IN error to the circuit court of the United States for the county of Washington, in the District of Columbia.

This case was before the Court at the January term, 1830, 4 Peters, 205; and again at January term, 1835, 9 Peters, 418. It now came up on a writ of error, prosecuted by the plaintiff in the circuit court. The questions involved in the case when it was before the Court in 1830 and 1835, and also in this case, are stated in the opinion of the Court. The competency of Jonathan Scolfield, who was examined as a witness for the defendant, was the only question in this writ of error.

The cause was argued by Mr. Jones, and Cox for the plaintiff in error; and by Mr. Key and Mr. Swann for the defendant.

For the plaintiff in error, the following cases were cited. Starkie's Evidence, 93, 94, 292; Phillips' Ev. chap. 5, sect. 4, p. 74; 7 East, 578; 1 Maule & Selwyn, 636; 10 East, 395; 5 Barnwell & Creswell, 188.

For the defendant, were cited, Willings v. Consequa, 1 Peters' C. C. R. 301; 1 Bandolph's Rep. 235; 6 Vesev Jr. 547; 1 Term Rep. 162; 7 Cranch, 271; 1 Wheat. 160; 1 Wheat. 60; 2 Starkie's Ev. 136; 1 Mumford's Rep. 398; 3 Call's Rep. 372; 6 Wendell's Rep. 415.

Mr. Justice M'LEAN delivered the opinion of the Court.