“A declaration excluded by the Constitution, as in violation of individual right, will not be allowed to accomplish indirectly what it is not permitted to do directly.”
How later courts described this case
- “A declaration excluded by the Constitution, as in violation of individual right, will not be allowed to accomplish indirectly what it is not permitted to do directly.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Clark, J.,
concurring: There was objection to Album testifying, but no exception was taken nor is any ground assigned for the objection. If the objection was that he was not sufficiently qualified as an expert, the finding of the Judge beloxv is conclusive. State v. Davis, 63 N. C., 578 ; Smith v. Kron, 96 N. C., 392 ; State v. Hinson, 103 N. C., 374 ; State v. Brady, 107 N. C., 822 . Pie is presumed to have so found if the witness was admitted as an expert. If the objection was that the witness was not an export, that ground is not assigned and the Court is not to presume *808 •that there was error. In truth, however, The Gode, §3338, providing that the common law of another State or country-may be proved as a fact by oral evidence, would seem to indicate that expert evidence would not be requisite. If so, when the witness testified that he knew the law as to marriage among the Jews in 'Russia he was competent to testify what it was, leaving his credibility to be tested by a cross-examination as to his means of information, whether he had lived in Russia, etc. It does not appear that he had not lived there, and his testimony would indicate that he had. But if he had not, it would have remained for the jury to say what credit should be given to his evidence. He may have acquired such knowledge by reading or otherwise, just as the same witness was admitted as a competent interpreter of German and Ohaldaic without showing that he liad lived either in Germany or Chaldea.