On Exceptions from Nisi Prius, Hathaway, J., presiding.

Dower.

In order to show that the husband was dead, the demand-ant offered evidence that “ the news of his death at Niagara falls, was received in the fall of 1849, by his family, in a newspaper published at Lawrence, Massachusetts, called the Lawrence Courier.” This was objected to, but was admitted as “ inducement to evidence of reputation of the death in his family.”

The demandant then offered what purported to be the said newspaper, which was objected to, but admitted as inducement. It was dated Sept. 15, 1849, and contained the following paragraph : — “ James Gould, a millwright by trade, belonging in Brownville, Maine, and lately residing in Dover, N.. H., and, we believe,'also for a short time in this town, was killed by the falling of a block of timber on, his head at Niagara falls, on the 27th day of August. We give this information at the instance of a gentleman in this town, who was at the falls at the time of the accident, and to apprise the friends of the deceased of his melancholy end.”

The demandant also offered the testimony of Mr. Jenks, postmaster of Brownville, that, by request of the family, he wrote to the postmaster at Niagara falls, inquiring about the death of the said James Gould, and received a letter purporting to be from the postmaster last named, stating the facts and circumstances of his death very much as related in said newspaper. The letter was not offered.

This evidence of Mr. Jenks was objected to, but was admitted. There was further evidence in the case.

The verdict was for the demandant. To the admission of the evidence, the tenant excepted.

The newspaper paragraph was but hearsay. Nothing shows that it was inserted by any one having knowledge of the death. 1 Greenl. on Ev. § 128, 136, 137.

The testimony of Jenks was inadmissible, because it was mere hearsay, and because it was a mere verbal detail of the contents of a written paper, which was not offered; and which, if offered, should have been excluded, because there was no testimony to prove its genuineness. Greenl. Ev. § 142. For the same reason the newspaper should have been excluded. Wentworth v. Keizer, 33 Maine, 367; Morton v. Barrett, 19 Maine, 109.

If the record of a Court is not prima facie evidence of its genuineness, then surely the letter and newspaper could not be.

If Gould was dead, better evidence of the fact must have been attainable. Crouch v. Eveleth, 15 Mass. 305.

It is apparent that the evidence objected to was admitted merely as inducement to the other testimony, which of itself showed that the family considered the husband dead. The admission then was within the discretion of the Judge. Cochrane v. Libbey, 18 Maine,o 41; Morton v. Barrett, 19 Maine, 109.

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress