
    Woodruff v. Whittlesey.
    Trover for a heifer. The plaintiff claimed said heifer by a transfer from Nathaniel B. Woodruff: The defendant alleged the transfer was fraudulent, and on this point rested his defense.
    The court will never resort to the evidence on which a verdict is founded, as a ground of arrest, but will consider as conclusive the facts found by the verdict.
    Note. — A party to a fraudulent conveyance, and not a party in the .suit, cannot be a witness, nor is what he has said, when the party sued was not present, admissible.
    This was an action of trover for a beifer. Plea, not guilty. Tbe plaintiff claimed tbe property of tbe beifer, by a transfer from Nathaniel Baldwin Woodruff, on tbe 24th day of October, 1788, in payment of a debt due to tbe plaintiff by note. Two witnesses testified to tbe sale: They said it was in tbe ■evening — that they were only called in to witness thé bill of sale, wbicb was written in another room. They did mot see any note delivered up, but understood from the conversation, wbicb then passed between Baldwin Woodruff and tbe plaintiff, that a certain debt, due by note, was tbe consideration of tbe. bill of sale.
    Tbe only question was, whether tbe transfer from Baldwin Woodruff to tbe plaintiff, was fraudulent. Tbe defendant, Whittlesey, was a constable, and at tbe suit of one Murray, attached tbe beifer in question, tbe 18th day of November, 1783, as tbe property of Baldwin Woodruff. It was proved by tbe defendant, that tbe possession of tbe beifer, after tbe pretended transfer to tbe plaintiff, was not changed, till taken by tbe defendant. That tbe bill of sale, by wbicb tbe plaintiff claimed, was dated one day before Baldwin Woodruff bad acquired any property in tbe beifer; and be bad frequently said, be never would pay Murray anything, but would put bis estate out of bis bands to avoid it (though it was at that time only a right of action).
    
      These circumstances were urged by the defendant as so many indisputable badges of fraud, to which was cited, 2 Wilson’s Eeports, 260; 3 Coke, 82; Twine’s case, 1 Burrow, 467; Worseley et al. v. De Mattos and Slader, 2 Burrow, 831; Wilson v. Da.y, Oowper’s Eeports, 434.
    The jury found a verdict for the defendant, which was accepted by the whole court.
    The plaintiff’s counsel then moved in arrest of judgment, and for cause alleged,- — ■
    1. That on trial of said cause before the court and jury, the only question was, whether the transaction between Solomon Woodruff, the plaintiff, and Nathaniel B. Woodruff, on the 24th day of October, 1783, relative to the sale of said heifer, was fraudulent, as it respected a demand of one Philemon Murray, upon said Nathaniel B. Woodruff. And that in evidence, the defendant exhibited a writ of attachment, in favor of said Murray, against said Baldwin Woodruff, in an action for slander, demanding forty shillings damages; which writ was dated the 7 th day of October, and served the 18th day of November, 1783: And that said writ of attachment, and judgment thereon, was the only evidence of any debt, on the part of said Murray, against said Baldwin Woodruff, which could not be considered as a debt, until after said 18th. day of November; therefore, at the time of said bargain and sale of said heifer, from said Baldwin Woodruff to the plaintiff, there was no certain claim, debt or demand existing, on the part of said Murray, against said Baldwin Woodruff, so as to make said sale fraudulent.
    2. That one of the jurors who tried said cause, had previously to said trial given his opinion in said cause.
    The motion was overruled.
   By the whole Court.

The first exception is insufficient;, because the court, on motion in arrest, after a general verdict of the jury, cannot resort back to the evidence on which tbe verdict was founded, to set it aside, but must render judgment according to tbe facts found.

And, upon examination into tbe facts alleged in tbe second exception, it does not appear that there was any partiality in tbe juror, wbo is said to bave given bis opinion in tbe case, before tbe trial, as be declares be bad no remembrance of it; and although it was testified by two young men that they bad beard him, some years ago, give bis opinion in a transient discourse, yet it doth not appear that, that opinion was founded on a full knowledge of tbe case, or that it bad any influence on bis mind in tbe trial. And it was further shown, that tbe other jurors were very unanimous in giving their verdict as they did, before they bad beard bis opinion.

Note.— In this case if was moved, on tbe part of tbe defendant, that be might introduce testimony of what Baldwin Woodruff bad acknowledged, "as to tbe fraud in said sale. But, ,

By the Court.

What a person bath been beard to say, wbo is only interested in tbe event of a suit, but not a party to it, cannot be given in evidence; for though a person may confess for himself, be cannot for another.

It was also moved to inquire tbe character of tbe parties to tbe fraudulent conveyance, as to honesty — which was overruled by tbe court.  