
    Thomas Hunscom versus Polly Hunscom.
    The disbelief of a future state of existence goes only to the credibility of a witness
    This was a libel for a divorce a vinculo. On the trial, a witness being offered to prove the adultery, Wilson, for the respondent, objected to his being sworn, and founded his objection to the competency of the witness upon his professed disbelief of a future state of existence, and offered to prove his repeated declarations of such disbelief. But the Court admitted him to be sworn, and said the objection went only to his credibility, 
    
    
      
      
         In Wakefield vs. Ross, (5 Mason, 16,) Mr. Justice Story held that a person who did not believe in the existence of a God, or a future state of existence, was not a competent witness. Such, undoubtedly, is the law of England. “ Our law,” says an English writer on evidence, of great authority, “ like that of most other civilized countries, requires a witness to believe that there is a God, and a future state of rewards and punishments.” “ It may now be considered as an established rule,” says the same writer, “ that infidels of any other country, who believe in a God, the avenger of falsehood, ought to be received here as witnesses; but infidels, who believe not that there is a God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, cannot be admitted in any ease.” — 1 Phillips's Ev., pp. 21, 22., 7th Lond. ed. — And see Jackson vs. Gridley, 18 Johns. R. 98. — Butts vs. Swatwood, 2 Cowen, 431—572.— Curtis vs. Strong, 4 Day, 51. — Atwood vs. Welton,7 Conn. R. 66. — State vs. Cooper, 2 Tenn R. 96.
    
     