OYER and TERMINER, &c.
at Philadelphia:
RESPUBLICA verʃus KEATING.
L
UKE KEATING was indicted for forging a promiffory note payable to John Meng, with a forged indorfement of John Menge's & Co.—Lewis, for the defendant, objected to the admiffion of Meng‘s teftimony ; contending, that if Meng could prove that the note was falfe, it would difcharge him from the payment ; and if he proved it to be a genuine note, his evidence might be given againft him in a civil action founded upon the note ; in either event he was an interefted witnefs, and, confequently, an incompetent one. Salk. 283. Hardr. 331. 2, Hawk. 433. Stra. 728. 1043. 1104.
Ingerʃol (who profecuted on this occafion for the Attorney General) argued, that, to prevent an interruption and failure of juftice, and the efcape of offenders, the injured perfon was in all cafes of indictment a competent witnefs. Vent. 49. 78. Vin. tit. Evid. pl. 26. 2, Stra. 1229. and Abrams vs Bunn eftablifh this doctrine. 4 Burr. 2252. He infifted that the evidence given by Meng on the prefent trial could not affect him in a civil action ; and obferved, that if any thing relative to the civil action fhould decide the cafe before the court, the probability was, that Meng‘s teftimony would be favourable to the prifoner ; for if Meng fwears the note to be falfe, he can gain nothing ; but if he proves it to be true, he teftifies againft his own intereft.
Lewis, in reply, acknowledged that the evidence given on this trial, could not be offered in favour of Meng on another ; but he urged, that if the note itfelf were poved to be forged, it might be detained by the court and not fuffered afterwards to he fued ; on
