Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/73

 62 

ERTAIN goods of Britih manufacture being imported into the County of Philadelphia, contrary to the Act of Aembly, paed the 10th of September 1778, they were attached, and this information filed againt them. The owners of the goods exhibited a claim, and the merits of the cae were brought to trial, at an adjourned court, on the 10th of January 1782, when the following points of evidence were ruled.

In upport of the information one Scull was called as a witnes, who, being examined on the , aid that he aited in making a eizure of the goods; and, in cae they were condemned, but not otherwie, he expected ome compenation from M’Veaugh’s generoity, although he had received no certain promie of that kind.

Lewis, for the Claimants, contended againt the admiion of Scull’s tetimony; and urged that if a man, who is not, in fact, intereted, apprehends himelf to be o, he will naturally be biaed in favor of the ide, on which he preumes his interet to lie; which is a ufficient caue to disqualify him as a witnes. See Stra. 129.

Sergeant, for the informant, likened this to the cae of an heir, who expects to be benefitted by his Father’s etate, yet as that really depends on the will and pleaure of the father, it is no ground to prevent his being a witnes. Scull has no certainty of reward; he has not even a promie; and, whatever may be his expectations, the matter till depends entirely on the will and pleaure of the informant.

But, :—It nearly concerns the adminitration of jutice, that witnees hould be free from every kind of bias. It is true, that Scull has no poitive promie of a reward; but, we think, the expectation which he acknowledges, in cae the goods hall be condemned, mut create uch an influence in his mind, as renders it improper for him to give tetimony on this occaion.

Lewis offered in evidence a pas from a jutice of New-Jerey, permitting the goods in quetion to be conveyed through that State.

Sergeant objected, that the pas of a jutice of New-Jerey, could not be given in evidence to defeat an Act of the Legilature of Pennylvania.

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

But,, it was declared, that the pas was not admiible as evidence.