Sawrey v. Murrell
| Decision Date | 30 April 1806 |
| Citation | 3 N.C. 397 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | SAWREY v. MURRELL & OTHERS. |
1. The practice permits a person, who has served the notice that a deposition will be taken, to appear before the commissioners and swear to that fact; and if the certificate of the commissioners shew it, the deposition may be read.
2. Where two commissioners take a deposition, one alone cannot amend the certificate made by both.
3. A party cannot impeach the credibility of his own witness.
4. But a defendant, by calling back one of the plaintiff's witnesses to examine him to a distinct fact, does not thereby make him his witness.
The plaintiff produced a witness and examined her, the defendant then offered a deposition, and the certificate of the commissioners stated that the person who gave notice of taking the deposition, had appeared before them and proved that legal notice had been given; and the court decided that the certificate was insufficient, for it should have stated when the notice was given, that the court might be able to determine whether it were legal notice or not. The defendant's counsel then offered to examine one of the commissioners in court, as to what the person who gave the notice had sworn before them. The court would not permit him to be so examined, because the witness himself who swore before the commissioners might be produced. The defendant's counsel then moved that the commissioner might amend his certificate, the court said that might be done, were both commissioners present, but that one alone could not alter a certificate made by both. The defendant's counsel then called upon the witness first examined by the plaintiff, she being the plaintiff's daughter, to say whether or not, notice had not been given to the plaintiff of taking this deposition, and she failed to prove it. The defendant's counsel then called witnesses to discredit the plaintiff's witness, and the plaintiff's counsel opposed their admission, on the ground that the defendant's could not discredit their own witness, and that they had made the plaintiff's witness their own by calling her to prove a distinct fact, after her first examination was over.
Per Curiam. It is very correct to say that a plaintiff or defendant cannot discredit a witness produced by himself, but the reason of this rule does not apply to the case before us. If a man could discredit a witness called by himself, he might, having the means of discrediting her in his own power, pass for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tilley
...117 N.C. 491, 23 S.E. 438; Strudwick v. Brodnax, 83 N.C. 401; Wilson v. Derr, 69 N.C. 137; Shelton v. Hampton, 28 N.C. 216; Sawrey v. Murrell, 3 N.C. 397. Despite an early decision to the contrary (State v. Norris, 2 N.C. 429, 1 Am.D. 564), the rule applies to the State as well as to other ......
-
State v. Pope
...McCormick on Evidence, § 38 (1972), it is not recognized in this jurisdiction. See State v. Norris, 2 N.C. 429 (1796); Sawrey v. Murrell, 3 N.C. 397 (1806); Neil v. Childs, 32 N.C. 195 (1849); Hice v. Cox, 34 N.C. 315 (1851); State v. Taylor, 88 N.C. 694 (1883) (Disapproving State v. Norris......
-
Owens v. Chaplin
...being sworn, they testified against the relator, and he is bound by their testimony. State v. Todd, 222 N.C. 346, 23 S.E.2d 47; Sawrey v. Murrell, 3 N.C. 397. They were specific as to their residence and in most cases of being sworn when they voted, especially on cross-examination, and ther......
-
People v. Williams
...the court held that the state may produce contradictory statements of its witness. However, in 1806, the doctrine was repudiated. Sawrey v. Murrell, 3 N.C. 397. Since those early years, exceptions have been engrafted upon the rule to prevent injustice when a party who calls a witness is sur......