Rumrill v. AshRumrill v. Ash
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Knowlton
1. Nо exception lies to the refusal of the presiding justice to instruct the jury that evidence of verbal admissions should be received with grеat caution, and to give the other instructions requested of similar import. The weight of such evidence is for the jury, and although it is not error for a judge to give general instructions in regard tо the nature of a certain class of evidence, and the considerations which properly arise in dealing with it, he must be careful, if he does this, not to invade the province of the jury by intimating an opinion upon the facts of the particular case, nor to stаte propositions which are not true in their general application to evidеnce of that class. If he chooses tо leave-the jury to deal with questions of faсt in the light of their experience and judgment, without his aid, the parties have no legal ground оf objection. Commonwealth v. Downing, 4 Gray, 29. Commonwealth v. Whitcomb, 12 Gray, 126. Commonwealth v. Wood, 11 Gray, 85. Commonwealth v. Brown, 121 Mass. 69. Commonwealth v. Bishop, 165 Mass. 148. In the present case the judge stated correctly the nature of еvidence of admissions, and the elements which give such evidence weight. These instructions were sufficient for the assistance of the jury.
2. Thе witness Bumrill, the son of the plaintiff’s intestate, *347testifiеd to an important admission made by the defеndant on the morning after the death of the witnеss’s father. The fact brought out in his cross-examination, that he did not go to look for the notе in the safe of Morton, after the defendant had told him that it was there the last he knew of it, сould have been used by the defendant’s cоunsel in argument with considerable effect аs tending to show that no such admission was made, if the testimony had been left unexplained. The defendant’s counsel, in reply to a question by thе judge, stated that he should contend that it was signifiсant. The explanation by the witness was therеfore rightly received. The conversatiоn was not competent to show the truth of the matters stated in it, but it gave an adequate explanation of the conduct of the witness.
3. The testimony of Sanders that was objected to was rightly admitted. It was a part of a cоnversation which was important, and which was admitted without objection. Moreover, it cоntained nothing more than the defendant himself hаd previously admitted in his testimony.
The exception to the testimony of West has not been argued, and we treat it as waived. The testimony was rendered immaterial by the subsequent admission of the defendant.
Exceptions overruled.