
    William & P. M. Slocum, v. Newby and Pleas.
    “1 I From Perquimons. J
    l.t is no objection to tlve competency of a witness, that he is counsel for the Plaintiff, and intends, if the debt sued for be recovered, to charge a commission for receiving and remitting the money.
    This was á question as to the admissibility of a-witness. The Plaintiffs claimed a debt in this, case, and their counsel offered himself as a witness. He was examined on his voire dire, and declared that he was not otherwise interested than as counsel, that there was no -special agreement between thG Plaintiffs and himself: but if tiie debt were recovered, he should charge a commission for receiving and remitting the money. He was admitted as a witness, and a verdict being given for the Plaintiffs, a, rule for a new trial Was obtained- by the Defendants, on the ground that improper testimony had been received. The rule was sent to this Court $ and
   By the Court

The objection to the witness goes to his credibility, and not to his competency. The rule .discharged.  