delivered the opinion of the court.
It is hardly necessary for us to enter into a lengthy discussion on the admissibility of the testimony in question. The opinion of the Circuit Court, which has been laid before us, is sufficiently full op the subject, and need not be repeated. We have no hesitation in regarding the incident testified to as part of the res gestee, and as entirely competent for the purposes for which it was offered. The statements of the sergeant were not offered in evidence for the purpose of proving the facts stated by him, but the whole incident (including those statements) was adduced in evidence for the purpose of showing the manner in which the officers attended to their duty whilst the disturbance was going on, the fact that notice of its progress was communicated, the time that it continued, and the degree of alarm it was calculated to excite in such a person as the sergeant appeared to be. These were substantially the purposes for which the evidence was professedly offered, and for these purposes, as part of the res gestee, it was clearly competent.
Judgment affirmed.