
    Goodner vs. Browning.
    A defendant called on to account, by his own oath may be discharged from items of debt not exceeding twenty dollars, and, in t,he aggregate, not exceeding five hundred dollars; but he must be credible and uncontra-dicted, and he must swear positively to whom he paid the debt, for what and when. He cannot, however, by chancery usage, charge the complainant by his oath in this way.
    
    Goodner filed bis bill in the Chancery Court at Cár-thage, against Browning, for an account of dealings between them. Browning answered and proof was taken.. Goodner exhibited claims against the defendant for goods;, wares and merchandise sold and delivered, and for other’ matters.of account The bill was dismissed, on the hearing before Chancellor Ridley. The complainant appealed.
    The Supreme Court, on hearing, ordered an account to be taken, and gave the following instruction to the clerk in taking such account: The particular state of facts on which this opinion was delivered, does not appear.
    McDonald, for complainant.
    
      M. M. Brien, for the defendant.
    
      
      Wote. — “ This rule appears to have been adopted from analogy to the rule’ at law in accounts, and as it is not sufficient at law that the party should swear to his belief, only, that the money has been paid, but must swear to the fact, so in accounts under decrees in equity he must swear peremp. torily to the fact*” Dan. Ch. Pr. 1425. Quaere, whether an executor may not support ,his discharge by swearing 'to his belief that sums under forty shillings were paid by his testator hims'elf. Dan. Ch. Pr. note y., 1425. In Maine and in Massachusetts, the booh of the party supported by his oath me not sufficient proof, at law, of a charge of twenty-six dollars in money. The sum of forty shillings or six dollars and sixty-seven cents is the extent that courts have permitted to be proved in that way. Dan. Ch. Pr. note 1425; 1 Fairf. 9; 3 Pick. 109. The tendency of judicial decisions and of legislation, is to make persons interested, and parties, witnesses in all cases. See 1 Greenl. Witness. The act of 1756, ch. 4, authorises the plaintiff to prove by his book and oath, accounts of certain descriptions, not exceeding seventy-five dollars; and the act of 1819, ch 25, authorises accounts of any amount coming from another State or county, to be proved by the oath of the party, which is conclusive, unless the defendant shall deny such account on oath.
      The act of 6 and 7 Victoria, ch. 85, enacts that “no person offered as a witness shall hereafter be excluded by reason of incapacity from crime or interest from giving evidence either in person or by deposition, according to the practice of the court,” in any proceeding either civil or criminal, &e., &c.; “provided, this act shall not render competent any party to a suit,” &c., 
        &.C.; “but such crime or interest shall be considered'as affecting or-tending to affect the credit of such witness.” Dan. Ch. Pr. 1034. “A party to an action may be examined as a witness at the instance of an adverse party and for that purpose may be compelled to testify in the same manner, and subject to the same rules of examination, as any other witness, either at the trial, of conditionally, or upon commission. The examination of the adverse party, thus taken, may be rebutted by adverse testimony.” New York Statutes, 1849, ch. 489, sec. 390. “No person shall be disqualified asa witness in any suitor proceeding in law or equity, by reason of his interest in the event of the suit, either as a party or otherwise, or by reason of his conviction of a crime, but such interest or conviction may be shown for the purpose of affecting his credit ” Revised Statutes of Connecticut, 1849, p. 80, sec. 141.
    
   Turley, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

By long usage in chancery in accounting, sums under forty shillings may be substantiated by the oath of the accounting party. 1 Ver. 176; 1 Moll. 20; 2 Chan. Ca. 249. In Remsen vs. Remsen, 2 John. Ch. Rep. 501, Chancellor Kent says: “ It is understood to be the settled course of the court, that upon the defendant accounting before the master, he is to be allowed, on his own oath being credible and uncontradicted, sums not exceeding forty shillings, but then he must mention to whom paid, for what, and when; and he must swear positively to the fact and not to his belief only, and the whole of the items so established must not exceed one hundred pounds, but defendant cannot, by way of charge, charge another person in this way. Forty shillings was the sum established in the early history of this court, and perhaps twenty dollars would not now be deemed an unreasonable substitute.”

We, concur in the suggestion of the Chancellor, and as a rule of practice for the chancery courts in this State in taking- accounts permit an accounting party to be allowed before the master to substantiate sums not exceeding twenty dollars each, and in the aggregate five hundred dollars by his own oath, subject to the restrictions above set forth in the case of Remsen vs. Remsen.  