Atwood v. Welton
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action qui tarn, for taking usuiy, brought on the statute, to recover the value of the money alleged to have been loaned by the defendant, to one Hezekiah Scott, on a corrupt and usurious agreement The cause was tried, on the general issue, at Litchfield, February term, 1828, before Peters, J. On the trial, Hezekiah Scott, named in the declaration as the borrower of the money, was offered as a witness by the plaintiff, to prove the alleged usury.
Read the full summary
This was an action qui tarn, for taking usuiy, brought on the statute, to recover the value of the money alleged to have been loaned by the defendant, to one Hezekiah Scott, on a corrupt and usurious agreement The cause was tried, on the general issue, at Litchfield, February term, 1828, before Peters, J. On the trial, Hezekiah Scott, named in the declaration as the borrower of the money, was offered as a witness by the plaintiff, to prove the alleged usury. An objection was made to his testimony, on the ground that he was not a believer in divine revelation. This objection was overruled. It…
1DissentPeters, J.
I cannot concur in the opinion of Judge Dag-gett, in which I understand him to hold, that a person professing to believe in a Supreme Being, and that men are punished for their sins in this life, but are all made happy, by their Creator, immediately after death, is not a competent witness; though I fully concur in the decisions of the three great cases chiefly relied on, by him, which it was not the intention of the court below to deny or impugn. If this case cannot be distinguished from them, a new trial ought to be granted.
By the ancient common law, Christians only were allowed tobe sworn…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hunscom v. HunscomMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1818
- Curtiss v. StrongSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1809
- Chance v. HineSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1826
- Northrop v. HatchSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1827