43 Wis. 467 | Wis. | 1877
On the trial of the action, the learned county judge admitted testimony on behalf of the plaintiff to the effect that the plaintiff’s daughter expressed a desire, on different days and at different times after the two defendants left her in Milwaukee, to return to her home, and that at such times she wept. Testimony as to what she said and did in the presence of the two defendants at the house to which they took her, was also admitted on behalf of the plaintiff; but testimony of her statements at the hotel, made to a witness during the afternoon of the same day, was offered by the defendants and rejected.
The transaction upon which this action is founded is the alleged enticing of the plaintiff’s daughter from her home by the defendants. That is the res gestae, and all that was said or done by the actors in that transaction contemporary with
So also in Hadley v. Carter, 8 N. IL, 40, it is said that “ where declarations of an individual are so connected with his acts as to derive a degree of credit from such connection, independently of the declaration, the declaration becomes part of the transaction, and is admissible in evidence.” And in our own case of Sorenson v. Dundas, 42 Wis., 642, it is said that “ declarations are verbal parts of the res gestae, only when they are contemporaneous.”
In the present case, the act of enticing — the res gestee — undoubtedly terminated when the two defendants left the plaintiff’s daughter at the house in Milwaukee to which they conducted her; and evidence of her declarations and the accompanying manifestations of grief made during subsequent
By the same rules, evidence of the declarations of the girl relative to her leaving her home, and to the circumstances under which she came to Milwaukee, made during the afternoon at the hotel, was competent and should have been received.
Numerous other exceptions are preserved in the record, upon which errors are assigned; but we do not find it our duty to pass upon them.
By the Goiurt. — The judgment of the county court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.