Crowther v. Gibson
| Decision Date | 31 January 1854 |
| Parties | CROWTHER, Respondent, v. GIBSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
1. Declarations which would otherwise be inadmissible in evidence may become so when they are part of a transaction, evidence of which is admissible.
Appeal from Cooper Circuit Court.
Hayden, for appellant.
Evidence of the declarations of the plaintiff's son was inadmissible. The plaintiff could not be permitted to prove the veracity of her own witness, by showing that, previous to the trial, he had made statements which corresponded with his testimony at the trial. 1 Greenleaf's Ev. § 469. 1 Phill. Ev. chap. 8, p. 3 and 7 et seq. (3d Am. from 3d London ed.) Buller's N. P. 294. 1 Peters' C. C. R. 203. Note 533 to 2d vol. Phill. on Ev. by Cowan & Hill, p. 776-7-8, and authorities there cited. It cannot be said that the declarations were a part of the res gestae, because the defendant was not present, and could not be affected by the transaction, or the declarations accompanying it.
Leonard and Adams, for respondents.
The declarations of plaintiff's son, while he was making the horse kneel, were admissible as contemporaneous with and illustrative of the fact. They were made dum fervet opus. 1 Greenleaf's Ev. §§ 108. 109.
This was an action for a horse, which was claimed by both of the parties to the suit. The dispute was, whether a horse in the possession of the defendant, which he had purchased, was the horse of the plaintiff, which had strayed from her. A witness for the plaintiff, her son, testified that he had learned the plaintiff's pony to kneel by taking hold of the bridle, touching him on the knee, and commanding him, by his name, (Charley,) to kneel; that the pony in the possession of the defendant, claimed by his mother (the plaintiff) would perform that feat; that he had tried him in the presence of Wm. Simpson and M. Hogan, and the pony knelt at his command, as he had always done before.
The aforenamed Wm. Simpson was afterwards called as a witness; he testified that the defendant had left the pony with his dray driver, to be broken to the draugh: that the plaintiff and her son, the witness, above referred to, came to see the pony, and claimed him as her property. The plaintiff's counsel then asked the witness if Crowther, the son of the plaintiff, made the pony perform any feat, and if, at the time he did so, he spoke of having learned the pony such tricks, by which he could tell him. The defendant objected to this question, but his objection was overruled, and he excepted. The witness then stated that when the plaintiff and her son, the witness, looked at the pony, young Crowther stated that, if the pony was his mother's, he could make it kneel: that he had learned his mother's pony to kneel by taking hold of the bridle and touching him on the knee and commanding him, by his name, to do so; and after the statement, young Crowther made the pony do just as he had said he would do. As soon as he took hold of the bridle and commanded the pony to kneel, touching him on the knee, he knelt. The verdict was for the plaintiff.
1. The only point in the case is, the propriety of the admission in evidence of the statement of young Crowther, testified to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Odom v. Langston
...it has the necessary connection with the main fact it may be admitted by whom it was made or done. State v. Kaiser, 124 Mo. 651; Crothers v. Gibson, 19 Mo. 365. (17) prior disconnected declarations or facts must be excluded, a declaration of fact which although antecedent in point of time i......
-
Odom v. Langston, 37235.
...necessary connection with the main fact it may be admitted by whom it was made or done. State v. Kaiser, 124 Mo. 651; Crothers v. Gibson, 19 Mo. 365. (17) While prior disconnected declarations or facts must be excluded, a declaration of fact which although antecedent in point of time is pre......
-
Edge v. Southwest Missouri Electric Railway Co.
... ... given, and it was competent to prove what he repeated by the ... passengers and the motorman. Crowther v. Gibson, 19 ... Mo. 365; Strode v. Conkie, 105 Mo.App. 12; State ... v. Gabriel, 88 Mo. 631; Randolph v. Railroad, ... 18 Mo.App. 609 ... ...
-
May v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company
... ... Redmon v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 185 Mo. 11; Strother ... v. McFarland, 194 S.W. 882; Crowther v. Gibson, ... 19 Mo. 365; Kleiber v. Peoples Ry. Co., 107 Mo. 240; ... 24 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2 Ed.), p. 66. (4) The instruction ... on the ... ...