
    Thomas Ward against William Coulter. 
    
    ON CERTIORARI.
    THE principal question raised upon this certiorari, was, the admissibility of Matthias Clintoch as a witness. By the state of demand, it appears that the action was founded upon a note of hand, given by one Parish to the defendant; and by defendañt handed over without assignment to Matthias Clintoch as agent of the plaintiff, and the defendant warranted the note and represented the ability and willingness of Parish to pay the note in such way as induced Clintoch to receive the same in payment of a debt; Ward promising to make good any deficiency arising from the default of Parish; and that Parish, at the time, and ever since, has been insolvent and absent, and not to be found, and Ward knew it, when he transferred the note.
    
      When Glintoch was offered as a witness he was objected to, on the ground that he had been a partner of the plaintiff in 1811, (when the note was transferred). He was sworn on his voir dire and examined, and then sworn in chief. In an amended return, the justice states: “ that Glintoch, on his voir dire declared, that he axxd plaintiff were partners at the time the note was left with him, and if he had collected the money on the note, he should have given the defendant credit on their books for the same.”
    
      Pennington for plaintiff.
    
      
      
         See Heath ads. Everson, 2 Har. 245.
      
    
   Opixxion of the Court by

Eossell J.

The principal reason relied on for the reversal of this judgment, is, the admission, as a witness of Matthias * Glintoch, who was a partner of the plaintiff’s at the time the note, concerning which this action was brought, was assigned to him. The justice, in his transcript, states, “ that Glintoch was objected to on his being offered as a witness by the plaintiff, on this trial; was sworn on his voir dire, examined, and then sworn in chief.” It is true, that in the amended return of the justice, he certifies the single fact, that Glintoch on this voir dire declared, that at the time the note was assigned, lie was a partner of the plaintiff, and had the note been collected, he should have given the defendaixt credit for it, on the partnership books; but this does not appear to me to alter the case. The defendant had counsel on the trial; there can be no doubt but the usual question touching his interest, was asked him and answered to the satisfaction of the justice. It is easy to conceive a variety of means by which this interest of Glintoch might be done away. If it was so, he was a competent witness. That it was so, the judgment of the justice has evixiced by admitting him. I do not see enough in this case to set aside the verdict of a jury, and am of opinion that the judgment be affirmed.

Southard J. dissented.

Judgment affirmed.  