case tempt Hardwicke the king versus Nuntilde ez the maker of a promissory  note not allow to be a witness on a indictment against the payee for perjury  in deny a agreement not to put it in suit against the maker yet quaer stram  Sess can S c theory of eved at the sit after term in Middlesex the defendant  be to be try on a indictment for perjury commit in a answer put in to a bill  bring in the court of exchequer which bill be bring by one mary Lampley to be  relieve against a promissory note under her hand make Payable to the defendant  or order and by he endorse and negotiate upon a suggestion that this note be  give to the defendant under a agreement not to demand the money of her but to  deliver it to one Texcira who shall pay it afterward to Lampley in  satisfaction of a debt owe from Texcira to her but instead of that the  defendant have endorse to other people who demand the money which she pay all  which agreement the defendant by his answer absolute deny which be the perjury  assign and now at the trial the prosecutor counsel admit that there be present  at this transaction only the say mary Lampley and one other person and they  admit the oath of one person alone will not be sufficient to convict the  defendant because one man oath be as good as another and therefore the  question be whether the say mary Lampley may be admit as a second witness for  the king strange for the prosecutor cite parish case which be in side and I  vent where upon a information for fraudulent procure one a W to give a warrant  to confess a judgement the say a W be admit to give evidence against the  defendant though the court say if he be convict they will set aside the  judgement salk Q and Mr cartney indictment for a cheat do to I S by impose a  mixture of beer c upon he for port wine and I S admit to be a witness because  in such private transaction nobody can be a witness of the circumstance of the  fact but he that suffer Q and burn in information for extort a bind and the  obligor allow to be a witness the king and moyse Trin geo I stram indictment  for tear a promissory note Payable to a b and a b admit to be a witness though  it be object that the court will oblige the defendant to give a b a new  promissory note if defendant be convict Kettleby with he that in case of  usurious contract if the money be pay the party be allow to be a witness on  the other side the case of the king and whiting salk be cite and rely on as  the rule case ever since which be information case tempt Hardwicke for a cheat  in that he have a promise from his motherinlaw of a note for pound and by  slight get her band to a note for pound and the mother refuse to be a witness  because she be concern in the consequence of the suit Lord Hardwicke c j I be  full satisfy that mary Lampley can be a witness in this case there have be  variety of determination in case which have a analogy to this parish be  determine as it have be cite to be but it be contrary to the opinion of  Twisden a very learned judge which take away from the weight of the case very  much and since that case the court of justice see the inconvenience have make  strict determination than they use to do in prosecution for forgery they will  not admit the person on who forge to be a witness because he be then swear to  overturn a charge upon himself and I think this case come up to that as to the  case of usury the rule have be upon indictment for usurious contract case  tempt Hardwicke er p not to admit the party in the contract unless the money  claim thereon have be pay and the reason be because then be be unconcern in  interest there be no remedy either in law or equity to recover that money back  again for my Lord chief justice Treby be of opinion that where there have be a  unlawful contract of a have nature the party shall not be admit to bring a  action as for money have and receive to his use because he be sharing in sin  and a court of equity will not encourage a remedy not even for the surplus  interest because that will give encouragement for such contract in court of  equity if a answer be put in which deny the equity of the bill the court will  not suffer one witness to be sufficient to set aside that answer because one  man oath be as good as another and I believe the court of equity take that  rule from the ground of allow evidence in perjury but where be other  circumstance though one witness only against a answer I have know my Lord  Cowper and my Lord king also direct a issue to try the fact but then they  order the answer to be read in evidence upon the issue that the defendant may  have advantage of it so then mary Lampley not be sufficient witness there be  but one witness which be not sufficient to convict a man of perjury unless  there be very strong circumstance because one man oath be as good as another  see pa post the question whether the testimony of a party injure by a crime  for which another stand indict shall be admit against he have receive various  and contradictory answer by the above case and those cite below as in point it  have be decide that the testimony of such party be not to be receive Str bull  l n p S p in Str burr however the authority of the king whiting I salk upon  which this case be decide be deny or render doubtful and in Bartlett  Pickersgill cite by Lord Mansfield c j burr and in the king Boston east r  final overturn by this last decision a much agitate and until then it shall  seem not general understand question be set at rest and this upon principle  namely that in no case where a person have be examine on the trial of a  indictment can the verdict therein be use for he see peak l e n that edit  after this opinion deliver the prosecutor attorney say he have another  fairness who be by at this transaction Lord Hardwicke c j apprehend some ill  practice in keep up this witness until they hear his opinion say I will not  try it now then until the cause have be hear in the court of exchequer Lord  Raymond do so in Rhodes case and therefore withdraw a juror by consent