Opinion
April, 1797.
Ridgely and Vandyke for plaintiff. Read, Rodney and Bayard for defendant.
The principal point in this cause was a question of location.
Upon the trial, in order to prove location, one Andrew Ker was offered as a witness for plaintiff. He was objected to by the counsel for the defendant upon the principle that he had an interest in establishing the location he was called to prove and therefore, though not interested in the event of the suit, was interested in the question and of consequence incompetent. It was admitted that the witness was interested in the question, but it was answered that according to the modern cases an interest in the question went only to the credit and not to the competency of a witness.
A witness who has an interest in the question is not competent. It is so determined in 10 Mod. 291. The modern cases have rather set afloat than settled the point of law.
Witness rejected.
Upon the same trial it was ruled by the CHIEF JUSTICE that a plaintiff in ejectment could not recover without proving the person upon whom the declaration was served in possession of parcel of the land within the plaintiff's title at the time of the service.