1791-01-26 (static/transcriptions/1791/01/222.jpg)

(59

Wednesday 26 January 1791
against Mathew Dawson Esq
Trial
upon that motion said “The rule of Law founded on public Policy I take to be this, that no party who has signed a paper or Deed shall ever be permitted to give testimony to invalidate that instrument which he hath so signed. And there is a sound reason for it, because every man who is a party to an instrument, gives a credit to it. it is of consequence to mankind that no person should hang out false colours to deceive them, by first affixing his signature to a paper, and then afterwards giving testimony to invalidate it. it is emphatically right in the case of notes; for, in consequence of different statutes, two very hard cases have arisen. First, with respect to a gaming note, which, though on the possession of a bona fide purchaser, without notice, is void. It is similar in the case of usury. A note given for an usurious consideration, though in the hands of a fair indorsee, is equally void. And therefore, whenever a man signed these instruments he is always understood to say, that to his knowledge, there is no legal objection whatever to them. The civil law says, nenu allegans suam turpitudinem est audiendus.
Ashurst Justice said “If the present objection had rested solely on the question of Interest, I should have been of opinion that Sedley was a good witness; but he is inadmissible on another ground, that no man shall be permitted to invalidate his own act. He has been a party to the fraud by affixing his name to the notes and giving them a sanction, and having done that he shall not be permitted on any account to say that those notes were void.