State v. . Hasset

Counsel

Slade , for the defendant, objected to his being sworn, on account of the strong bias which he must necessarily feel, to procure the conviction of a person by whom he had been prosecuted, and through whose means he had been found guilty and fined. That from such impressions the mind of a witness ought to be perfectly free, otherwise the facts he relates will be either distorted or so discolored by the resentment which actuates him, as to be equally adverse to the discovery of truth. He cited the case of Rex v. Whiting . 1 Ld. Ray., 396, where it was decided that upon an information for a cheat in obtaining by imposition a note for £ 100, instead of £ 5, the person thus imposed upon was not admitted to give testimony, because he was in some measure concerned in the consequences of the suit, since a conviction would have been a tendency to discharge her from the payment of the £ 100. That it is there also expressly ruled by the Court that the case was not distinguishable from perjury or forgery, where the party interested in the deed or prejudiced by the perjury shall not be admitted to prove the perjury or forgery. He also cited Rex v. Nunez , Str., 1043, where the authority of the former case was recognized and followed; that was an indictment for perjury committed in an answer in chancery, wherein the defendant denied an agreement charged in the bill, not to sue a note given to him by (140) the prosecutor, who, being called upon to prove the agreement, was rejected as incompetent. The same doctrine is also established in Watt's case , Hardr., 331, where it is laid down, generally, that no person who is a loser by the deed, or who may receive any advantage by the conviction of the defendant, can be a witness against him in an indictment for forgery. He argued that the same principle is properly extended to perjury, where the prosecutor may consequently derive a benefit from the conviction of the defendant.