Opinion
July Term, 1810.
It is no objection to the competency of a witness, that he is counsel for the plaintiff, and intends, if the debt sued for be recovered, to charge a commission for receiving and remitting the money.
THIS was a question as to the admissibility of a witness. The plaintiffs claimed a debt in this case, and their counsel offered himself as a witness. He was examined on his voire dire, and declared that he was not otherwise interested than as counsel; that there was no special agreement between the plaintiffs and himself; but if the debt were recovered, he should charge a commission for receiving and remitting the money. He was admitted as a witness, and a verdict being given for the plaintiffs, a rule for a new trial was obtained by the defendants, on the ground that improper testimony had been received. The rule was sent to this Court.
From Perquimans.
The objection to the witness goes to his credibility, and not to his competency. The rule discharged.
Cited: White v. Beaman, 96 N.C. 287; Grant v. Hughes, ib., 188.
(424)