Francis v. Rosa

• Decision Date: 18 June 1890
• Citation: 24 N.E. 1024,151 Mass. 532
• Parties: FRANCIS v. ROSA.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

151 Mass. 532

24 N.E. 1024

FRANCIS v. ROSA.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Barnstable.

June 18, 1890

COUNSEL

J.H. Hopkins, for plaintiff.

H.F Naphen, for defendant.

OPINION

HOLMES J.

1. The first exception is to allowing the complainant's counsel to put to her the questions, "Did you meet the defendant at Mr. Smith's in Provincetown, two years ago?" and "What, if anything, had defendant said to you about marriage about June last?" It does not appear what the answers were, so that it does not appeal that the defendant was prejudiced. Com. v. Chaney, 148 Mass. 6, 8, 18 N.E. 572. The form of the questions was a matter of discretion. York v. Pease, 2 Gray, 282, 284; Green v. Gould, 3 Allen, 465. The subject-matter of the inquiry was the relations of the parties,--a matter open to proof, within discretionary limits of time, which do not appear to have been exceeded. Beers v. Jackman, 103 Mass. 192; Sullivan v. Hurley, 147 Mass. 387, 18 N.E. 3.

2. The complainant testified that the defendant had connection with her the day after Mr. Amber painted his carpet. Mr. Amber testified that, a day or two before the defendant was alone with the complainant, he purchased paint of Thomas Dyer, and painted a carpet with it. Dyer testified that Amber purchased paint of him June 4 and 6, 1888. The admission of Amber's and Dyer's testimony was excepted to, but plainly was admissible to fix the date of the act alleged by the complainant. The statement by the judge in his charge to that effect is also excepted to, and the further objection taken that he misstated the effect of the evidence, or assumed facts which were not proved. It does not appear that any improper assumption was made, or that the judge's attention was called to any such supposed assumption. The jury were warranted in finding that the carpet referred to by Amber was the same carpet as that referred to by the complainant, and that the paint referred to by Dyer was the same as that referred to by Amber. The instruction that the complainant need not prove the date the child was begotten to be the exact date alleged in the complaint was correct. Bassett v. Abbott, 4 Gray, 69; Duhamell v. Ducette, 118 Mass. 569.

3. On the cross-examination of Amber, he was asked if he had not make admissions to one Vasconcellos that he was the father of the child, etc., which he denied. Vasconcellos was called by the defendant, and testified to the admissions. Afterwards Amber was recalled by the complainant, and asked if he heard the evidence of Vasconcellos,...