Chambers v. . Greenwood

Jan 5, 1873

Versions:

Reade, J.

1. The action is upon a note payable to the intestate of plaintiff, which note the defendant alleged was *276 embraсed in a settlement of accounts between him and the plaintiff’s intestate, in his lifetime, and that, in that way the note had been settled, and was not delivered up because it was mislaid, and it was to be delivered up when found. The plaintiff had offered to prove what his intestate had said about the note, and defendant’s counsel objected, and the evidence was ruled out. In the argumеnt, the defendant’s counsel said to the jury, that if the intestate were alive there would be no difficulty about it; and that he would be willing to leave it to him. In reply, the plaintiff’s counsel said, well, if ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍that is so, whjr did you object to my proving what he said ? And thereupon, the defendant’s сounsel asked his Honor to stop the plaintiff’s counsel, because he was commenting on evidence which had been rulеd out. No, said his Honor, he is not commenting on the testimony which was ruled out, but he is commenting on your argument. The defendant’s counsel hаd gone outside of the case, to say what he would be willing to do, and the plaintiff’s counsel went outside of the case, to tеst his sincerity. It may have been a hard hit, but in the opinion of his Honor it was fair. And as it spent its force upon the counsel and not upon the case, it is not a ground for a new trial. It was but the repartee common in debate, which the Judge could .hardly prevent, and which in his discrеtion he might indulge.

2. In commenting oh the alleged settlement, the plaintiff’s counsel.asked in argument, why the settlement, the papers, сlaims and evidences of debt were not produced to speak for themselves, instead of relying upon the memory of thе witnesses; and why-the defendant did not explain, either by ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍himself or his wife, both of whom were competent witnesses. The defendant’s cоunsel objected to this course’of argument, and asked the Court to stop the plaintiff’s counsel, which his Honor declined to do. And the defendant excepted, upon the ground that the counsel had no right to comment *277 upon the non-introduction of the dеfendant or his wife as a witness.

It will be observed that the non-introduction of the defendant and his wife was not the point which the counsеl was making before the jury, but it was the non-introduction of the settlement and the papers and evidences of claims, and that the fact of the non-introduction of ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍the papers, unexplained, tended to show that no such papers ever existed. And thаt if there was any explanation why the papers were not produced, it was for the defendant to make it, and this he had fаiled to do, although both himself and his wife were competent witnesses.

The authority upon which the defendant relies to support this exception, is Devries & Co. v. Phillips and Haywood, 63 N. C. Rep. 53. In that case it was alleged that the conveyance under which the defendant, Haywood, claimed thе property was fraudulent. And the defendant Haywood, did not offer himself as a witness to prove that .it was not fraudulent,, choosing to rely upon other testimony. And thereupon the plaintiff insisted that his Honor should charge the jury, “ that as the facts of the case were pecuculiarly ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍within his own knowledge, the circumstance that he did not tender himself as a witness, in his own behalf, required them to prеsume the facts as to which he might have testified most strongly against him.” His Honor refused the charge, and this Court sustained him. In the opinion, it is said, “ that the fact that a party does or does not offer himself as a witness, standing alone, allows the jury to presume nothing for or against him, and can only be the subject of comment as to its propriety or necessity, in any given case according to the circumstances, as the introduction or non-introduction of any other witness might be commented on.” And it is further said, “that it is a rule of evidence that whеre fasts are proved against a party which, it is apparent, he might explain, and he withholds the ex *278 planation, the faсts are to be taken most strongly against him; so the misconduct of a party in suppressing or destroy-' ing evidence, which he ought to produce, or to which the other party is entitled; such as the spoliation of papers and the like, warrants unfavorable presumptions against him.” Apply these principles to the case before us, and the case cited would seem to be against the defendant; for the point made here is, that the papers of the settlement and the evidences of indebtеdness, which the defendant set up, ought to be produced by him, or their non-production accounted for; and that it did not lay in him to say that he could not account for them, because he was himself a competent witness. It is further laid down in the case citеd that the .naked fact that a party does not offer himself as a witness is not a fair subject of comment by counsel, ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍and that the Court ought to restrain it. We thought then, and still think, the rule wise and necessary. The proper administration of justice and the rights of suitors require it. The evil would arise in every case, as in every case there must be parties. And if every party is to be assailed becаuse of the naked fact that he offers himself as a witness, or because of the naked fact that he does not offer himsеlf as a witness, every trial will be a nuisance. It would be the same as to allow every party to be assailed just because hе is a party. And instead of citizens regarding the Courts as the palladiums of their rights and liberties, they would come to regard them as the slаughter houses of their reputations. But still, it must be understood that if a party choses to put himself under suspicious circumstances, as in thе particulars named in Devries and Haywood, supra, or, as in Peebles v. Horton 64 N. C. Rep. 374, where the defendant claimed under a deed, alleged to be fraudulent against creditors, and introduсed himself as a witness to prove the deed fair, instead of introducing the maker of the deed, who in that case was disinterested and necessarily knew all about the matter, and was *279 present in Court; this was held to be a “suspicious circumstance,” and a fаir subject of comment by counsel.

It is proper that we should sa'y that the mere manner of conducting the trial below is, and ought tо be, so much within the discretion of the presiding Judge, that an alleged irregularity must be palpable, and the consequences important, to induce us to interfere.

There is no error.

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed.