Ott et al. v. Houghton

• Decision Date: 01 January 1858
• Parties: Ott et al. versus Houghton.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

30 Pa. 451

Ott et al. versus Houghton.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

ERROR to the Common Pleas of Lehigh county.

M. Goepp and Longnecher, for the plaintiffs in error.—The questions proposed to be asked went to the credibility of the plaintiff's witnesses: 1 Greenl. Ev. § 389; Evans v. Eaton, 7 Wheat. 424; Evans v. Hettich, 7 Wheat. 453; Owings v. Speed, 5 Wheat.

423; Van Nuys v. Terhune, 3 Johns. Cas. 82; Stewart v. Kip, 5 Johns. 256.

The court's construction of the paper sued upon is not warranted by its terms. The conveyance of the patent and its capacity to burn 140 bushels to the ton of coal are so closely connected in the instrument as to constitute jointly a condition precedent to the defendants' payment of the money.

C. M. Runk, for defendant in error.—The first question proposed to be put to Long was immaterial to the issue, and it was not error to overrule it: Thomas v. Snyder, 11 Harris 515. They could not introduce their defence on the cross-examination: Mitchell v. Welch, 5 Harris 339. A party must show that he was prejudiced by the error complained of: Phelin v. Kenderdine, 8 Harris 363. A conveyance of the patent must have been in writing: Brightly's U. S. Dig. 730, pl. 40; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 403; 1 Starkie's Ev. 133; Dreisbach v. Berger, 6 W. & S. 564; 6 Watts 456.

The 2d, 3d, and 4th questions were wholly irrelevant. The ownership of a part of the patent constituted no interest in the question so as to affect the credit of the witnesses: Evans v. Eaton, 1 Pet. 322; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 389, 391; Evans v. Mengel, 3 Barr 239; Morgan v. Weir, 1 Casey 119; Allegheny v. Nelson, Ibid. 332. The 5th and 6th questions were equally irrelevant to the issue.

The charge of the court is sustained by Dyer v. Rich, 1 Met. 180, and Bartlett v. Holbrook, 1 Gray 114.

The opinion of the court was delivered by THOMPSON, J.

It is always competent for a party, against whom a witness is called, and gives evidence, to propound such questions, on cross-examination, as may tend to show his favour or bias towards the party calling him, if he has reason to believe that any such exists. Interest in the question may, and most generally does, create a bias more or less powerful in the minds of most witnesses — but this only goes to the credibility and not the competency of the witness; and on this subject it was said, in Cameron v. Montgomery, 13 S. & R. 128, that the party against whom a witness is produced, may show everything which may, in the slightest degree, affect his credit; and the judgment in that case was reversed because the court below refused to allow the witness to be asked "whether the plaintiff did not buy his real property at his instance?" "It was a circumstance," said C. J. TILGHMAN, "which might show that the witness was under obligation to him, and this might have some effect on his evidence." The rule is recognised in Bennett v. Hethington,...