
    Claudius F. Legrand against Aaron Swayze.
    ON CERTIORARI.
    Competency of witness.
    WALL attorney.
    The plaintiff complained that the defendant had agreed ¿raw out 0f the river and saw, on certain specified terms, a raft of plaintiff’s logs; that he neglected to do it, and the raft was broken loose and floated down the stream, &c.
    After the plaintiff had rested his evidence, the defendant offered James M’Murtry as a witness. The plaintiff required him to be sworn on his voir dire, alleging that he was interested. M’Murtry swore that he considered that the raft of logs were his own, having received them from the plaintiff himself, for money which he owed him. Upon this evidence, the justice would not permit him to be sworn in chief, upon the trial.
   *By the Court.

The justice erred in rejecting M’Murtry as a witness. He had no interest in the event of the cause. Its determination in favour of the plaintiff or defendant, could in no way affect him. It was competent, in a suit of this nature, for the defendant to prove that the property in the logs was not in the plaintiff, and if this was what he intended to prove by M’Murtry, he was a proper and competent witness for that purpose.

Judgment reversed-  