Dorr v. Osgood
Supreme Court of Vermont
AT the stated term, issue to the Jury, and verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff filed his motion for a new trial, stating, First. That David Osgood, the principal and most material witness on the part of the defendant, was interested in the event of the cause, and therefore incompetent. Secondly. That the verdict was against law and evidence. The motion was heard and decided the present term.
Read the full summary
AT the stated term, issue to the Jury, and verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff filed his motion for a new trial, stating, First. That David Osgood, the principal and most material witness on the part of the defendant, was interested in the event of the cause, and therefore incompetent. Secondly. That the verdict was against law and evidence. The motion was heard and decided the present term. Upon an intimation by the Court that they were convinced the verdict was correct upon the evidence admitted, the second point was laid out of the case. By recurrence to the Judge’s minutes, it appeared,…
1Per curiam
By our practice, when a witness appears on the stand, who is considered to be interested in the event of a cause, a party may prove his interest by written or unwritten testimony. He may show by documents, or by other disinterested witnesses, that he is interested, or he may appeal to the conscience of the witness by having the voir dire oath administered to him. The party has his election to do either, but he cannot do both. If the witness perjures himself by testifying that he had no interest, when he knows he has, he is amenable for the perjury ; but if he purges himself from interest, the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ward v. BroadwellNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1854