incompetency

incompetency
    n 1: lack of physical or intellectual ability or qualifications
         [syn: {incompetence}, {incompetency}] [ant: {competence},
         {competency}]
    

Incompetence \In*com"pe*tence\, Incompetency \In*com"pe*tency\,
   n. [Cf. F. incomp['e]tence.]
   [1913 Webster]
   1. The quality or state of being incompetent; lack of
      physical, intellectual, or moral ability; lack of
      qualifications or training (for a particular task);
      insufficiency; inadequacy; as, the incompetency of a child
      for hard labor, or of an idiot for intellectual efforts.
      "Some inherent incompetency." --Gladstone.

   Syn: incompetence.
        [1913 Webster]

   2. (Law) Lack of competency or legal fitness; incapacity;
      disqualification, as of a person to be heard as a witness,
      or to act as a juror, or of a judge to try a cause.

   Syn: Inability; insufficiency; inadequacy; disqualification;
        incapability; unfitness.
        [1913 Webster]
    

INCOMPETENCY, evidence. The want of legal fitness, or ability in a witness 
to be heard as such on the trial of a cause. 
     2. The objections to the competency (q.v.) of a witness are four-fold. 
The first ground is the want of understanding; a second is defect of 
religious principles; a third arises from the conviction of certain crimes, 
or infamy of character; the fourth is on account of interest. (q.v.) 1 
Phil. Ev. 15. 
    

INCOMPETENCY, French law. The state of a judge who cannot take cognizance of 
a dispute brought before him; it implies a want of jurisdiction. 
     2. Incompetency is material, ratione materia, or personal, ratione 
personae. The first takes place when a judge takes cognizance of a matter 
over which another judge has the sole jurisdiction, and this cannot be cured 
by the appearance or agreement of the parties. 
     3. The second is, when the matter in dispute is within the jurisdiction 
of the judge, but the parties in the case are not; in which case they make 
the judge competent, unless they make their objection before they. take 
defence. See Peck, 374; 17 John. 13; 12 Conn. 88; 3 Cowen, Rep. 724; 1 Penn. 
195; 4 Yeates, 446. When a party has a privilege which exempts him from the 
jurisdiction, he may waive the privilege. 4 McCord, 79; Wright, 484; 4 Mass. 
593; Pet. C. C. R. 489; 5 Cranch, 288; 1 Pet. R. 449; 4 W. C. C. R. 84; 8 
Wheat. 699; Merl. Rep. mot Incompetence. 
     4. It is a maxim in the common law, aliquis non debet esse judex in 
propria causa. Co. Litt. 141, a; see 14 Vin. Abr. 573; 4 Com. Dig. 6. The 
greatest delicacy, is constantly observed on the part of judges, so that 
they never act when there could be the possibility of doubt whether they 
could be free from bias, and even a distant degree of relationship has 
induced a judge to decline interfering. 1 Knapp's Rep. 376. The slightest 
degree of pecuniary interest is considered as an insuperable objection. But 
at common law, interest forms the only ground for challenging a judge. It is 
not a ground of challenge that he has given his opinion before. 4 Bin. 349; 
2 Bin. 454. See 4 Mod. 226; Comb. 218; Hard. 44; Hob. 87; 2 Binn. R. 454; 13 
Mass. R. 340; 5 Mass. R. 92; 6 Pick. 109; Peck, R. 374; Coxe, Rep. 190; 3 
Ham. R. 289; 17 John. Rep. 133; 12 Conn. R. 88; 1 Penning R. 185; 4 Yeates, 
R. 466; 3 Cowen, R. 725; Salk. 396; Bac. Ab. Courts, B; and the articles 
Competency; Credibility; Interest; Judge; Witness.