
    [FEBRUARY TERM, 1800.]
    *Imlay against Rogers.
    A grand juror cannot be admitted to prove that a witness who has been examined, swore differently before the grand jury.
    This was an action of trespass for burning a vessel. The causo was tried at the Monmouth circuit, in April, 1799, before his Honor Mr. Justice Kirkpatrick. This was a motion for a new trial, on the ground, that his honor had refused to admit one of the members of the grand jury to prove that ---, who had boon examined as a witness on the trial, had sworn differently on his examination before the grand jury, in relation to the same transaction. It was argued by Frelinghuysen, and Johnson, for a new trial, and Griffith against it.
   Kinsey, O. J. and Smith, J. for granting a new trial.

Kirkpatrick, J. and Boudinot, J. against it.

Rule discharged. 
      
       In Fenwick's ease, in parliament, upon a bill of attainder, a member of the grand jury was admitted to give an account of the testimony upon which they found the indictment, o St. Tr. 72. In an anonymous case before Foster, J., reported Clayt. 84, at York assizes, the judge would not suffer a grand juryman to be produced as a witness, to swear what was given in evidence to them, because he is sworn not to reveal the secrets of his companions. 12 Vin. Abr. title Evidence, II. 1. And m Trials per Pais. 226, it is said, that a clerk attending upon a grand jury shall not be compelled to be a witness to reveal that which was given them in evidence. 12 Vin. Abr. 38, title Evidence B. a. 5.
     