Wike v. Lightner
| Decision Date | 29 May 1824 |
| Citation | 11 Serg. & Rawle 198 |
| Parties | WIKE v. LIGHTNER. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
IN ERROR.
Evidence to discredit a witness, must go to his general character and not to particular acts of misconduct.
A witness called to discredit another witness, cannot be asked " have you ever heard of others, whether he was a dishonest man, or bore a bad character?"
If a witness, on being asked, whether he would believe a witness who had been examined on the opposite side, on his oath answer, " I would not place as much confidence in his testimony, as in that of a man of integrity," it is not evidence.
ON the trial of this cause, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster county, one York Frever having been examined as a witness on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff, for the purpose of discrediting him, offered in evidence the deposition of George Thompson, which contained the following questions and answers:
Question by the plaintiff. What is the general character of York Frever, negro, or do you know him?
Answer. I do not know him by the name Frever, but I know Black York, who gave evidence in a case of William Lightner and others against Wike, about twelve years ago; he worked for me three days; and from his conduct during that time, I had reason to believe him not to be an honest man.
Question by plaintiff. Have you ever heard, of others, whether he was a dishonest man, or bore a bad character?
Answer. I heard others say, that he was a bad fellow.
Question by plaintiff. Would you believe him on his oath?
Answer. I could not place so much confidence in his testimony, as in that of a man of integrity.
The court, on an objection being made by the counsel for the defendant, refused permission to read the deposition, and a bill of exceptions to their opinion was tendered and sealed.
Jenkins and Hopkins, for the plaintiff in error, admitted that the answer to the first interrogatory was properly rejected, but insisted that the last two were good evidence. They tended to show, that the witness's moral character was bad, which was sufficient. To ask the deponent, whether he had heard others speak of him as a bad man, or as bearing a bad character, is equivalent to asking him what people in general say of him, in respect to these matters; a form of question which cannot be objected to. It is difficult to make some witnesses understand what is meant by general character; and unless the question be put in different ways, the evidence will be lost, merely because the question is not understood. Kimmel v. Kimmel, 3 Serg. & Rawle 336; Phil. Ev. 211; 2 Hayw. 300.
Rogers and Buchanan, for the defendant in error, were stopped by the court; whose opinion was delivered by TILGHMAN, C. J.
The error assigned in this case, is, the rejection of certain parts of the deposition of George Thompson, a witness examined in the court below, on the part of the plaintiff. The object of Thompson's testimony was, to discredit a witness of the name of York Frever, who had been examined on the part of the defendant. The first interrogatory put to Thompson, was, " whether he knew the general character of Frever?" This was a very proper question, but the answer of the witness is admitted not to be evidence, because, instead of speaking to general character, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial