The Enquirer

Yesterday came on, in the district court, the case of Bull vs. Caldwell. A question arose respecting the admissibility of testimony. The cause being sub judice, we are not at liberty to state its merits so far as they go; but there was one observation made which attracted notice, and for the mention of which we think we will not be held in contempt of court.

A Mr. -- made a note payable to -- which was endorsed by --- afterwards the name of the maker was erased. The question was, whether he could be admitted as evidence to nullify the instrument.

Some pleadings took place on the occasion, and several authorities were read; by which it appeared that the minds of the judges on the other side of the water, drew different ways on the same point. One of the counsel remarked that it had been decided by some of the courts in Maryland, that no decisions in England, since the Declaration of Independence, should be binding on them.

By Nicholson, C. J. -- Sir, I do not hold myself bound by ANY decisions in GREAT BRITAIN, either BEFORE or since the declaration of independence, except so far as their REASON and EQUITY may apply.

As to the admissibility of the witness, curia advisare vult.

We shall attend, and give the opinion of the Court, in substance, as it may be delivered by the Chief Justice; an opinion which, it is true, is unimportant, as to the principal case: but great as to its eventual operation.