Hall v. Reinherz

• Decision Date: 17 May 1906
• Citation: 77 N.E. 880,192 Mass. 52
• Parties: HALL v. REINHERZ.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

192 Mass. 52

77 N.E. 880

HALL v. REINHERZ.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 17, 1906

COUNSEL

J. Winthrop Pickering, for plaintiff.

Wm Charak, for defendant.

OPINION

BRALEY, J.

This is an action of tort to recover damages for the alleged seduction of Margaret Mookler, a minor, and member of the plaintiff's family, to whom he sustained the relation of a foster parent. In the superior court a verdict was returned in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiff comes to this court on a report in which the only question of law presented relates to the exclusion of certain evidence offered at the trial. The party seduced having previously died, the plaintiff offered in evidence a written statement signed by her in which she fully narrated her acquaintance and relations with the defendant, including their alleged illicit intercourse, and his subsequent conduct coercing her to submit to a criminal operation for the purpose of procuring an abortion from the effects of which she became a helpless invalid. There were other statements in connection with their general relations that are not important. The presiding judge states that he excluded this evidence solely because, that while otherwise he deemed it competent, in his opinion it was incompetent as the declarations were made prior to the Statutes of 1898, p. 522, c. 535, now Rev. Laws, c. 175, § 66. The purpose of this statute was to partially remove the restrictions excluding hearsay evidence, and to permit its introduction when the declarations were made in good faith by a deceased person before the commencement of the action, but who if living would have been a competent witness at the trial. Brooks v. Holden, 175 Mass. 137, 55 N.E. 802; Mulhall v. Fallon, 176 Mass. 266, 57 N.E. 386, 54 L R. A. 934, 79 Am. St. Rep. 309; Stocker v. Foster, 178 Mass. 591, 60 N.E. 407; Dixon v. New England Railroad Co., 179 Mass. 242, 60 N.E. 581; Dickinson v Boston, 188 Mass. 595, 75 N.E. 68; Gray v Kelley, 190 Mass. 184, 76 N.E. 724. Neither are such declarations rendered inadmissible because instead of being oral they are put by the declarant in the form of a written statement. O'Driscoll v. Lynn & Boston R. Co., 180 Mass. 187, 62 N.E. 3. The statute relates to civil procedure only, is remedial in its nature, and therefore should be liberally construed to advance rather than restrict the remedy, and as the declarations offered come within its...