Landsberger

Murray, C. J., concurred.

This was an action brought by the respondent, to recover the possession of property claimed by him, against a Sheriff, in possession of the property by virtue of an attachment levied upon it as the property of another.

It appears by the record, that a person acting in the capacity of an attorney, or the agent of an attorney, was called by the plaintiff to prove the delivery of the property to the plaintiff, by one Baron, against whom the attachment was levied. The witness having testified to the delivery of possession, the counsel for the plaintiff closed the examination of the witness; upon which the counsel for the defense proceeds, in cross-examination, to ask of the witness the following questions: “ State all the conversation between yourself and Baron and plaintiff, while you were with them in delivering possession, and particularly the conversation and remarks made by Baron to plaintiff, as to the danger which he felt about attachment by his creditors, and what was said by plaintiff in reply.” The witness hesitated to answer the questions, upon the grounds of the betrayal of professional confidence. The Court instructed the witness that he must…

I concur, upon the ground that the witness was entitled to privilege against the betrayal of professional confidence. I disagree as to the rule of evidence laid down in cross-examinations, preferring to adopt the English rule, to the one relied on by my associate.