Iredell County NcArchives Court.....Alexander Hall, Joseph Guy V. 1819
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 January 27, 2009, 3:20 pm

Source: Nc Reports
Written: 1819

Joseph Guy v. Alexander Hall

From Iredell

May Term 1819

In an action to recover the value of a negro slave, the Plaintiff gave in 
evidence a bill of sale for the negro, made to him on 15 December, 1817. The 
Defendant claimed title to the negro under the same person, and gave in 
evidence a bill of sale made to him on the 5th of that month. The Plaintiff 
alleged that he had purchased the negro before the 5th, and that it was agreed 
between him and the vendor that they should meet on or about the 15th, when he 
should give bond with security for the purchase money, and the vendor should 
make to him a bill of sale: and the declarations of the vendor made between 
the 5th and 15th were received in evidence to prove these facts.

The declarations or confessions of a person making them are evidence against 
him, and all claiming uuder him by a subsequent title. He cannot better his 
title by transferring it to another, or thereby affect the rights of those who 
have an interest in his confessions.

A rule prevailed during Lord Mansfield's time, that no man should be heard 
either directly by himself, as a witness, by giving his declarations in 
evidence to impeach an instrument to which he was a party, or to invalidate a 
title which he had passed away as a good one. This rule was exploded by Lord 
Kenyon, and the ancient rule restored, of excluding witnesses only upon two 
grounds, infamy and interest. It is still retained in some of our sister 
States, as to instruments which are negotiable.

In this case the vendor was alive, and amenable to the process of the Court; 
and it was urged that he himself should be sworn, and his declarations be not 
received. But he is privy in estate, and in law, his declarations are those of 
the party claiming under him. If it be asked, Why not swear him? the answer 
is, the party likes his declarations better. It is true, if he be now 
disinterested, either party may, if he chose, call him as a witness.

This was an action of trover to recover the value of a negro slave named 
Peter, to whom both Plaintiff and Defendant; set up title, under Joseph Hall. 
The Plaintiff gave in evidence a bill of sale made to him by Joseph Hall on 15 
December, 1817; and the Defendant gave in evidence a bill of sale made to him 
by Joseph Hall on the 5th of that month. It was alleged by the Plaintiff, that 
he had purchased the negro Peter from Joseph Hall before 5 December, and that 
it was agreed between them at the time of the sale and purchase, that they 
should meet on or about 15 December, when Plaintiff should give bond with 
security for the purchase money, and Joseph Hall should execute to him a bill 
of sale: and to prove this fact, he offered in evidence, among other things, 
the declarations of Joseph Hall made between 5 and 15 December. Hall was alive 
and amenable to the process of the Court. The evidence was rejected, and the 
Plaintiff nonsuited. A rule for a new trial was obtained, upon the ground that 
the evidence was improperly rejected. This rule was sent to this Court.

Henderson, Judge: The declarations or confessions of the person making them, 
are evidence against such person and all claiming under him by a subsequent 
title, and for the plainest reasons. Truth is the object of all trials, and a 
person interested to declare the contrary, is not supposed to make a statement 
less favorable to himself that the truth will warrant; at least there is no 
danger of overleaping the bounds of truth as against the party making the 
declarations. It is therefore evidence against him, and his subsequent 
purchaser stands in his situation: for he cannot better his title by 
transferring it to another, or thereby affect the rights of those who have an 
interest in his confessions. During the time that Lord Mansfield presided in 
the English Courts, a different rule prevailed, that no man should be heard 
either directly himself as a witness, by giving his declarations in evidence 
to impeach an instrument to which he was a party, or to invalidate a title 
which he had passed away as a good one: thereby forming a new rule of 
excluding witnesses. But the good sense of his successor restored the ancient 
rule, declaring that he knew of but two rules of exclusion, infamy and 
interest: and the rule observed in Lord Mansfleld's time is now entirely 
exploded, except in some of our sister States, where it is retained as to 
instruments which are negotiable.

But it is said, that the person whose declarations are offered, is entirely 
disinterested and within the process of the Court, and therefore should 
himself be sworn. There would be some weigtht in this objection, if they were 
offered as the declarations of a disinterested individual in those cases where 
such declarations are admissible, to-wit, in cases of pedigree and boundary; 
for then the declarations would be inadmissible, if the higher evidence, the 
oath of the party, could be had. In all other cases, except those of pedigree 
and boundary, the declarations of disinterested individuals are inadmissible; 
for they are nothing but hearsay, in this case, they are offered as coming 
from a Privy in Estate, and therefore, in Law, from the party himself; for the 
privy completely represents him, so that the question whether the person be 
now disinterested to declare the truth, and is amenable to the process of the 
Court, does not affect, the point now under consideration.

It is asked, Why not swear him? The answer is, The party likes his 
declarations better. He may, from some motive, vary his statement; and the 
party offering this evidence is alone to judge. It is true, if he be now 
disinterested, either party may, if he choose, call him as a witness. 

The evidence was improperly rejected, and the rule for it new trial must be 
made absolute.

Cited: Johnson v. Patterson, 9 N. C. 184; Satterwhite v. Hicks, 44 N. C. 103; 
Magee  v. Blankenship, 95 N. C. 568; Shaffer v. Gaynor, 117 N. C. 24.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/iredell/court/alexande795wl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/ncfiles/

File size: 6.6 Kb