
    Penfield against Carpender.
    improper evp dence Should not be admitted .to sufficient oft”?* yards, t°’direct
    ant,*!6 ‘a'jut ■|s° imp¿peí’: to which6 accrued ?£epíaintifE of
    IN.ERROR, on certiomri to a jus.tice?s .court,
    » mi . * . V , • i v 1 ne action,- in-the court below, .was .to. recover; damages 101? sbcep,'belonging to the plaintiff, killed by the--defendant’s dbg.' At the trial, a witness was called,- on behalf of the defendant., te» á con'Versatihh between him and the defendant,/ in which die latter.had denied that he was the owner of the dog;, the tesfimony, was objected to, but the- .justice decided .that the witness might go,through with his 'testimony, aind that he Would then in--. form't-hq. jury what part' was admissible,,and what not.'; And the justice informed ¡the, juiy that - the testimony' was inadmissible, and that' they ought not to take any notice.of it; aá. testimony; Another witness was, in .the same manner,, permitted to s»wéar as ,tq hearsay respecting the o.whership Of the-dog;; .shd-the-jus-. ticp then tpld-the jury,- as before; that what the witness had sworn was hot evidence. A verdict was found for the defendant; and the • justice included in the defendant’s, judgrneñt all the costs which had .accrued On-the párt of the plaintiff,-viz. summons, constable’s fees, .swearing plaintiff’s witnesses,,&c.
   .Per-Curiam.

The admission of such testimony, was illegal and dangerous, and no subsequent caution or advice by the justice,-that the jury ought to. disregard'what the witnesses had sworn', can cure .the irregularity. • The law forbids such testimo;ny, hecaiise it mayAaiie anánfluence upon honest jurors, .who aré unconscious of the impressions which- they retain, inotwith^ standing;.the'effort of the court to obliterate-then}.' V. "

The tazation 'of costs .was alsoillegab

Judgmeht-reversedt-  