CHAP. IV. OF EVIDENCE. dence, 1.108. In addition to the obvious rule as well at law as in equity, that to preserve the purity of evidence, the witness must be disinterested both as to the question and as to the property, it may be proper to premise, that a man who is interested in the event of a suit, is objectionable Peake on Evionly where he comes to prove a fact consistent with his interest; for if the evidence which he is to give be contrary to his interest, he is the best possible witness that can be called, and no objection can be made to him by: either party in the cause. 1 Sid. 192. It is not a general rule that members of a corporation 2 Lev. 231. or society shall be admitted or refused; every case must stand on its own circumstances; thus any person of a county, if he is not within the hundred where the question is, may be a witness. The old cases at law have gone upon very subtle 1 Peake, 93. 1 T. Rep 300. grounds; but of late years the courts have endeavoured, as far as possible, consistent with authorities, to let the objection go to the credit rather than to the competency of a witness; and the general rule now established is, that no objection can be made to a witness on this ground, unless he be directly interested; that is, unless be immediately benefited or injured by the event of the suit. These are the principles which govern the rules of evidence at common law, and attach an equal he may weight in courts of equity, where the search for unbiassed truth is the same, however they may differ in the degree of tenacity to obtain it. Therefore, parishioners are not good evidence to prove a charity given to their parish, because they are interested, 27 G. 3. c. 29. as being eased in the poor-rates: but they are by statute good evidence to recover penalties given to their parish not exceeding 201. So on an appeal between two parishes, a parishioner who is not rated is a competent T. Rep. 157. witness. Doc ex dem. Kerry. I was favoured with a very copious minute of a case where this question, of the credibility of evidence, was fully discussed, and the following is abstracted from the arguments of Lord Camden on that occasion. A testator devises certain lands to trustees, to be applied to the use of such poor, as by reason of infancy, impotence, or old age, are unable to work, and to place out the children of such poor apprentices; and declares that the rents shall be applied to no other use or purpose. Three witnesses who attested the will are seized of lands in fee within the same parish at the time of at testation. The objection is, that these witnesses cannot be admitted to prove the will in court while they remain so seized; because by the establishment of the will, they will derive an interest to themselves, in respect of those lands. Their interest is this; that as the poor's rate must be reduced in proportion to the value of this benefaction, their estates will become rate free pro tanto for ever. Although the devise, at the time of the testator's death, was future, and did not take effect till 1756, four years after; yet it was a present benefit to the owners of those those lands, and made them immediately more valuable, in consideration of this future easement. First, it was said that the poor here described must be understood to be a class of poor, just above the necessity of relief, and that this charity may be applied by the trustees to the use of such persons, exclusive of the parish poor. To which I answer; that the poor in this will are those who labour under the extremest wretched-. ness of helpless poverty: for, when it is considered that the day-labourer, who only lives from hand to mouth, is. deemed by the testator to be a person above the want of this charity, which is confined to the impotent only, those who have enough to subsist on without labour, must a fortiori be excluded. 2. The poor in this will are denoted by the same description as the parochial poor are by 43d Eliz.--and if this be so, this charity cannot, by the terms of it, be distributed to a set of men, who are excluded by the will; it will be a breach of trust to do it: and if it be said that the court of Chancery can direct the money to be applied to a superior order of poor, I desire a case may be produced where this court has ever made such a decree. Ifa legacy has been given to poor house-keepers, and poor not receiving alms, or to poor in general, there might perhaps be some ground for that distinction. But I can never believe that the court could make such a decree in this case, the business of this court being to expound wills, and not to make them. And whereas it is said that these legacies, when they reduce the rate, come to be, in their operation, legacies to the rich, and not to the poor : I answer, that it is impossible to be otherwise; and though this is always supposed to be contrary to the testator's testator's intention, no man living can be sure of that, and I do much doubt it; for why may not a man mean at the same time to give it to the poor, and likewise ease the parish? The poor's rate is a most heavy burden; it falls upon the tenant, and occupier, and is paid by those who are not above a degree or two richer than the object he is forced to relieve; so that he who so disposes of his estate is a double benefactor. But be this as it will, if a gift is made to the paro. chial poor, it must reduce the rate ex necessitate, though the testator may possibly intend otherwise. My brother Gould contends in the next place, with whom my two other brothers now concur, That this benefaction should not be considered as an estate to the parish, but as a bounty to be added to the parish relief, for the comfort of the poor, and not for their subsistence. By the 43 Eliz. the parish are only taxable for the necessary relief of the poor; nothing therefore but necessity can call for this relief. If the party can subsist by any means whatsoever without this aid, he is not the object of this law; nor can it ever be material to consider from whence the pauper is supplied; if he has wherewithal to subsist without the parish, the parish must be discharged, because the relief in such case is not necessary and as the necessity of the object is the rule by which the relief is to be proportioned, it must be more or less according to the pauper's condition and circumstances. If a labourer who earns seven shillings a week by his industry, is incumbered with a large impotent family, the parish adds so much to his weekly gains, and no more than will be just enough to keep the family alive; if he falls sick, the allowance is increased; if his children die, or become useful, it is diminished: one has a little close close worth 40s. a year; his stipend will be less than his neighbour's, who has but 2s. a year; and he again will be less considered than another who has nothing. This is the true reason why the rate is directed to be made weekly, or otherwise, because the state of the poor is always fluctuating. An estate or legacy is given to the poor; if in this case the rate must continue the same without any regard to the benefaction, you call upon the parish for a superfluity for as far as the rate added to the charity will exceed the sum necessary for their subsistence, the parish is taxed just so far beyond the sum necessary for their relief; and so contrary to the act of parliament; for relief and subsistence are synonimous terms. This duty upon the parish is so connected with the necessity of the pauper, that if a testator bequeathing a legacy to the poor should say, "I mean that the poor "shall enjoy the same parish allowance, over and above "my legacy," the clause would be felo de se and void; unless it can be maintained that he who has something is as poor as when he hath nothing. For if he is richer, he wants less relief; and if less relief, a lower rate will do; so that if the legacy takes place, the parish must of necessity be eased. I have been arguing upon an allowance of money :Suppose a testator bequeathes a legacy to clothe the poor, or a house to receive them, or a sum to prentice out children-must the parish clothe, lodge, and bind out as they did before? Or must they add the value of the clothing, house, &c. to the former allowance, and so give the poor a superfluity above their necessary subsistence ? I think that cannot be contended: and yet a gift of a house, or clothing, is as much a bounty to this purpose as a gift of money. |