Hartnett v. McMahan
| Citation | 46 N.E. 392,168 Mass. 3 |
| Parties | HARTNETT v. McMAHAN (two cases). McMAHAN v. HARTNETT. |
| Decision Date | 26 February 1897 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from supreme court, Middlesex county.
Actions by Timothy J. Hartnett and B. Elizabeth Hartnett, respectively, against James McMahan, and by James McMahan against Timothy J. Hartnett, for an assault. The cases were tried together. To certain testimony introduced by McMahan, Timothy J. Hartnett brings exceptions. Overruled.
S.H. Dudley, for plaintiffs.
J.B. Goodrich, for McMahan.
These three cases were tried together, and in two of them each of two persons sought to recover from the other for an alleged assault. In the third another person sought to recover from one of them for an assault upon her at the same time. McMahan testified that Hartnett struck him when he was down, and that during their altercation many persons gathered about; that while Hartnett was on top of his back, one White, a bystander, asked Hartnett to get off, and let him alone. Hartnett's exception to the testimony of what White said presents the only question in the cases. It is quite clear that White's remark, considered as a declaration, was not competent evidence to prove the truth of anythingimplied by it, but it does not follow that it was wrongly admitted. It was introduced in connection with an account of the conduct of both parties immediately before and after it, to which it related, and the last part of which might have been affected by it. It was heard by both of them, and as an occurrence closely connectedwith, and perhaps affecting, conduct the nature of which was the substance of the issue, we think it well might be put in evidence as a part of the controversy which was under investigation by the court. It was, at least, an accessory of it, and a kind of side light without which the picture would be incomplete. In the absence of anything to show that an improper use was made of the evidence, the entry must be, exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Young
...380 N.E.2d 642 (1978); Liacos, supra at 350-352; 6 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 1746-1750 (Chadbourn rev. 1976). See also Hartnett v. McMahan, 168 Mass. 3, 46 N.E. 392 (1897); Commonwealth v. Simpson, 300 Mass. 45, 50, 13 N.E.2d 939, cert.denied, 304 U.S. 565, 58 S.Ct. 950, 82 L.Ed. 1531 (1938). Pa......
-
Com. v. Harris
...'Evidence of the attendant circumstances may aid the jury in reaching a verdict by giving them the complete picture. Hartnett v. McMahan, 168 Mass. 3, 4, 46 N.E. 392 (1897).' Commonwealth v. Durkin, 257 Mass. 426, 154 N.E. 185, 186 (1926)." Commonwealth v. Murphy, 356 Mass. 604, 609, 254 N.......
-
Reardon v. Marston
...matter under investigation.’ The admission of the evidence was not reversible error. Commonwealth v. Hackett, 2 Allen 136;Hartnett v. McMahan, 168 Mass. 3, 46 N.E. 392;Commonwealth v. Durkin, 257 Mass. 426, 154 N.E. 185;Hall v. Shain, 291 Mass. 506, 197 N.E. 437;Frasciello v. Baer, 304 Mass......
-
Reardon v. Marston
...of matter under investigation." The admission of the evidence was not reversible error. Commonwealth v. Hackett, 2 Allen, 136. Hartnett v. McMahan, 168 Mass. 3 . v. Durkin, 257 Mass. 426 . Hall v. Shain, 291 Mass. 506 . Frasciello v. Baer, 304 Mass. 643 . One who had been an inspector of th......