Case No. 13,945.

THOMPSON v. CARBERY.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 35.]¹

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1811.

WITNESS—COMPETENCY—INTEREST—SURETY ON REPLEVIN-BOND.

A surety in a replevin-bond is not a competent witness for the plaintiff in replevin, although he has an indemnifying bond.

Replevin. Ignatius Middleton, one of the sureties in the replevin-bond, being sworn in chief, and asked if he was interested in the cause, said he was not. He was then examined and cross-examined. It was afterward discovered by the defendant's counsel that he was a surety in the replevin-bond. He acknowledged himself to be the person, but said he had a bond of indemnification, which he produced. The plaintiff then called him again, to examine him further. The defendant objected, and THE COURT refused to suffer him to be further examined; and told the jury that what he had already testified was not evidence.

[See Case No. 13,946.]

¹ [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]

This volume of American Law was transcribed for use on the Internet
through a contribution from Google.