Hearsay evidence

One of these rules is, that 'hearsay' evidence is in its own nature inadmissible. That this species of testimony supposes some better testimony which might be adduced in the particular case, is not the sole ground of its exclusion. Its intrinsic weakness, its incompetency to satisfy the mind of the existence of the fact, and the frauds which might be practiced under its cover, combine to support the rule that hearsay evidence is totally inadmissible.

That kind of evidence which does not derive its value solely from the credit to be given to the witness himself, but rests also, in part, on the veracity and competency of some other person. 1 Phil. Ev. 185; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 99. The terrii applies to written, as well as oral, matter. See "Evidence."

That kind of evidence which does not derive its value solely ty and competency of some other person. 1 Th Ul. Er. 185. Hearsay evidence is Incompetent to establish any specific fact, which fact Is in its nature susceptible of beipg proved by witnesses who speak from their own knowledge; this species of testimony supposes some better which might be adduced in a particular case and its intrinsic weakness, its Incompetency to satisfy the mind of the existence of the fact, and the frauds which might be practiced under its cover combine to support the rule that it is Inadmissible; Hopt V. Utah, 130 U. S. 681, 4 Sup. Ct. 202, 28 L. Ed. 2G2; Queen v. Hepburn, 7 Cra. (U. S.) 295, 3 L. Ed. 348. The term applies to written as well as oral matter; but the writing or words are not necessarily hearsay, because those of a person not under oath. Thus, information on which one has acted; 2 B. & Ad. 845; Coleman V. Southwlck, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 45, 6 Am. Dec. 253; the conversation of a pereon suspected of Insanity; 2 Ad. & B. 3; see Myers V. Knobe, 61 Kan. 720, 33 Pac. 602; Ellis v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 24 S. W. 894; replies to Inquiries; 8 Bing. 320; Phelps v. Foot, 1 Conn. 387; Johns v. Johns, 29 Ga. 718; general reputation; Stallings v. State, 33 Ala. 425; Sanscrainte v. Torongo, 87 Mich. 69, 49 N. W. 497; expressions of feeling; 8 Bing. 376; Gilchrist V. Bale, 8 Watts (Pa.) 355, 34 Am. Dec. 469; Laughlln v. State, 18 Ohio 99, 61 Am. Dec. 444; Bacon v. Inhabitants of Charlton, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 581; Looper v. Bell, 1 Head (Tenn.) 373; general repute in the family, in questions of pedigree; 2 C. & K. 701; Jackson v. Browner, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 37; Chapman v. Chapman, 2 Conn. 347, 7 Am. Dec. 277; Anderson v. Parker, 6 Cal. 197; Waldron v. Tuttle, 4 N. H. 371; Jewell V. Jewell, 1 How. (U.' S.) 231, 11 L. Ed. 108; Butrick V. Tilton, 155 Mass. 461, 29 N. E. 1088; Town of Londonderry v. Town of Andover, 28 Vt. 416; (see 1 De G. & Sm. 51, for a discussion as to pedigree by Knight-Bnice, V. C.); see Declaration; Evidence; entries made by third persons in the discharge of oflicial duties; 4 Q. B. 132; and see Nicholls V. Webb, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 326, 5 L. Ed. 628; Welsh V. Barrett, 15 Mass. 380; Wilbur v. Selden, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 162; Farmers’ Bank of Lancaster v. Whitehfll, 16 S. & R, (Pa.) 89; Herring v. Levy, 4 Mart. N. S. (La.) 383; New Haven County Bank v. Mitchell, 15 Conn. 206; entries in the party’s shopbook; Ingraham v. Bocklus, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 285, 11 Am. Dec. 730; Prince v. Smith, 4 Mass. 465; Pelzer v. Cranston, 2 Mc Cord (S. C.) 328; Wilson v. Wilson, 6 N. J. L. 95; Farner v. Turner, 1 la. 63; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 119; or other books kept in the regular course of business; 10 Ad. & B. 598; Nicholls V. Webb, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 326, 5 L. Ed. 628; Welsh V. Barrett, 15 Mass. 380; Halliday v. Whitney v. Bigelow, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 110; Roseboom v. Billlngton, 17 Johns. (N. T.) 182; Gibson v. Peebles, 2 Mc Cord (S. 0.) 418; declarations as to boundaries; Clement y. Packer, 125 U. S. 821, 8 Sup. Ct. 907, 31 L. Ed. 721; have been held admissible as original evidence under the circumstances, and for particular purposes. As to a person’s testifying to his own age, see Age. As a general rule, hearsay reports of a transaction, whether oral or written, are not admissible as evidence; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 124; Gatling v. Newell, 9 Ind. 572; Ibbltson v. Brown, 6 la. 532; State v. Maitremme, 14 La. Ann. 830; Persons’ "A dm’rs v. Burdick, 6 Wis. 63; Gross v. Moore, 68 Hun 412, 22 N. y.’ Supp. 1019; Brown v. Prude, 97 Ala. 639, 11 South. 838; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Parker, 55 Fed..595, 5 C. C. A. 220; Forman V. Com., 86 Ky, 605, 6 S. W. 579, The rule applies to evidence given under oath in a cause between other litigating parties; 3 Term 77; Queen v. Hepburn, 7 Cra. (U. S.) 296, 3 L. Ed. 348. At one time in England it was held on the authority of Luttarell v. Reynell, 1 Mod. 282, that hearsay evidence of a witness’ previous declarations might be admitted to confirm his testimony by showing that he “was constant to himself’’; but this theory of confirming a sworn statement by declarations not under oath was abandoned in England; Buller, J., in 3 Doug. 242; and (except in a few cases which followed the earlier English case) repudiated in the United States; Stark. Ev. Sharsw. ed. 253, n. 2; 12 Am. L. Reg. 1, where the cases are collected. Matters relating to public interest, as, for example, a claim to a ferry or highway, may be proved by hearsay testimony; 6 M. & W. 234; 1 M. & S. 679; Noyes v. Ward, 19 Conn. 250; but the matter in controversy must be of public interest; 2 B. & Ad. 245; Pennsylvania Coal Co. V. Canal Co., 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 593; the declarations must be those of persons supposed to be dead; 11 Price 162; 1 C. & K. 58; Davis v. Fuller, 12 Vt, 178, 36 Am. Dec. 334; and must have been made before controversy arose; 13 Ves. 514. See Fry v, Currie, 103 N. C. 203, 9 S. E. 393. The rule extends to deeds, leases, and other private documents; 10 B. & C. 17; maps; 2 Moore & P. 525; Noyes V. Ward, 19 Conn. 250; and verdicts; 10 Ad. & E. 151 -,7 0.^ P. 181. Testimony based on daily market reports from a commercial center comes from a public authentic source and is not hearsay; International & G. N. Ry. Co. V. Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 180, Ancient documents purporting to be a part of the res gestae are also admissible, although the parties to the suit are not bound; 5 Price 312; Tolman v. Emerson, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 160. See 2 C. & P. 440; Jackson v. Wel- V. Betts, 4 Denio (N. Y.) 201. So also declarations wbicli form part of the rea ge»tw, which explain and give character to what was done at the time are not liable to the objection that they are hearsay; Stark. Ev. Sharwood’s ed. 53, note 1, 89, note 1, where the cases Illustrating this branch of the subject are collected and classified by the American editor. When tvA'o persons not speaking a common language voluntarily agree on a third to interpret between them, the latter Is to be regarded as the agent of each to translate and communicate what he says to the other, and such comumnication to the Interpreter is not hearsay, and the party to whom It is made may testify to it; Miiler v. Lathrop, 60 Minn. 91, 52 N. W. 274; Johnson v. R. Co., 61 la. 25, 50 N. W. 543; the weight only of such being affected thereby and not its competency; Com. V. Vose, 157 Mass. 393, 32 N. B. 35.5, 17 L. R. A. 813. Declarations, Incompetent as hearsay, are not rendered admissible because they may tend to corroborate other testimony; Holt v. Johnson, 129 N. C. 138,,39 S. B. 796. A statement by a physician to plaintiff that it would be necessary to amputate his hand was hearsay and inadmissible; Louisville & N. R. Co. V. Smith, 84 S. W. 755, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 257. In an action against a railway company for wrongful death of a son, a statement made by him to his mother that he would support his parents as long as he lived was held not hearsay; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. V. Van Belle, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 511, 64 S. W. 397. In condemnation proceedings, evidence offered by the owner as to offers made to him to purchase the property was rightly excluded; Sharp v. U. S., 191 U. S. 341, 24 Sup. Ct 114, 48 L. Ed. 211. See Declaration; Dying Declarations; Evidence; Pedigree; Res Gest.®.

Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness, but from the mere repetition of what he has heard others say. See, more fully, Hearsay.

Defined under Evidence in Black's Law Dictionary.

Evidence of what others have been heard to say; testimony from the relation of third pei-sons.