67 Tenn. 168 | Tenn. | 1874
delivered the opinion of the court.
This case conclusively illustrates the truth of the rule as contended for by Mr Philips in his work on Evidence, vol. 2,. 959-60, in which he says: “If a witness, say all the elementary books, has been asked as to contradictory verbal statement, which he neither admits or denies, it seems doubtful whether evidence of the statement is admissible.”
Park, B., admitted the evidence, Tindal, C. J., and Lord Abinger, C. B.', excluded it at nisi prius.
“The ruling of Park, B., appears to be the most
“ If the rule were otherwise it might happen that under the pretence of not remembering, a witness who has made a false statement, and who knows it to be false, would escape contradiction and exposure.”
This rule of evidence, which is so completely founded in reason and common sense, was violated in the rejection of the testimony -Claig.
Eeverse the judgment.