of capacity, or infamy; as to interest, he was in point of law interested on the other fide, to deny his grant; that as he was now called to confirm his own contract, which the law fuppofes men are interested to deny, his evidence must be unexceptionable, for thereby he supports a right against himself, viz. a grant of his freehold to another for two lives; They denied that he was a party in this question, or even affected by it in law, for whether Webb had, or had not, the right of voting for his freehold, it would not alter the contract for it between him and Edfal; how valuable foever the franchise annexed to it might be to the voter, that makes no part of the confideration in this deed: In this confifts the difference between the evidence of the voter himself and that of Edfal; the former is directly interested to support his own right of voting, the latter is unconcerned in this incidental right. As to the rareness of fuch evidence in other courts of juftice, it is owing to the nature of the queftions that arife in them; in which the maker of a deed is generally a party either directly directly or indirectly in all actions concerning it, and the deed itself is denied in the pleadings *; but in any questions that arife collaterally upon deeds, if a man admits his own deed, fuch admiffion is received even to conclude others. If an ejectment were brought by Webb, founding his title on this deed, can there be a doubt that Edfal's admiffion of it would enable him to recover in the action? It is not neceffary that an attefting witness should fubscribe his name to the deed †, except in the case of a will (where the statute requires it); however it is ufual to do it, and then it appears upon the face of the deed to be the best evidence of its execution; and this is the reason why no other witneffes are called before those whofe names are fubfcribed; but this rule does not extend to the cafe of the grantor himself, when he comes to acknowledge in person the fact to which the others bear witness of him,-an evidence that renders *See Note in p. 244. + In 4 Doug. Elect. 74. a witness who had been prefent at the execution of a deed produced, but was not a fubfcribing witness to it, was allowed to put his name to it during his examination, and then to prove it. theirs unneceffary; in all cafes other wit neffes may be called to confirm the fubfcribing witneffes; and in the case of Mr. Jolliffe's will, in which there was caufe to fufpect their veracity, others were allowed to be called even to contradict them, and the will in that cafe was established upon fuch teftimony, though the fubfcribing witneffes denied their attestations. (C.C.) In all questions of evidence, the true way to decide, is by inquiring what is the end of the proof, for evidence that is good to one purpose, may not be fo to another; here, the subscribing witness not being able to clear a doubt, arifing on the face of the deed, it becomes neceffary to examine further; who then can be more proper for this purpose than the maker of the deed, where he is not interested in the question, as it is before fhewn that Edfal is not? When the arguments were ended the court was cleared, and the Committee deliberated, after which the counsel were called in and informed, That the Committee had determinedNot to admit Mr. Edfal as a witness. The The counsel for the fitting members likewife called the Earl of Radnor, for the purpose of establishing Edfal's deed *. His evidence was objected to on account of interest: It was faid, that the part he had taken in the election, by directly making the titles to fo many voters, and by attending the cause throughout †, fhewed that he confidered himself as a party; but the Committee thinking this no legal objection, he was fworn. Upon being asked whether he paid the expences of the petition, he answered in the affirmative: The counsel for the petitioners now contended, that there was a legal objection to his lordfhip's evidence; that in common law trials, if a witness has undertaken to pay the costs, it is an allowed objection to him. The counsel for the fitting members answered, That in order to disqualify his evidence, the interest must be fuch as is to be affected by the event, i. e. that in one case he * See p. 233. may + His lordship generally fate at the bar-table in the Committee-room. See the note in p. 155. gain, in the other lofe; that for this reafon it was a good objection in common law trials, because the cofts of the fuit are paid by the lofer, and faved by the winner ; but before Committees, each party pays his own cofts; and be the event what it may, the expence is the fame to them: Here is therefore nothing in the event to biass the judgment; the criterion of competency in a witness, is a direct interest, influencing all men alike upon general principles; but the rule to which this cafe has been applied is partial, and confined to a particular judicature. The counsel for the petitioners replied, That the principle of their objection was a general one, for that no man who vofuntarily pays all the expences of a fuit can be supposed to have a mind unbiaffed and impartial to the fide he efpoufes; That there was much more refemblance between trials before Committees, and those in the law courts, than the counfel on the other fide allowed, for it was in the power of Committees to award costs to be paid in I certain |