Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

21 Me. 383

Fifield v. Smith

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided May 15, 1842

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · decided 1842-05-15

Assumpsit against ten persons, doing business as a Company in making scythes. A. Gile was called as a witness by the defendants. He was objected to by the plaintiffs, and on their examination on the voir dire, he appeared to have had an interest in the event of the suit. The defendants then proceeded to examine him as to the sale of all his interest to R. B. Dunn, by deed. This was objected to by the plaintiffs, unless the deed or a copy of it from the registry was produced.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 1882

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1842-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1The opinion of the Court was afterwards drawn up by

Whitman C. J.

¶2— The bill of exceptions, in this case, states, that one Gile was introduced as a witness, by the de*384fendants, who, being put upon the voir dire, disclosed certain facts, which, as the Court considered, show him to be interested in the event of the suit; whereupon the defendants proposed to prove, by a further examination of the witness, that he had divested himself of his apparent interest in the cause, by conveyances, by deeds duly recorded. The Judge sitting in the trial ruled that such proof should be made, by an exhibition of the deeds or copies of them from the registry; to which the defendants took exception, which was allowed.

¶3The authorities seem to show, very clearly, that, a witness examined on the voir dire, and exhibiting an apparent interest in the cause, may be permitted to show, by testifying further, that such apparent interest has been removed by writings or records, although not produced or present at the time. Greenh Ev. 470; Miller v. The Mariner’s Church, 7 Greenl 51. The exceptions therefore must be sustained and a new trial be granted.

/21/me/383 · .json · Public domain