Johnson v. . RichJohnson v. . Rich
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Furches
Onе Benjamin Johnson had an action of ejectment against defendant’s intestate during his life-time, and plaintiff alleges that he was summoned as a witness by the sheriff of Harnett cоunty for the defendant in that action, and attended court as such for a number of terms; that he filed his witness ticket in the clerk’s office; that the court house has since beеn burned and his tickets destroyed by the fire.
Plaintiff was allowed tо testify, under the objection of defendant, that he attеnded court as a witness, and the number of days he so attended. Defendant’s objection was overruled and he excepted. This is the only point in the case.
The objection is put, under Section 590 of The Code, as a transaction with the deceased. This Section has given risе to a great many questions — it being an entire departure from the‘common-law rule. But this Court, soon after its enactment, in construing the proviso which prohibited parties in intеrest fiom testifying as to “communications and transactiоns” with deceased persons, gave as a reasоn, for this exception to the general rule that all persons might be witnesses in their own behalf, and placed it upon the ground that the only person who could contradict such testimony was dead. Hallyburton v. Dobson, 65 N. C., 88. But they did not extend the exception so far as to exclude an interested witness, because the deceased, if living, might contradict what hе, swore. To give it this *270 broad construction would exclude every interested witness- and destroy the general rule, and in effect invalidate the statute. Isenhour v. Isenhour, 61 N. C., 640.
Applying the rules laid down in thеse cases, it would seem that this evidence was cоmpetent. It does not seem to be a transactiоn or communication between plaintiff’ and defendаnt’s intestate; but it is certainly not such a transaction or communication as the intestate alone had knowledge of аnd could have contradicted.
It. was held by this Court in Gray v. Cooper, 65 N. C., 183, that while the plaintiff could not testify as to the contract of hiring his slaves to thе defendant’s intestate, he might testify that defendant’s intestatе had them in his possession during the the years 1S62 and 1863, as this was a mаtter that might be contradicted by others.
In March v. Verble, 79 N. C., 19, it was held that while thе plaintiff could not testify as to the contract with defendant’s intestate, he might testify that he had owned the “ bull ” and that it was the only one of the kind he had owned.
In Cowan v. Layburn, 116 N. C., 526, it was held that plaintiff was competent to prove that she carriеd provisions to defendant’s intestate, while she was sick; that this» was not a transaction between plaintiff and defendant’s intestate, that fell under the exception in Seсtion 590.
The only case cited and relied on by defendant’s counsel was Kirk v. Barnhart, 74 N. C., 653. There is no discussion in that case of thе point decided, and we cannot give it the construction contended for by defendant. To do so would be tо put it out of harmony with too many decisions of this Court.
As we are instructed by the authorities cited, the judgment of the court below must be affirmed.
No Error. Affirmed.