
    WASHINGTON COUNTY.
    September Term, 1754.
    Pennsylvania v. James Farrel.
    
      Rex v. Rhodes 2 Str. 728. 2 Hawk. 611.
    4 Burr. 2251. Dall. 110.
    On the trial of an indictment for forging and knowingly publishing a note, the person whose note it purported to be was called as a witness.
    
      H. Ross, objected to his admission. Under the statute of 5 El. the person injured could not be a witness. Our act of assembly pursues the stat. 5 El.
    
   President.

You may either argue or reserve the point.

They agreed that it should be reserved; and the forgery and publication were proved.

Brackenridge for defendant. Unless the court has doubts on the point of competency, seeing the witness has to plain an interest to invalidate his own obligation, I hope the court will instruct the jury to disregard the testimony.

President.

I will not do so. The cases on this subject are not very consistent; but I acquiesce in the cases of Abrams v. Bunn, and of Pennsylvania v. Keating, and hold the witness competent. His credibility lies with the jury.

Verdict guilty.  