1781.
M’Veaugh verſus Goods.
Certain goods of Britiſh manufacture being imported into the County of Philadelphia, contrary to the Act of Aſſembly, paſſed the 10th of September 1778, they were attached, and this information filed againſt them. The owners of the goods exhibited a claim, and the merits of the caſe were brought to trial, at an adjourned court, on the 10th of January 1782, when the following points of evidence were ruled.
In ſupport of the information one Scull was called as a witneſs, who, being examined on the voire dire, ſaid that he aſſiſted in making a ſeizure of the goods; and, in caſe they were condemned, but not otherwiſe, he expected ſome compenſation from M’Veaugh’s generoſity, although he had received no certain promiſe of that kind.
Lewis, for the Claimants, contended againſt the admiſſion of Scull’s teſtimony; and urged that if a man, who is not, in fact, intereſted, apprehends himſelf to be ſo, he will naturally be biaſſed in favor of the ſide, on which he preſumes his intereſt to lie; which is a ſufficient cauſe to disqualify him as a witneſs. See Stra. 129.
Sergeant, for the informant, likened this to the caſe of an heir, who expects to be benefitted by his Father’s eſtate, yet as that really depends on the will and pleaſure of the father, it is no ground to prevent his being a witneſs. Scull has no certainty of reward; he has not even a promiſe; and, whatever may be his expectations, the matter ſtill depends entirely on the will and pleaſure of the informant.
But, By the Court:—It nearly concerns the adminiſtration of juſtice, that witneſſes ſhould be free from every kind of biaſs. It is true, that Scull has no poſitive promiſe of a reward; but, we think, the expectation which he acknowledges, in caſe the goods ſhall be condemned, muſt create ſuch an influence in his mind, as renders it improper for him to give teſtimony on this occaſion.
Lewis offered in evidence a paſs from a juſtice of New-Jerſey, permitting the goods in queſtion to be conveyed through that State.
Sergeant objected, that the paſs of a juſtice of New-Jerſey, could not be given in evidence to defeat an Act of the Legiſlature of Pennſylvania.
To this Lewis replied, that it was offered merely to obviate any imputation of fraud in concealing it.
But, by the court, it was declared, that the paſs was not admiſſible as evidence.
