
    Norton versus Ladd.
    A person who is proved to have openly and repeatedly avowed that he had no belief in the existence of a God, cannot be admitted to testify in a court of justice.
    In this cause, while on trial before the jury at this term, one John Hunter was offered as a witness on the part of the plaintiff. On the part of the defendant it was objected, that Hunter was not a competent witness, because he did not believe in the existence of a God. And it was proved that he had several times, within a short time before the trial, stated that he had no belief in the existence of a God.
    
      Williams and Cushman, for the plaintiff.
    
      Bell and Barnard, for the defendant.
   By the court.

He, who openly and deliberately avows that he has no belief in the existence of a God, furnishes clear and satisfactory evidence against himself, that he is incapable of being bound, by any religious tie, to speak the truth, and is unworthy of any credit in a court of justice. This witness is proved to have repeatedly avowed such a sentiment, and we have no hesitation in rejecting him as a person worthy of no credit. 2 Cowen, 431, Butts v. Swartwood; 18 Johns. 98, Jackson v. Gridley; Willes’ Rep. 538, Omichund v. Barker.  