​

1781.

M'VEAUGH verʃus GOODS.

C

ERTAIN goods of Britiʃh manufacture being imported into the County of Philadelphia, contrary to the Act of Affembly, paffed the 10th of September 1778, they were attached, and this information filed againft them. The owners of the goods exhibited a claim, and the merits of the cafe were brought to trail, at an adjourned court, on the 10th of January 1782, when the following points of evidence were ruled.

In fupport of the information one Scull was called as a witnefs, who, being examined on the voire dire, faid that he affifted in making a fiezure of the goods ; and, in cafe they were condemned, but not otherwife, he expected fome compenfation from M'Veaugh's generofity, although he had received no certain promife of that kind.

Lewis, for the Claimants, contended againft the admiffion of Scull's teftimony ; and urged that if a man, who is not, in fact, interefted, apprehends himfelf to be fo, he will naturally be biaffed in favor of the fide, on which he prefumes his intereft to lie ; which is a fufficient caufe to disqualify him as a witnefs. See Stra. 129.

Sergeant, for the informant, likened this to the cafe of an heir, who expects to be benefitted by his Father's eftate, yet as that really depends on the will and pleafure of the father, it is no ground to prevent his being a witnefs. Scull has no certainty of reward ; he has not even a promife ; and, whatever may be his expectations, the matter ftill depends entirely on the will and pleafure of the informant.

But,by the court:——It nearly concerns the adminiftration of juftice, that witneffes fhould be free from every king of biafs. It is true, that Scull has no pofitive promife of a reward ; but, we think, the expectation which he acknowledges, in cafe the goods fhall be condemned, muft create fuch an influence in his mind, as renders it improper fro him to giveteftimony on this occafion.

Lewis offered in evidence a pafs from a juftice of New-Jerʃey, permitting the goods in queftion to be conveyed through that State.

Sergeant objected, that the pafs of a juftice of New-Jerƒey, could not be given in evidence to defeat an Act of the Legiflature of Pennʃylvania.

To this Lewis replied, that it was offerred merely to obviate any imputation of fraud in concealing it.

But, by the court, it was declared, that the pafs was not admiffible as evidence.