State ex rel. Bishop v. Poteet
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Cherokee County, at the Fall Term, 1845, his Honor Judge Bailey presiding. The defendant, as an officer, received from the plaintiff, through one II. Barnard, certain promissory notes for collection. The action is on his official bond, and the breaches assigned were for collecting and not paying over, and for negligence in not collecting.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Cherokee County, at the Fall Term, 1845, his Honor Judge Bailey presiding. The defendant, as an officer, received from the plaintiff, through one II. Barnard, certain promissory notes for collection. The action is on his official bond, and the breaches assigned were for collecting and not paying over, and for negligence in not collecting. To sustain the plaintiff’s claim, H. Barnard was tendered as a witness ; and the sole question presented was, as to his competence. On his examination he stated, that, when he took the notes to hand to the defendant,…
1Opinion of the CourtNash, J.
We think the Judge below was correct in over-ruling the objection. The witness had no such interest, as would disqualify him from giving evidence for the plaintiff. It is the object of Courts of justice to ascertain the truth in every case brought before them. And to this end, such rules have been adopted, with respect to evidence, as are considered best calculated to its attainment ; some of them extremely arbitrary, and justifiable only as being a portion of a general system. Among these rules is that, which excludes a witness, without any regard to his moral standing, because of interest.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Moore v. HitchcockNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Trustees of Lansingburg v. WillardNew York Supreme Court · 1811