Mull v. Carr

• Decision Date: 01 December 1892
• Docket Number: 656
• Citation: Mull v. Carr, 5 Ind.App. 491, 32 N.E. 591 (Ind. App. 1892)
• Parties: MULL. ADMINISTRATOR, v. CARR
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

32 N.E. 591

5 Ind.App. 491

MULL. ADMINISTRATOR, v. CARR

No. 656

Court of Appeals of Indiana

December 1, 1892

From the Rush Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

F. H Hall, B. L. Smith and C. Cambern, for appellant.

W. A Cullen and J. D. Megee, for appellee.

OPINION

CRUMPACKER, C. J.

This action was brought by George Carr against Henry C. Mull administrator of the estate of George Mull, deceased, upon a promissory note, alleged to have been executed by the decedent. The defence was that the decedent was a person of unsound mind at the time the note was alleged to have been executed. The claimant had judgment below, and the only question raised by the appeal relates to the action of the court in admitting certain evidence respecting the decedent's mental condition at the time the note was given.

It was shown by the evidence that the decedent died of pneumonia, and that during his last sickness, about five days before his death, he gave the note in suit. There was evidence tending to prove a condition of delirium both before and after the note was given. Appellee called as a witness one Mary Bowles, a daughter of the decedent, who testified that she was with the decedent and assisted in caring for him during the last three days of his life. She went there on the second day after the note was signed, and she detailed, to some extent, his appearance and condition at the time of her arrival, and described how he would act when conversed with. The witness was then asked the following question, which was objected to: "Now, from these facts you have stated to the jury, and seeing your father as you did see him there, and hearing him talk as you have stated to the jury, what is your impression as to his being of sound mind or unsound mind on Wednesday morning when you went there?" The court overruled the objection, and the witness answered: "I think he was of sound mind."

No question is raised respecting the time to which the inquiry was directed nor to the competency of the witness to give an opinion upon the mental condition of the decedent, but it is insisted that such opinion should have been confined strictly to and based entirely upon the facts testified to by the witness, and not to any extent upon things she might have seen and failed to describe, as was implied by the question. Counsel contend that the statement in the question, "and seeing your father as you did see him there, " authorized the witness to go outside of the facts given to the jury for the basis of her opinion. In ordinary judicial investigations witnesses should testify to facts and not opinions, as it is the province of the jury to draw the inferences from the facts in evidence. This rule is never deviated from where the facts may be fully and intelligently placed before the jury, and are of such a character that men of common understanding may draw reasonably accurate conclusions from them, but where they involve the mysteries of art or the intricacies of science, so that the judgment of a skilled mind is necessary to make reliable deductions, the opinion of those specially trained in the particular art or science may be heard to enlighten and guide the jury. In many cases the facts are of such a nature that they can not be clearly portrayed to the jury so as to furnish the basis for reliable inferences, yet they may be of such a character that a non-expert, who has had sufficient opportunities for personal observation, may form a reasonably accurate judgment respecting them, and out of the...