The Massachusetts Spy, And Worcester County Advertiser

From the Providence American.

UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT.

Ebenezer Wakefield vs. Lemuel Ross.— This was a case of ejectment. In the course of the trial, two persons by the name of Richardson (father and son) were offered by the counsel of the plaintiff to be sworn as witnesses. The counsel for the defendant objected to their admission, as witnesses, upon the ground of their want of any religious belief, and to establish the fact a witness was called on, who swore that he knew the persons well, that he had often heard the son say, that he did not believe in the existence of a God, or of a future state. As to the belief of the father, he said that he had heard him declare, that he did not believe in a future state. that he had read Tom Paine's works; and did not know, whether he (the father) believed any thing. In answer to a question from the court whether the father believed in a state of rewards and punishments, the witness answered only as before, adding, that from the statements of the father he did not seem to believe any thing. It was then suggested on the part of the plaintiff's counsel, that the father and son might be examined personally as to their belief, for the father might be a universalist. To this suggestion the court answered, that the defendant's counsel, who took the objection, were not bound to rely on the testimony of these persons for the proof of incompetency. The court [Judge Story] said—We think these persons are not competent witnesses. Persons who do not believe in the existence of a God, or of a future state, or who have no religious belief, are not entitled to be sworn as witnesses. The administration of an oath, supposes that a moral and religious accountability is felt to a Supreme Being, and is the sanction which the law requires upon the conscience of a person, before it admits him to testify.