Except In cases of necessity\u27 the wife was incompetent totestify for or against her husband at common law2 Cokesuggests3 that the reason for the rule lay in the fact that husbandand wife were one, and naturally could not be divided for thepurposes of testimony Although the courts soon got beyond thisdoctrine, they insisted on the value of the rule. They argued thatspouses, though perhaps not physically identical, were identicalin interest. When disqualification by interest was removed, thejudges bad to take other ground, and did so in Stapleton vCrofts.\u27 There they decided that the true basis for the rule wasthe necessity of martial harmony and confidence.But even this philosophy has been unable to sustain the notonthat one spouse cannot appear for or against the other. Thedisqualification has gradually been reduced to a disqualification incriminal cases alone.\u27 The dissenting opinion of Mr. JusticeErle in Stapleton v. Crofts states the arguments that have prevailedagainst broader disqualification. He points out that theidea of promoting domestic peace is incapable of consistent applicationin these cases. It is not applied to witnesses not partiesto the action. Mr. W may testify for the plaintiff, Mrs. Wagainst him. Their stories may lead to endless ructions in theW household. Erle, J., doubts, too, whether husbands suborntheir wives to perjury He is reasonably sure that the exclusionof the evidence is a definite loss, whereas the gain, if any, is remoteand speculative.
展开▼
