Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/30

 JOHNSON V. DONAIiDSON. 2S �It would seem that the correctness of this ruling oould not be seriously questioned. Section 860 of the U. 8. Eevised Statutes provides that "no pleading of a party, nor any dis- covery or evidence obtained from a party or witness by means of a judioial proceeding in this or any foreign coantry, shall be given in evidence, or in any manner used against him or his property or estate, in any court of the United States, in any criminal proceeding, or for the enforcement of any pen- alty or forfeiture." Irrespective of this statute, it vrould be contrary to ail precedent, and a violation of one of the most familiar rules of the common law, to require a witness to fur- nish evidence to conviot himself of a crime, or subject himself ^0 a penalty or forfeiture. 1 Greenl. Bv. § 453. And courts of equity, when sifting the conscience of a defendant by a dis- covery, never require him to disclose facts which would sub- ject him to a penalty. Daniell's Chanoery, 626 ; Story's Eq. PI. § 575. �The statutes which bave within a comparatively recent period been enacted in Bngland and in our own states, abro- gating the rule by which parties were not competent witnesses in actions at law, are designed to place parties npon a foot- ing of equality with other witnesses in regard to competency, but not to deprive them of the rights of ordinary witnesses. Concededly, the only purpose in view in requiring the defend- ant to produce his books, plates, and chromos, upon the trial, was that thereby evidence might be fumished which would «nable the plaintiff to recover the penalties and forfeiture in suit. The ruling was clearly right. �The defendant gave evidence upon the trial to show that the chromos published and sold by him were designed from a picture found in a foreign publication, circulated here before the plaintifiE obtained his copyright; and the jury were in- structed that if the defendant did thus obtain his design the plaintiff could not recover. It is now alleged that this instruc- tion was error. �Care was taken to instruot the jury that if the plaintiff waa the author, designer, or proprietor of the chromos for which be had obtained a copyright, he was to be protected iiï hia ����