Townshend v. Townshend

The fact that a witness is surety on a bond of one of the caveators to a will due to the administrator pendente lite, who was one of the caveatees, does not render him incompetent to testify for the caveators in the trial of the issues testing the validity of the will. That the principal in the bond was one of the heirs and distributees in case the will should be vacated, and his ability to pay the bond on which the witness was surety would thereby be increased and the chances of loss to the latter lessened, is an interest too remote- and contingent to disqualify the witness. Where testimony, which standing alone might be irrelevant or legally insufficient, is, in connection with other testimony relevant, or applicable, or rebutting, the court cannot withhold it from the jury. The objection that testimony proposed to be offered is false, goes to the credibility of the witness and not to the legality of the evidence, and is therefore a. question for the jury and not the court.

Appeal from the' Circuit Court of Anne Arundel county. In this case issues to test the validity of the will of John Townshend were originally sent from the orphans court to the county court of Prince Georges county for trial, and thence removed to Anne Arundel county. This is the third appeal in the case; the first is reported in 7 Gill, 10, and the second in 9 Gill, 506. At the trial under the last procedendo two exceptions were taken by the caveatees; which are the only ones presented on this appeal. 1st Exception. The caveators, to support the issues on fheir part, offered to examine Thomas W. Robinson as a witness, who being objected to as interested in the event of the suit, and examined by the caveatees on his voir dire' as to his alleged interest, stated' that he was surety for George Townshend, on'e of the caveators, on a bond for fifty or sixty dollars, given by sai'd George, and witness as his surety, to Jeremiah Townshend, as administrator pendente lite of John Townshend, and since' he became such administrator, the said Jeremiah being one of the caveatees and also the administrator of William' ToWnshend, who was one of the caveators, but is since deceased; the witness also stated that he had forgotten the fact of the existence of the bond at the time of the former trial, and being afterwards reminded thereof he spoke, aboht six months ago,-to said George Townshend on the subject, who promised he would settle the claim, and witness understood the claim-was settled Or paid; and that he applied on the day of his examination for some evidence Of his being discharged, and that thereupon said Jeremiah Townshend executed to- him the following release under the hand and seal of the said Jeremiah, the' execution and delivery of which the caveatees admitted. “For value received, I hereby release Thomas W. Robinson, and discharge him from all obligation, as surety upon the bond of George S. Townshend, to me, as administrator of John Townshend.” The witness further stated, that he did not pay the bond, and has no knowledge of' its- settlement Or payment, except that he has understood that it was settled and the fact that he has received said release. He further stated that he does not consider himself as at all interested in the case, or as liable in any way as surety for said debt. The caveatees thereupon objected to his competency, but the court, (Brewer, J.,) was of opinion, and so decided, that the witness was competent, and directed him to be sworn in chief, and he was so sworn and examined as a witness for the caveators. To this opinion of the court, and the overruling of their said objection, and to the swearing in chief of the witness, and his examination as aforesaid, the caveatees excepted, 2nd Exception. Evidence was then offered by various witnesses on both sides to the same effect, as stated in the report of the case in 9 Gill, 506. Among other evidence on the part of the caveatees to show that said John Townshend would both buy and dispose of negroes, were three deeds or bills of sale, the first dated the 7th of November 1803, from one Benjamin Burch, conveying several negroes to said Townshend; the second dated the 29th of December 1813, by which he, the said John Townshend, conveyed several negroes to William Townshend, and the third dated the 13th of May 1824, by which he also conveyed several negroes to George S. Townshend. The caveators then produced said Robinson as a witness, and proved by him that he knows the whole family of the slaves which belonged to and resided with the said John Townshend, and has so known them during the last twenty-eight or twenty-nine years. The counsel for the caveators then proposed to prove by this witness, that the several slaves named in the above deeds were not, nor was any one of them, at any time, one of the family of slaves of said John Townshend, and that no one of them ever resided with him at any time as one of his slaves. The caveatees then required the said counsel to state the purpose for which said evidence so offered was intended, who replied, that it was offered as evidence which they deem material and pertinent upon the first issue, as rebutting evidence, and as showing, that no one of the negroes mentioned in said deeds was at any time of the family of slaves owned by said John Townshend at the time of making the declarations, proved by several witnesses, that he had been commanded by Almighty God to set his negroes free and to give them his property. To which evidence so offered for the purpose above stated the caveatees objected, and insisted on their objection to the question aforesaid. The-court overruled the objection, and permitted said question to- be put to and answered by the witness. To- which ruling of the court, and to the refusal to exclude said evidence for the purpose for which it was offered, the caveatees excepted, and the verdict being against them upon the first issue, appealed.