
    BLACKWELL against HAGERMAN.
    OH OIÍRTIORABI.
    Action for overflowing land, by a dam, lies in justices’ court.
    The action below, was brought by Hagerman against Blackwell, for overflowing his land, by erecting a mill-dam. It appeared from the record of the justice, [753] that a witness was offered by the plaintiff, and objected to, on the ground of interest, and was sworn on his voire dire; and while under examination on his voire dire, he was asked whether the removal of the mill-dam would not operate to his disadvantage ? To which question, the plaintiff objected, and the justice sustained the objection.
    
      M’Donald and 11. Stoekton, contended,—
    1st. That the justice had not jurisdiction of the cause, as the title of land came in question; and,
    2d. That the justice overruled legal testimony.
    
      Ewing, in reply.
    The question of jurisdiction has been settled by former decisions of this court; and although the question put to the witness might have been proper when he was examined in chief, yet it was improper on his voire'dire, 
      as only creating an interest in the question, and going to the credit, and not the competence of the witness.
   [*]

By the Court.

The question of jurisdiction has been settled in favor of the action, by this court. But we think the question put to the witness improperly overruled.

Judgment reversed.

Cited in Gregory v. Knause, 6 Halst 62; Hill v. Carter, 1 Harr. 87.  