Day v. Ross
| Decision Date | 20 May 1891 |
| Citation | 154 Mass. 13,27 N.E. 676 |
| Parties | DAY v. ROSS. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
James E. Cotter and John Everett, for plaintiff.
Robt. W. Carpenter, for defendant.
A witness for the plaintiff testified, on examination by the defendant, that he knew the defendant very well. He was then asked the question: "Is Mr. Ross a thoroughly peaceable man, so far as you know?" This question was objected to, and admitted. The answer was: It is clearly incompetent for a defendant, in an action of tort for assault and battery, to prove in defense his good character as a peaceable man. It is said that the plaintiff was not aggrieved by the admission of the question, because the answer was not evidence of the character of the defendant, and only showed that the witness had no knowledge on the subject. But the evidence was competent to prove character. Character is proved by reputation, and evidence that those who have known a man in the community never heard anything against his reputation as a peaceable man is evidence of good reputation in that respect. In the absence of particular objection and of further inquiry, the answer would have been competent, had it been competent for the defendant to prove his good character.
Upon the evidence that the plaintiff went to the defendant's office, and that a dispute arose between them upon a matter of business, and the plaintiff was ordered to leave the office, and left, and that upon his soon attempting to re-enter the office the alleged assault was committed, and that his purpose in returning related to another matter of business, the instruction that the secret purpose of the plaintiff in returning should not bear upon the defendant's conduct, unless he knew or had reason to believe that the return of the plaintiff was for a purpose other than that for which he was originally there, was correct. The manifested thoughts of the plaintiff could not affect the character of the defendant's acts. Exceptions sustained.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Commonwealth v. Boris
...reputation of a man may not be shown by the absence of discussion of his character in the particular community in which he lives. Day v. Ross, 154 Mass. 13 . though the witness lived in the same city with the defendant Marcus, he is not shown to have been a member of the same community with......
-
Davidson v. Massachusetts Cas. Ins. Co.
... ... Whitney v Lynch, 222 Mass. 112, 116, 109 N.E. 826. This did ... not amount to evidence of gen eral reputation. Even that ... could not have been shown, because his own good character was ... not in issue. Schmidt v. New York Union Mutual Fire Ins. Co., ... 1 Gray 529, 535. Day v. Ross, 154 Mass. 13, 14, 27 ... N.E. 676; Geary v. Stevenson, 169 Mass. 23, 31, 47 ... N.E. 508; Colburn v. Marble, 196 Mass. 376, 379-380, ... 82 N.E. 28, 124 Am.St.Rep. 561; Stearns v. Long, 215 ... Mass. 152, 155, 102 N.E. 326, Ann.Cas.1915D, 906; United ... States Annuity & Life Ins. Co. v ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Boris
...of a man may not be shown by the absence of discussion of his character in the particular community in which he lives. Day v. Ross, 154 Mass. 13, 27 N.E. 676. But though the witness lived in the same city with the defendant Marcus, he is not shown to have been a member of the same community......
-
Leahman v. Broughton
... ... Am.Dec. 646; Reed v. Kelly, 4 Bibb (7 Ky.) 400; ... Revill v. Pettit, 3 Metc. (60 Ky.) 314; L. & N ... R. R. Co., etc., v. Owens, 164 Ky. 557, 175 S.W. 1039; ... Sipple v. Kehr, 176 Ky. 698, 197 S.W. 391; Sayen ... v. Ryan, 9 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 631; Day v. Ross, ... 154 Mass. 13, 27 N.E. 676; Treschman v. Treschman, ... 28 Ind.App. 206, 61 N.E. 961; Lyddon v. Dose, 81 ... Mo.App. 64; Barr v. Post, 56 Neb. 698, 77 N.W. 123; ... Markey v. Angell, 22 R.I. 343, 47 A. 882; Coruth ... v. Jones, 77 Vt. 441, 60 A. 814; Rittenhoffer v ... Cutter, 83 N. J ... ...