrees had heard an interefted witnefs, we fhould open a door for fuch a variety of objections, that fcarcely a fingle report would ftand the teft. Papers not formally or legally proved, or hearfay evidence admitted, would be as fatal to reports, as the admiffion of interefted witneffes, being equal violations of the rules of evidence.