Brooks v. Weeks
| Decision Date | 31 January 1877 |
| Citation | 121 Mass. 433 |
| Parties | Abraham Brooks v. George S. Weeks, administrator |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Argued October 24, 1876
Bristol. Bill in equity to redeem a mortgage given by the plaintiff to the defendant's intestate.
The case was referred to a master, and at a hearing before him one Gammons, the father of the defendant's intestate, was called as a witness by the plaintiff, and his testimony was mainly contradictory of that previously given by the plaintiff himself. The plaintiff then called the attention of the witness to certain statements alleged to have been made by him, to a third person, which statements were immaterial except so far as they tended to impeach the testimony just given by the witness. The witness denied ever having made any such statements. Subsequently, for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of Gammons, the plaintiff called the third person referred to, and asked him what statements had been made to him by Gammons on the particular occasion referred to in the examination of Gammons. In the discussion which followed, the plaintiff's counsel said that, when he called Gammons, he expected that he might testify as he did and that he was not disappointed in his testimony. The defendant objected to the question, and contended that the plaintiff could not impeach his own witness, who had testified as he expected he might testify.
The master overruled the objection, and admitted the testimony so far as the same might be competent to impeach the credit of the witness Gammons, and found that the mortgage had been satisfied.
Exceptions to the master's report were overruled by the Superior Court, and the defendant appealed.
Appeal dismissed.
T. M Stetson & F. B. Greene, for the plaintiff.
E. L. Barney & H. M. Knowlton, for the defendant.
A party producing a witness in court cannot impeach his credit by evidence of bad character, but may contradict him by other evidence, and may also prove that he has made at other times statements inconsistent with his testimony. Before the last mentioned proof can be given, the circumstances of the supposed statements must be called to the attention of the witness, and he must be asked if he made such statements, and, if so, be allowed to explain them. St. 1869, c. 425.
At the hearing before the master a witness was called by the plaintiff, whose testimony contradicted the testimony previously given by the plaintiff himself. He was asked if he had not made certain statements to a third person, and he denied that he had. The third person was afterwards called and the master allowed him to testify to the statements that had been made to him by the previous witness. In the discussion which followed before the master the plaintiff's counsel said, that when he called the witness "he expected that he might testify as he did,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Horn v. State
...surprise of the party calling a witness is not essential to the latter's contradiction by reference to his previous statements. ( Brooks v. Weeks, 121 Mass. 433; see also v. Abington, 102 Mass. 526; Day v. Cooley, 118 Mass. 524.) While it is not necessary to so decide, it is not improbable ......
-
Commonwealth v. Pires
...McGee, supra ; ... Benoit, supra at 115-116 . Although we have not previously spoken to this precise issue, our decision in Brooks v. Weeks, 121 Mass. 433, 434 (1877), interpreting an earlier version of G. L. c. 233, § 23, suggested that a witness's testimony would properly be excluded from......
-
Commonwealth v. Festo
...that the witnesses might testify as they did afforded no ground for objection to the showing of previous inconsistent statements. Brooks v. Weeks, 121 Mass. 433. It well may have been thought necessary to call these persons as witnesses as a part of the case for the Commonwealth. The were a......
-
Commonwealth v. McAfee
...Commonwealth v. Benoit, supra at 115-116. Although we have not previously spoken to this precise issue,2 our decision in Brooks v. Weeks, 121 Mass. 433, 434 (1877), interpreting an earlier version of G. L. c. 233, § 23, suggested that a witness's testimony would properly be excluded from tr......