
    Commonwealth vs. Daniel F. Smith & another.
    The want of religious belief in a witness cannot be shown by examination of the witness himself.
    At the trial in the court of common pleas, before Perkins, J. of an indictment for unlawful sales of intoxicating liquors, the counsel for the defendants, upon cross examination, asked a witness for the Commonwealth this question : “ Do you believe in the existence of God?” The witness answered that he did. The court interposed, and refused to allow the counsel to put p,ny further questions at this stage of the case, in reference to the religious belief of the witness. The defendants, being con victed, alleged exceptions.
    
      W. _D. Northend, for the defendants.
    
      J. II. Clifford, (Attorney General,) for the Commonwealth.
   By the Court.

The proposed questions were properly excluded. While a belief in the existence of a God is held by us necessary to the competency of a witness, yet the want of such religious belief must be established by other means than an examination of the witness upon the stand. He is not to be questioned as to his religious belief, nor required to divulge his opinions upon that subject in answer to questions put to him while under examination. If he is to be set aside for want of such religious belief, the fact is to be shown by other witnesses, and by evidence of his previously expressed opinions, voluntarily made known to others.

Aside, therefore, of the question of the propriety of allowing further inquiry, after the witness had answered affirmatively the general question of his belief in the existence of God, in the opinion of the court the whole inquiry of the witness upon this matter was irregular and unauthorized. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 370 & notes. Exceptions overruled  