Opinion
10-30-1889
RICE v. RICE.
W. M Lanning, for appellant. Geo. W. Macpherson and G. D. W. Vroom, for respondent.
On appeal from the rulings of the master on admission of testimony.
W. M Lanning, for appellant. Geo. W. Macpherson and G. D. W. Vroom, for respondent.
BIRD, V. C. The wife of a party, with whom it is alleged the defendant in this case had transgressed, was called and sworn as a witness. She was shown an hotel register in which was written the name of a man and wife, in the same handwriting, but which was not the true name of the husband, who, it is alleged, had written it. The witness was shown the registry, and was asked if she was acquainted with the handwriting, and whose it was. This was objected to, because, being the wife of the person who it is alleged had made the registry, and had been guilty of the offense charged, she could not testify respecting any matters which would tend directly to the conviction of her husband of a crime. The objection was overruled. Was the master right? The tendency of modern judicial thought and of legislative action is undoubtedly in favor of admitting every person to be sworn and to testify as a witness in every cause, and respecting every question arising therein. The popular impulse also is in the same direction. These considerations strongly sustain the master. Nevertheless I am quite clear that neither judicial determination nor legislative authority in New Jersey support this generous view. Stewart v. Johnson, 18 N. J. Law, 94; State v. Wilson, 31 N. J. Law, 79; Ware v. State, 35 N. J. Law, 555, 556; Doughty v. Doughty, 32 N. J. Eq. 34. These cases show that the ablest of our judges strictly adhere to the principle and to the policy of the ancient common-law limitation. This must control me until I find the barrier removed by the law-making power. While legislation has wrought many changes, I think it has in no wise interfered with the rule under discussion. Hence I think the master should be overruled, and the objection sustained.