Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/248

 :42 cpu ruled and adjudged in the 1796. The counfel for the defendant oppofed the admiflion of the VVV teilimony, contending, rlut Liorgmr was difqnalilied from pro- ving the note a forgery, having given credit to it, by his indorfe· _ment. 1 Y1 Rep. ago. 3 T Rep. 34. The counfel for the profecution anfwercd, that Moognn could have no intereil, as be confeikd-himfelf to be liable to the hold- er of the Note, whatever might he the illbe of the trial. But, nr ana Courr : The objediion is not on the ground of intereli 5 but on the impolicy of fuliering a man to difcredit an infirumenr, to which hc has previonily given credit, by his in- dorfement. The rule of law fcems fetrled; and is, in general, a good one. However delirous, therefore, we may be to obtain the light of this witnel`s’s evid ce, we mult, for that reafon , alone, rejefl it. · III. The counfel for the profecution then proved, that ]•- evb Magna had paid the Note and taken it up (which was done inCourt) and offered him again as a witnefs. The pril`oner'e eounfel iiill ob'e£ted; but 1*1-n·: Count over·ruled the objection; and the witneih was {worn. Verdiét, Ganz? on the count for fraudulently procuring Me:·g.m to endo e the Note, and Nat Guilt; on the other court-; of the iudiéhnent. ` Marcb Term, 1 796. Raxxroti Allignee wrfu: BELL. TMS was an aftion for money had and received, &c. _ brought by Rayon, as ailiguee of Dr·wl·ug,’7, a bankru t, ugamll the defendant, who had fold goods of the bankrupt, hy virtue of an authority from him; but, it appeared in evidence, that no money had been received by the defendant, at the time of commencing the aéiion. The eounfel for the defendant {Ingnfd/, Lnui: 8c Della:) ob- je&e•·‘ that, on this evidence, the prefent aéiion ¤.•uld not be maintained. The counfel for the plaintiff (Raw}: 8: W7I¢wL:) after fume remarks, and citing Doug. 132, fuhmitted to the decided inclina- tion of rms Couvsr, and futfered A Nc;-fuit. lSTO>i°5

�