Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/101

 Summa Comer or Pmsyylwnfa. gg a wltnefs at a great diftanee inWg4ingrm County ;hut that `nei- tf;86. ther· the witnefs, nor the perfon employed to ferve the fubpen, VVV _ attends. This would not, in iiriétncfs, be a fuiiicient i nd for putting ojf the caufe: Bot it mufl he remem· I {engl, that the defendangoneebefore, at a oonliderable espenee, 7 brought the fame witnefs to Court; and when the caufe was § continued, without any fault imputahle to him, he took the wit- - nefs’s depofition. Having thus, on a former, aa well :1:1;:1  _ prefent, occaiion, urfued ev preparatory ep, w ° law requires, to grocure thecraittendance of the witneh, we · think it would be unreafonable to take advantage of any accident, that may have happened to the melienger. Gn.¤mu·ru’s Leffee on-ju Sco·r·r.* ` N this caufe, it appeared that a devife had been made of IY z I certain premifes to A. provided, if he aliens ittoany other perfon than his br0ther’s children, he lhould pay one fourth part LLB 3 of the purchafe money to the teil:ator’s reliduary legatee. The _ prefent ejeéhnent was depending between the devifee, and one claiming paramount to the devife; and the reiiduary legatee, was ofered as a witnefs on behalf of the plaintilii It was contended by Bmdjird and Clumberr, for the defend- ant that the witnefs ought not robe admitted : And they cited. 2 Crm. Law, Diet. 3 Burr. 1856. II Mod. 225. 2 W7]:. 332. t Stra. 507. Bull. NZ P. 279. t Sira. 575. On the contrary, lViy`au and 1"eam maintained the compe- tency of the wimefs. Cro.  460. Hub. 170. Mmrc. 88t. r Sail. 283. BulL 27g. 286. Tlwry of Evid. 22;. Br rmt Count :—The intereil of the reliduary legatee is, in this cafe, fo very remote, that we cannot prefume it will have any bias upon his mind. He mud] therefore, be admitted as a competent witncfs ; leaving his credibility to the jury. Cecu.’s Lelfce v.w;/iu Ltm:xs·ror:e.‘ HE defendant was tenant for years of the prcmifes, for It which the ejeéiment was brought, and one Courtney claim- ed t e fee. The caufe was not included in the general dylrin- ga: which had ilfued for trials, at this Court of IJM Prin: ; but a fpecial dgfringru afterwards came up for it. Neither the defendant, nor Cammy, however, had received exprefs or im- lied " Ruled at Lam·a.rm· Nisi Prius. P ff Ruled at Niri H·iu.v•

�