
    Orput v. Miller.
    A witness for the plaintiff cannot be objected to as incompetent, merely because he considers himself bound in honour to indemnify the plaintiff's surety for costs.
    
      
      Thursday, June 3.
    
    ERROR to the Wayne Circuit Court.
    
      M. M. Ray, for the plaintiff.
    
      J. 8. Newman and C. H. Test, for the defendant.
   Blackford, J.

Miller sued Orpul in assumpsit. Pleas, the general issue and a special plea in bar. . Cause submitted io Court, and judgment for the plaintiff.

On the trial, the plaintiff offered to examine one Noble as a wjtness. He was objected to as being interested, and -was examined on his voire dire. He- stated that lie . had asked one Rowan to' exécute for the, plaintiff, who was a nonresident, a bond for costs; that Rowan executed the bond;' but there-was no understanding .that .the witness would indemnify Rowan. He stated, also,.that he would feel himself bound in honour to pay-the costs, if Rowan should have them to pay; but that'he'was under no legal obligation to pay them. The witness was examined,' and his admission is assigned for error. ' - ' 1. '

. The law is well settled that the objection here made to the witness is not tenable. The very point .is decided' in Pederson v. Stoffles, 1 Campb. 144. Mr. Phillips says that the obligation of a witness; who believes himself bound merely- in honour to indemnify the bail, is in general of a nature so uncertain, and variable," that it cannot safely be recognized ^ in Courts of justice as a.motive of- conduct. 1 Phill. Ev. 54. To-be sure, a Witness so situated may not be entitled to the same credit with a witness éntirely free ■ from any bias-, but that is an objection only to his credibility. • ' .

The record contains the evidence in the cause, and the defendant contends1 that it does not support the judgment; but in this wé think he is mistaken. . .

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed, with 5. per cent.damages and costs.  