John M. Tarble v. Lester Underwood.

Witnesses — competency. Where the plaintiff has received from the defendant an order on a third person for a eorn-sheller, and failing to procure the same, brings suit against the drawer of the order, the person on whom it is drawn is a competent witness, when called by the defendant, to prove the acceptance of the order.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of La Salle county; Hon. M. E. Hollister, Judge, presiding.

This was an action originally commenced before a justice of' the peace, by Underwood against Tarble, to recover the value-*68of a corn-sheller, for which Tarble had given Underwood an order on King. The only question presented by the record was as to the competency of King as a witness, when called by Tarble to prove the acceptance of the order.

Messrs. Gray, Avery and Bushnell, for the appellant.

Mr. D. P. Jones, for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Beckwith

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is a suit to recover the value of a corn-sheller mentioned in an order drawn by the appellant, in favor of the appellee, upon H. C. King & Co. The appellee claims that King & Co., refused to accept the order. On trial, the appellant offered H. C. King, one of the firm of King & Co., to prove the acceptance of the order, and his testimony was excluded. If the firm of King & Co. were liable to the appellant for a machine, it was immaterial to the witness whether his firm remained liable to the appellant or became liable to the appellee; and if this firm was not so indebted, the witness was called against his interest. The evidence was improperly excluded, and the judgment of the court is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.