¶1 The objection in this case is, that a witness was examined, who was not competent under the act of Assembly, because he was not indifferent. (Rev, ch. 354.) It is true, the act requires witnesses to be indifferent, but unfortunately it gives no exposition of this term. Neither docs it set forth its import. For my own. part, I see too small a shade of difference between that term, and the term competent, to undertake to give to either of them, a meaning essentially distinct from the. *214 other, The import of the term competent is well known to tiie profession. I must take it, that the Legislature meant the same thing, when they used the term indiffer- If so, it may be said, that three indifferent witnesses were introduced on the trial, and that the requisition of the act was complied with. It is not to be believed that the Legislature intended to introduce a new rule of evidence.
¶2 Per Curiam. — Let the judgment be affirmed.