Boruan Cover or Pmyjlouie. agp thehw, toadmitthe evidence : But, it is clear, that theymay I79s. have an adequate redrefs for the wrong whiehtheyhave l`uEer· v~`| ed, inaformof a&i¤u fuited tntheir cafe.' Thceridence wasrejefted; anda verdiétgircnior the a- mount of the plaiutifa demand.
Dffdflblf TCYIII, I 7 QS. '*Y Rssruanca myiu Ross. HIS wasan indiélmentcontaining |ixCo¤nts,which IY charged the defendant, invarious forms, with · ’ utteringapromilfory ¤ote,datedthe 27th offs!) l?9S• P¤¥P¤¤. ing tobea note drawnhy;¢pbHe§Uerin favorof _‘}•h Suki, i¤dor[ed|i1·ltl1y_7¤bu.S`vail ,a¤daft¤I¤rdsl>y_7¤¢·•$I{•rgas; and with fraudulently eonfpiring with one to procure youd Magnum ind¤efethenote';:ymeans ofa forged letter,purportingtobeaddreH`edl!t{cf•f He§€er,to "'unb Magna. Inthecourfeofthetrial, dence were ruled by the Court. I. The Attomey General {I•grqNL who was allilied hy Lewir and Hwy) olleted ZE/'epb Heyler, the fuppofed drawer ofthenonqtoprovethat ` Iignaturewasforged. - ` ‘ The Counfel forthe defendant (Resale, M. Levy, M‘Keau and Dollar) objeéled ontwo grounds :—°tlt. That no man is a competent wimefsto impcachehe validity of a negotiable in- Ilrument to which he has put his name. 1 YZ RQ. 296. 3 Wade:. 303. 2d. 'Htatthc witnefs is difqualihed on ac. count of his interell in the cafe; and though the verdi& here could not be given in evidence in a civil aéliou, the Court and ]ury would be furetohear of it. 2 Stn. 728, —Le¤eb. C. L. 9. to. go. rgg. BuIL M P. 288. 9. Leach. C. L. 16:. 287. to Med. 192. 3. t Slra. 595. 2 Sire. 1043. r toq. t 229. ' Yann, juke, added, that in the cafe of Sueeuer v. Garda #-3--R- trietl at 1W:i Prius, in Cumberland County, when he was Counfel for one of the panics, a limilar principle was decided. The Vendor had interrupted the Vendee in the enjoyment of the tract of land, ’ which had been fold ; but the latter was not allowed tu give the matter in evidence, in an action brought by th: ilmner, to recover the purchafe money.
�
