Opinion
March Term, 1797.
Where the plaintiff claimed under a division of slaves made by consent of all the joint tenants, one of the joint tenants, who held slaves under the same division, but was no party to the suit, was excluded from giving evidence on the ground of interest.
Trover for several slaves. The plaintiffs claimed them under a division (by consent of all parties) of slaves held in joint tenancy under a will, by their intestate, the person under whom the defendant held, and others.
Taylor and Graham for the plaintiffs.
Badger and Harris for the defendant.
One of those persons, who had taken a lot of slaves under this division but who was no party to this suit, was introduced on the part of the plaintiffs, to show that such a division by consent had been made.
The defendant's counsel objected to that person being sworn, on the ground of interest, and on argument,
NOTE. — See Ferrel v. Perry, ante, 25, and the cases referred to in Farrell v. Perry, 2 N.C. 2; and also Kaywood v. Barnett, 20 N.C. 88.