Doud v. Hall

Decided September 15, 1864

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1864-09-15

<p>Evidence that a party to a suit was, at the time of the trial, nearly seventy years old, had had a paralysis within three years, was of weak mind and poor memory, had an idiotic look, was sometimes stupid, but brighter some days than others, and that on one occasion within a few days of the trial he was unable to move or dress himself and did not seem to understand anything about his business, does not so clearly show that he was insane, within the meaning of Gen. Sts. c. 131, § 14, as to require this court to grant a new trial on account of the admission of the other party to testify in his own favor.</p>

Decided 1864-09-15

Metcalf, J.

¶1By the Gen. Sts. c. 131, § 14, “ where one of the original parties to the cause of action on trial is dead, or is shown to the court to be insane, the other party shall not be permitted to testify in his own favor.” On the trial of this case, evidence of the defendant’s insanity was offered and re» ceived, for the purpose of excluding the testimony of the plaintiff. The judge was of opinion that the defendant was not insane, and allowed the plaintiff to testify in support of his action. As all the testimony concerning the defendant’s insanity at the time of the trial is reported in the bill of exceptions, the decision of the judge is rightfully before us for revision. Quinsigamond Bank v. Hobbs, 11 Gray, 250. But we are of opinion *412that, though the evidence shows great weakness of the defendant’s mind, yet it does not so clearly show his insanity as to require us to sustain the exceptions.

¶2 Exceptions overruled.