Com. v. Vose

• Decision Date: 23 November 1892
• Citation: 32 N.E. 355,157 Mass. 393
• Parties: COMMONWEALTH v. VOSE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

157 Mass. 393

32 N.E. 355

COMMONWEALTH v. VOSE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

November 23, 1892

COUNSEL

C.N. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

A.E. Bragg, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON, J.

The defendant excepted to the admission in evidence of a conversation between him and the deceased person carried on through an interpreter, he speaking English and she French, and the witness understanding only French. When two persons who speak different languages, and who cannot understand each other, converse through an interpreter, they adopt a mode of communication in which they assume that the interpreter is trustworthy, and which makes his language presumptively their own. Each acts upon the theory that the interpretation is correct. Each impliedly agrees that his language may be received through the interpreter. If nothing appears to show that their respective relations to the interpreter differ, they may be said to constitute him their joint agent to do for both that in which they have a joint interest. They wish to communicate with each other, they choose a mode of communication, they enter into conversation, and the words of the interpreter, which are their necessary medium of communication, are adopted by both, and made a part of their conversation as much as those which fall from their own lips. They cannot complain if the language of the interpreter is taken as their own by any one who is interested in the conversation. Interpretation under such circumstances is prima facie to be deemed correct. How far either would be bound by it if the interpreter should prove false may depend on a variety of circumstances which it is unnecessary to discuss. In a case like the present, we are of opinion that either party, or a third party, who hears the conversation, may testify to it as he understands it, although for his understanding of what was said by one of the parties he is dependent on the interpretation, which was a part of the conversation. The fact that a conversation was had through an interpreter affects the weight, but not the competency, of the evidence. Camerlin v. Palmer Co., 10 Allen, 539; Greenl.Ev. § 183; Fabrigas v. Mostyn, 20 State Tr. 171.

Exceptions overruled.