Commonwealth v. Lincoln

110 Mass. 410
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 15, 1872·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Gray, J.

The conviction of Seneca Lincoln was rightly ruled to be incompetent evidence upon the trial of this indictment, except upon the question of his credibility as a witness. 1st. Because it was res inter alios, the present defendant not having been a party to that case. The King v. Warden of the Fleet, 12 Mod. 337, 339; S. C. Holt, 133, 135. Gibson v. McCarty, Cas. temp. Hardw. 311. Brownsword v. Edwards, 2 Ves. Sen. 243, 246. Patterson v. Gaines, 6 How. 550, 586. Mead v. Boston, 3 Cush. 404, 407. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 537. 2d. Because, if admitted, it had no tendency to prove that the assault by Seneca upon the defendant was prior to the defendant’s assault upon him. Exceptions overruled.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commonwealth v. Lincoln, 110 Mass. 410 (Mass. 1872).

110 Mass. 410 (Commonwealth v. Lincoln) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth v. Tilley
99 N.E.2d 749 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1951)
Pilos v. First National Stores Inc.
66 N.E.2d 576 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1946)
Silva v. Silva
7 N.E.2d 601 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1937)
Der Minasian v. Aetna Life Insurance
3 N.E.2d 17 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Miller v. Southern Pacific Co.
26 P. 70 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1891)