
    Pride v. Peters.
    Witnesses interested in the question are not admitted to testify.
    AotioN of assumpsit, declaring that he was owner of one-eighth of a certain sloop of the value of £18 15s.; that the defendant sold his eighth part of said sloop and received the' money for the plaintiff’s use, and in consideration thereof the defendant assumed and promised, etc. Plea — Nonassumpsit.. Issue to the court.
    Upon the evidence it appeared, that this vessel was seized for being concerned in the illicit trade; Peters was the libellant, Colonel Halsey was the proctor that prosecuted, Pride and one Clark were improved as witnesses; the vessel was condemned to Peters upon his libel, and he sold the half' of her for £75, and received the money. It further appeared that there was a special honorary agreement between them, that the plaintiff, Halsey and said Clark should share one-eighth of the net proceeds, when sold.
   Judgment — That the defendant did not assume and promise. It is clear that neither the vessel when, sold, or the money when received for it, were the plaintiff’s — and if the plaintiff has any remedy it must be by a special action of the case, founded upon the particular agreement.

Colonel Halsey and said Clark were offered as witnesses, and it appearing that they had similar claims against the defendant, depending on the same facts, were not admitted.  