Hartnett v. McMahan
Timothy J. Hartnett v. James McMahan B. Elizabeth Hartnett v. Same James McMahan v. Timothy J. Hartnett
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Knowlton, J.
These three cases were tried together, and in two of them each of two persons sought to recover from the other for an alleged assault. In the third, another person sought to recover from one of them for an assault upon her at the same time. McMahan testified that Hartnett struck him when he was down, and that during their altercation many persons gathered about, and that, while Hartnett was on top of his back, one White, a bystander, asked Hartnett to get off and let him alone. Hartnett’s exception to the testimony of what White said presents the only question in the cases.
It is quite clear that White’s remark, considered as a declaration, was not competent evidence to prove the truth of anything implied by it, but it does not follow that it was wrongly admitted. It was introduced in connection with an account of the conduct of both parties immediately before and after it, to which it related, and the last part of which might have been affected by it. It was heard by both of them, and as an occurrence closely con *4 nected with and perhaps affecting conduct, the nature of which was the substance of the issue, we think it well might-be put in evidence as a part of the controversy which was under investigation by the court. It was at least an accessory of it, and a kind of side light without which the picture would be incomplete. In the absence of anything to show that an improper use was made of the evidence, the entry must be, Exceptions overruled.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.