
    EDWARD HOUGHTON versus LEWIS PAGE.
    A party who has put his name to a negotiable security, is not a competent witness to prove that at the time he thus giVe it currency it was void.
    THIS was aii action of assumpsit, upon a promissory note made by Lewis Page and Seth Lyman, and payable to T. M. or order, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff.
    The cause was tried at the last term in this county, upon the general issue, when the defence set up was that the note was given to secure the payment of illegal interest reserved upon-a loan of money ; and the only question was, whether Seth Lyman was a competent witness to prove the consideration of the note to have been usury, this question having been saved, and the cause continued to this term.
   The court now said, that the rule that a party who has put his name to a negotiable instrument cannot be a witness to shew it was originally void, even in a suit between the original parties to the instrument, was too well settled to be questioned. 3 Mass. Rep. 27, Warren vs. Merry. — 4 do. 156, Churchill vs. Suter. — 10 do. 502, Manning vs. Wheatland. 2 Johnson 165, Colman vs. Wise.  