1588 ARTICLE 35

76 Md. 411; Whitridge v. Whitridge, 76 Md. 76; Robertson v. Mowell, 66 Md. 532;
Hardy v. Chesapeake Bank, 51 Md. 596; First National Bank v. Eccleston, 48 Md.
163 (dissenting opinion); Graves v. Spedden, 46 Md. 538; Sanborn v. Lang, 41 Md.
115; Miller v. Motter, 35 Md. 432; Johnson v. Heald, 33 Md. 368; Schull v. Murray,
32 Md. 17.

This section referred to in construing sec. 4—see notes thereto, Davis v. State, 38
Md. 45. (And see dissenting opinion, p. 57.)

As to the law prior to act of 1864, ch. 109 (evidence act), see Bowman v. Little,
101 Md. 319; Semmes v. Worthington, 38 Md. 324; Downes v. Maryland and Dela-
ware R. R. Co., 37 Md. 101; Williams v. Brailsford, 25 Md. 144; Cunningham v.
Dwyer, 23 Md. 232.

Cited but not construed in Harward v. Harward, 173 Md. 356.

Cited but not construed in Gambrill v. Parker, 31 Md. 5.

See sec. 9 and art. 23, sec. 165.

See notes to art. 16, sec. 189.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 2. 1912, sec. 2. 1904, sec. 2. 1896, ch. 249.

2. No person engaged in, connected with or employed on a newspaper
or journal shall be compelled to disclose, in any legal proceeding or trial
or before any committee of the legislature or elsewhere, the source of any
news or information procured or obtained by him for and published in
the newspaper on and in which he is engaged, connected with or employed.
See art. 40 of the Declaration of Rights.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 3. 1912, sec. 3. 1904, sec. 3. 1888, sec. 2. 1864, ch. 109, sec. 2.
1868, ch. 116. 1876, ch. 222. 1888, ch. 315, 1902, ch. 495. 1904, ch. 661.

3. In actions or proceedings by or against executors, administrators,
heirs, devisees, legatees or distributees of a decedent as such, in which
judgments or decrees may be rendered for or against them, and in proceed-
ings by or against persons incompetent to testify by reason of mental dis-
ability, no party to the cause shall be allowed to testify as to any trans-
action had with, or statement made by the. testator, intestate, ancestor or
party so incompetent to testify, either personally or through an agent
since dead, lunatic or insane, unless called to testify by the opposite party,
or unless the testimony .of such testator, intestate, ancestor or party in-
competent to testify shall have already given in evidence, concerning the
same transaction or statement, in the same cause, on his or her own behalf
or on behalf of his or her representative in interest; nor shall it be compe-
tent, in any case, for any party to the cause who has been examined
therein as a witness, to corroborate his testimony when impeached by
proof of his own declaration or statement made to third persons out of the
presence and hearing of the adverse party; provided, however, this sec-
tion shall not apply to pending cases nor in anywise affect the present
rights of litigants therein.

Incompetency of parties as to transactions, etc., with deceased.

The fact that witness was permitted to testify to transactions with decedent does
not weaken or destroy judgment except when reviewed on appeal. Watkins v. State,
162 Md. 616.

In action against owner of automobile, based on negligence of her husband, since
deceased, in driving it, she was not incompetent as witness under this section. Forbstein
v. General Tire Co. (unreported case), 167 Md. 686.

In action by mother to recover damages for wrongful death of daughter, held that
mother's testimony was not inadmissible under this section. Riley v. Lukens Dredging &
Contracting Corp., 4 F. Supp. 144.

This section not violated in suit by decedent's widow, as administratrix, to establish
decedent's ownership of certain corporate stock, by admission in evidence of the
proceedings in former suit by decedent's widow and infant children to impress a trust in
same stock, the widow not appearing to have testified in former proceedings. Horo-
witz v. Horowitz, 175 Md. 25.

Suit against executor, husband of deceased, to annul gifts inter vivos of bank accounts
made by deceased to husband, held to be within this section so as to render inadmissi-
ble testimony as to statements made by deceased. Tillinghast v. Lamp, 168 Md. 35.