case the king against carpenter the king be conclude by a verdict upon the  mere right in a quo warranto but not in a information SC lev information in  nature of a quo warranto against the defendant who as a farmer of the city of  London claim several duty belong to the water bailage as two penny a chaldron  for coal import and hold per curian that a verdict upon the quo warranto upon  the mere right conclude the king but on a information it do not hold that the  mayor have be time out of mind conservator of the Thames hold and resolve that  if a indictment be against a man for not repair a public bridge which he be  bind to repair ration tenure that in such case person of the county be allow  to be witness because none else can testify c a in case of action on the  statute of hue and cry against a hundred none of the hundredors can be witness  because any one of they be liable to pay the debt after judgement against the  hundred a parishioner can be a witness on a question whether land be within  the parish or not b but a legatee of a small sum of money have sometime be  allow a witness to prove a will c in case of question about a toll for a ferry  waterman have be allow witness and freeman here in this case of London where  it be hard to have other witness and it be very improbable shower KB they  shall be bias in their swear it be so very little or nothing to their  advantage and all the judge except Jones justice hold that freeman may be  witness d it be hold likewise by the court if a witness swear in a cause and  die that in another trial one that hear he may upon oath repeat his testimony  and it shall be good evidence e but a verdict between private person may not  be read as any evidence against the king in a information upon a quo warranto  Maynard sergeant urge that in the thirtyfourth year of Edward the first the  city complain of bring in coal as a nuisance and therefore their duty can not  be before that time in the reign of Richard the second they have a grant from  the king for a halfpenny a chaldron of coal and therefore it can be a  prescription it be most plain sea coal have be not burn time out of mind here  in London and therefore no prescription and among their duty they claim for  hop which have not be time out of mind however upon evidence of constant  payment and their ancient table of duty for good import into London a verdict  be give for the defendant f a inhabitant be in this case render competent  witness by whether saint c see Mod b see Hockley v lamb ld ray Espinasse  digest edit c by Geo c S any beneficial devise legacy estate interest gift or  appointment make to any person be a witness to any will or codicil shall be  void and such person be admit a witness bull n p d see cook v baker keb Lord  Dorset v carter keb king v Philips and archer bull n p king v bray bull n p  corporation of Sutton Cofield v Wilson Vernon viner Abr Dodswell v not vern  sadler company v Jones Mod Bridgport case viner Abr the city of London v the  unfree merchant post e but the record of the cause must be produce or such  hearsay evidence be not admissible per Pemberton chief justice post and see  the case of Samson v tothil side sir John fenwick case state trial that the  evidence give by a witness at one trial can in the ordinary course of justice  be make use of against a defendant on the death of such witness at another  trial hawk p c S but in case of custom or toll and in general in all case  where hearsay and reputation be evidence the deposition of a witness in  chancery may after his death he read in evidence on a trial at law bull n p f  see the case of the mayor of kingstonuponhull v Horner Cowp to in point and  Eldridge v Knott and other Cowp and fisher v Prosser Cowp shower KB er p