Opinion

In Evidence. An inference or conclusion drawn by a witness as distinguished from facts known to him as facts. It Is the province of the jury to draw Inferences and conclusions; and if witnesses were in general allowed to testify what they believe as well as what they know, the verdict would sometimes prove not the decision of the jury, but that of the witnesses. Hence the rule that, in general, the witness cannot be asked his opinion upon a particular question; Patterson v. Colebrook, 29 N. H. 94; Dawson v. Callaway, 18 Ga. 573; Morehouse v. Mathews, 2 N. Y. 514; De Witt v. Barly, 17 N. Y. 340. Where all the facts of a transaction are clearly stated bv a witness, his inference therefrom is inadmissible; Gentry v. Singleton, 128 Fed. 679, 63 C. C. A. 231. While it is incompetent for a witness to state his opinion upon a question of law, where the intent with which an act done by him is drawn in question he may testify as to such intent; 12 Reptr. 664. Some confusion in the application of this rule arises from the delicacy of the line which divides that which is to he regarded as matter of observation from that which is matter of judgment founded upon observation. Thus, it is held that an unprofessional witness may testify to the fact that a person whom he saw was intoxicated, whether he is able to state all the constituent facts which amount to drunkenness or not; People v. Eastwood, 14 N. Y. 562; Stanley v. State, 26 Ala. 26; Mc Killop v. Ry. Co., 53 Minn. 532, 55 N. W. 739; he may also testify as to the apparent condition of a party as to sobriety, shortly before the commission of an offence; People v. Monteith, 73 Cal. 7, whether a person with whom he is familiarly associated is in good or bad health and hearing, is lame or has the nature^ use of his limbs, and also whether on certain occasions he was unconscious; Chicago City Ry. Co. v. Van Vleck, 143 111. 480, 32 N. E. 202; also whether a certain person has African blood in his veins; Hare v. Board of Education, 113 N. C. 9, 18 S. E. 55. But, on the other hand, insanity or mental incapacity cannot, in general, be proved by the mere assertion of an unprofessional witness; De Witt v. Early, 17 N. Y. 340; Gelirke v. State, 13 Tex. 568; but the opinion of non-expert witnesses may be given as to mental capacity where the facts upon which the opinions are based are disclosed; Johnson v. Culver, 116 Ind. 278, 19 N. E. 129; Keithley v. Stafford, 126 111.

507, 18 N. R. 740; State v. Potts, 100 N. C. 457, 6 S. E. 657; Frizzell v. Reed, 77 Ga. 724; Fishburne v. Ferguson’s Heirs, 84 Va. 87, 4 S. E. 575.

So handwriting may be proved by being recognized by a witness who has seen other writings of the party in the usual course of business, or who has seen him write; Steph. Ev. § 51; Titford v. Knott, 2 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 211; Snider v. Burks, 84 Ala. 53, 4 South. 225.

See Brown v. Hall, 85 Va. 14G, 7 S. E. 182.

But, on the other hand, the authorship of an anonymous article in a newspaper cannot be proved by one professing to have a knowledge of the author’s style; Lee v. Bennett, IIow.

App. Cas. 187.

The mere opinions of witnesses, without the facts on which they are based, are of very little value, especially where the witnesses are constitutionally or by interest biased and not impartial; Pannell v. Tobacco Warehouse Co., 313 Ky. 630, 68 S. W. 662, 82 S. W. 1141; Kerr v. Lunsford, 31 W. Va. 659, 8 S. E. 493, 2 L. R. A. 668. From necessity, an exception to the rule of excluding opinions is made in questions involving matters of science, art, or trade, where skill and knowledge possessed by a witness, peculiar to the subject, give a value to his opinion above that of any inference which the jury could draw from facts which he might state; People v. Bodine, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 281; Reed v. Hobbs, 2 Scam. (111.) 297; Woodman v. Barker, 2 N. H. 480; Alfonso v. U. S., 2 Story 421, Fed. Cas. No. 188. Such a witness is termed an expert; and he may give his opinion in evidence; Whart. Ev. 440. Experts alone can give an opinion based on facts shown by others, assuming them to be true; State v. Potts, 100 N. C. 457, 6 S. E. 657. The following reference to some of the matters in which the opinions of expert witnesses have been held admissible will illustrate this principle. The unwritten or common law of foreign countries may be proved Pet (U. S.) 763, 8 L. Ed. 573; Packard v. Hill, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 411; Raynham v. Canton, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 293; Frith r. Sprague, 14 Mass. 455; Dennison v. Hyde, 6 Conn. 508; Dougherty v. Snyder, 15 S. & R. (Pa.) 87, 16 Am. Dec. 520; the degree of hazard of property insured against fire; Hobby v. Dana, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) Ill; whether a picture is a good likeness or not; Barnes v. Ingalls, 39 Ala. 193; handwriting; Hopkins v. Megquire, 35 Me. 78; Bowman v. Sanborn, 25 N. H. 87; mechanical operations, the proper way of conducting a particular manufacture, and the effect of a certain method; Price v. Powell, 3 N. Y. 322; negligence of a navigator, and its effect in producing a collision; Cook v. Parham, 24 Ala. 21; sanity; Stuckey v. Bellah, 41 Ala. 700; People v. Lake, 12 N. Y. 358; impotency; 3 Phill. Eccl. 34; value of chattels; Dixon v. Barclay, 22 Ala. 370; Carpenter v. Walt, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 257; Nickley v. Thomas, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 652; value of land: Dwight v. County Com’rs, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 203; Clark v. Baird, 9 N. Y. 183; value of services; Beekman v. Platner, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 550; speed of a railway train; Salter v. R. Co., 59 N. Y. 631; benefit to real property by laying out a street adjacent thereto; Shaw v. Charlestown, 2 Gray (Mass.) 107; survey marks identified as being those made by United States surveyors; Brantly v. Swift, 24 Ala. 390; as to the location of surveys; Jackson v. Lambert, 121 Pa. 182, 15 Atl. 502; Ilockmoth v. Dos Grand Champs, 71 Mich. 520, 39 N. W. 737; seaworthiness; 10 Bingh. 57; whether a person appeared sick or well; Higbie v. Ins. Co., 53 N. Y. 603; of the effect of a personal injury; Evansville & T. H. R. Co. v. Crist, 116 Ind. 446, 19 N. E. 310, 2 L. R. A. 450, 9 Am. St. Rep. 865; Reed v. R. Co., 56 Fed. 184; whether fright would produce heart trouble; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Latimer, 128 111. 163, 21 N. E. 7; whether a child would have been born alive if he had received medical assistance in time; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Cooper, 71 Tex. 507, 9 S. W. 598, 1 L. R. A. 728, 10 Am. St. Rep. 772; as to the distance at which it is safe to stop before going upon a crossing; New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. R. Co., 116 Ind. 60, 18 N. E. 182. So an engineer may be called to say what, in his opinion, is the cause of a harbor having been blocked up; 3 Dougl. 158. Opinion evidence as to the age of a person, from his appearance, is not admissible; Morse v. State, 6 Conn. 9; but see Walker v. State, 25 Tex. App. 448, 8 S. W. 644; Eisner v. K. & L. of Honor, 98 Mo. 640, 11 S. W. 991; nor is it in cases involving adultery, on the question of guilt or guilty intent; see Cox’s Adm’r v. Whitfield, 18 Ala. 738; nor can an opinion be given as tp the meaning of an 3 S. E. 445; Brendon v. Worley, 3 Misc. 253, 28 N. Y. Supp. 557; nor in a matter requiring no peculiar knowledge or experience; Ft. Pitt Gas Co. v. Contract Co., 123 Fed. 63, 59