. AS TO THE,POMPETENCY OF WITNESSES..
persons, of :w,hateVer nation, may be. wit nesses. .Badon,, Abr.; Evidence (4).; Jacob, Law Diet, A:Videnci. ,,Aut in saying this we mu.st, of, course„ exc,ept such as, aro excluded by the 1,ery definition of the term ; and we ;haie. seen it to be essential that a witness shonld 'qualify., himself ,by.. taking an, 0,atli. Therefore, all who cannot understand the 'nature .and ,obligation of an oath, or whose religieus' belief is 'so. defeciiie as to nullify and render it zugatory, or,whose, crimes ha,ve been, each as to _indicate' an extreme insensl bility to. its sanctions, are. excluded. And, accordingly, the following. classes of persona hive be_en pronounced by. themommon law. to be incompeient.' 5.Mas: C. C..18, See Os.mA ,Infants so young .as .to be ;unable to apprg ciate 'the' nature and, .biuding quality . of ,ike path.. .A child-under the ,age of fourteeu .presuraed incapable until. capacity be shown'. But the 'law fixes..no. Of agewhich of itself eiclude., A child five years old .1me been. admitted to. testify. 1 Greenleaf, Ev, 3'67 ; 1 Phillipps, Ev.,with COwpn and:RilAs notes 3d. ed, 4; 3 Carr. & P. 598 I Mood. Cr. des. 86 ; 10 .1V.lass. 225 ; .8 Johns, N. 14. 98. ' .. 3. Idiots , lunatics, intoxicated persons , and, generally,those who labor under such priva tion or imbecility of mind that they eanu$ .understand: the nature and obligation of. an oath.. The competency of „such is restoreg with the recovery or acquisition, 10 Johns. N. Y. 362 ; 28 .Conn. 177 ; 16 Vt. 474; „7 'Wheat. 45'3 ;. 2 Leach,. Cr. Cas. 482,,of power, And so a lunatic in a lucid interval may testify. . 1 Greenleaf, Ev.. 365. Pen. sons .deaf .and durnb from their. birth are presumed to come. within this principle ,of exclusion until the contrary be shown. .1
Greenleaf; Ev. 366. See 1 Leach, Cr. Catb 455 ; 3 Carr. & P.127 ; 8 Conn. 93 ; 14 Mass; 207 ; .5 Blackf. Ind. 295. A person. in a state of intoxication. cannot be_ admitted as a wit. ness. 15 Serg. & A. Penn. 235. See Ray„ Med.. Jur. 0. 22, 300- 311 ; 16•Johns. N, Y. 143. .
Such as are insensibleto.the•obligation of an oath, from defect of religious sentiment or belief. Atheists, and persons disbelieving in any system of divine rewards and punish ments, are of •this class. , It is reckoned suf. ficient qualification in this particular if one believe in a God and. that he will reward and punish us according to our deserts. It is enough to believe.that such punishment visits us in this world only. 1 Greenleaf, Ev. 369; 5 Mae. 0.0.18 ; .14 Mass. 184 ; • 26 Penn: Si. 274; 1 Swan, Tenn. 44; 16 Ohio, 121 ; 7 Conn. 66.. _It wouh1 seem to be sufficient to believe ir such punishment as existing for perjury ..bnly;.--if indeed. it be supvos — able that a man might believe thus much without extending his faith to any general system of rewards and punishments ; and this is declared sufficient in New York, by statute. 2 Rev. Stat. N. Y. ed. 1852, 653. It matters not, however, so far as mere competency is concerned, that a witness should believe in one God, or in one God rather than another, or should hold any par ticular form of religious belief, provided only that he brings himself within the rule above laid down. And, therefore, the oath nifty be administered in any form whatever, and with any ceremonies whatever, that will bind the conscience of-the witness. 1 Greenleaf, Ev. 371 ; 1 Atk: Ch. 21 ; Willes, 538. See