Brown v. Downing
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In ERROR. ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland county. who were plaintiffs below, claimed the land for which this ejectment was brought, by virtue of an application, in the name.of J°?m Downing, their ancestor, dated July 25th, 1767, and a survey thereon of 150 acres, and allowance on 9th May, 1769. Pbe defendants derived their title, through several mesne conveyances, from Alexander Power to John Korne^u, and J J . 1 , from Kornegy to themselves.
Read the full summary
In ERROR. ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland county. who were plaintiffs below, claimed the land for which this ejectment was brought, by virtue of an application, in the name.of J°?m Downing, their ancestor, dated July 25th, 1767, and a survey thereon of 150 acres, and allowance on 9th May, 1769. Pbe defendants derived their title, through several mesne conveyances, from Alexander Power to John Korne^u, and J J . 1 , from Kornegy to themselves. In the course or the trial, the plaintiffs called Alexander Shortis, as a witness. He was objected to by the defendants’ counsel, who…
1Opinion of the Court
*497The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Gibson J.
It did not require the preliminary evidence of the witness, on his voire dire, to get rid of the exception to . his competency. The maxim, that a person alleging his own turpitude is not to be heard, does not apply to witnesses. r ’ r{ J . , Approvers and accomplices, are constantly witnesses, although they inevitably implicate themselves in the guilt they are called to fix on the accused ; and their avowed participation in moral turpitude goes, not to their competency, but their credibility. In civil actions, the principle is the same-. A…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Allen v. RostainSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824
- Stafford v. WalkerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1824