
    Jonathan Peirce versus Thomas L. Chase.
    Where a defendant producing a witness had declared that it belonged to such witness to pay the demand sued as well as himself, such witness cannot be sworn.
    Assumpsit by the promisee against the maker of a promissory note.
    At the trial the defence was, that the note was usurious; and the defendant offered the deposition of Thomas C. Legate, to prove that the plaintiff informed him that the note declared on was given for extra interest on a certain other note for 1000 dollars, in which the defendant, the witness, and several others, were joint and several promisers. The note last mentioned had been sued, and judgment recovered thereon and satisfied.
    * The plaintiff objected to the witness as interested, and in addition to the foregoing facts, read three depositions which proved that the defendant had declared that it belonged to the witness to pay the note, as much as to himself. The witness himself, being questioned by the defendant, declared in his deposition that he was not interested. The judge, who sat at the trial, admitted the testimony of the witness, and reserved the point for the opinion of the whole Court.
    
      Fuller for the plaintiff.
    
      Smith for the defendant.
   By the Court.

Proof that a witness has confessed himself interested in the event of a cause is not sufficient to disqualify him. But where it is proved that the party, by whom the witness is introduced, has acknowledged him so interested, the witness ought not to be sworn. As the deposition of Legate was therefore im properly admitted at the trial, the verdict in this case must be se aside, and a new trial granted.  