Definition
Peachment is an archaic procedural term referring to the impeachment of a witness — that is, the process of challenging or undermining a witness's credibility, accuracy, or veracity before a court. The term describes the act of calling into question whether a witness's testimony should be believed, typically through cross-examination, the introduction of prior inconsistent statements, evidence of bad character, or proof of bias or interest.
In this sense, peachment is simply the noun form of the verb "to peach" in its older legal usage, meaning to challenge or discredit. The more familiar modern term is impeachment of a witness, which has entirely displaced peachment in contemporary legal writing and practice.
---
Common Confusion
PEACHMENT should not be confused with IMPEACHMENT in its constitutional sense — the legislative process for removing public officials from office. The two share an etymological root and a common core idea (calling someone's fitness or trustworthiness into question) but operate in entirely different legal contexts. Historical sources, including Bouvier, use peachment specifically in the evidentiary context of witness credibility. A researcher encountering the term in older pleading or evidence materials should resist importing constitutional-law associations into the reading.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Peachment is a term researchers are most likely to encounter in pre-twentieth-century evidence treatises, trial practice manuals, and common law pleading materials. It has no living presence in modern statutes or rules — the Federal Rules of Evidence, for example, use "impeachment" exclusively (see FRE 607–609). Finding peachment in a historical document signals that the surrounding text is dealing with witness credibility and the mechanics of cross-examination, not with any other sense of the word.
The principal research trap is terminological: a full-text search for "impeachment" in a historical corpus may miss passages that use "peachment" as a shorthand or standalone form. Conversely, searching for "peachment" will not surface the vast majority of relevant historical materials, which even in older sources more commonly used the full form "impeachment of a witness." Neither search term alone is sufficient for comprehensive historical research on witness credibility doctrine.
Researchers should also be alert to the fact that the substantive law governing witness impeachment changed substantially over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. At common law, parties to a civil action were often incompetent to testify at all, and rules governing impeachment by prior conviction, bad character, or bias varied widely by jurisdiction. Modern impeachment doctrine — largely codified in evidence codes — bears only a family resemblance to what Bouvier's era sources describe procedurally.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary treats peachment in the context of testing a witness's accuracy, veracity, or credibility, framing it as a procedural mechanism available during cross-examination. The entry, though fragmentary in the available source material, reflects the common law understanding that impeachment was a recognized right of the opposing party and served as the primary structural check on unreliable testimony.
Bouvier's treatment is consistent with the broader common law tradition as reflected in contemporaneous evidence treatises (such as those of Starkie and Greenleaf), which discussed at length the means by which a witness could be discredited — prior bad acts, prior inconsistent statements, proof of corruption or interest, and general reputation for untruthfulness. What historical sources of this period do not fully anticipate is the modern codified approach: the Federal Rules of Evidence regime, which both expanded and limited impeachment rights in ways that broke from common law baselines. Researchers relying solely on Bouvier for impeachment doctrine will miss this development entirely.
---