In re Paul
District Court, W.D. Washington
1Opinion of the CourtNeterer, District Judge
(after stating the facts as above). Arbitrary rules fixing the competency of a witness “mentally incompetent” to testify do not obtain. Courts have been “keeping pace with the progress of science” and enlightened unfolding, and have relaxed the rigor of the rules, and now competency depends upon the understanding and moral sense — the degree of intelligence and understanding — of the witness. A lunatic is generally recognized as competent to testify, if he has sufficient mind to understand the nature and obligation of an oath, and give expression to the matters of which he knows or has seen…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- District of Columbia v. ArmesSupreme Court of the United States · 1883
- New York Evening Post Co. v. ChalonerCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1920
- Czarecki v. Seattle & San Francisco Railway & Navigation Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1902
- Lanier v. . BryanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1922
- Tiffany v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- George E. Shibley v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1956
- In Re LoughranDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1967
- Lockard v. ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1947