Elder v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Elder v. State

123 Ala. 35

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedNovember 15, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 123 Ala. 35 (Elder v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elder v. State, 123 Ala. 35 (Ala. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

DOWDELL, J.

While hearsay eAddence is admissible to prove pedigree, it seems to be the settled rule in this State, that the hearsay statements are limited to declarations made by a deceased relative or member of the family.—White v. Strother, 11 Ala. 720; Rowland v. Ladiga’s Heirs, 21 Ala. 32; Cherry v. State, 68 Ala. 29; Rogers v. DeBardelaben, 97 Ala. 154; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., (15th ed.), § 103; 18 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 258-9.

Pedigree cannot be proven .by general reputation in the neighborhood. The court, therefore, erred in permitting the State to prove, against the objection of the defendant, the relationship betAveen the defendant and Rachel Elder and Paralee Elder by general reputation in the neighborhood in AAdiich they lived.

It cannot be stated as a conclusion of laAV that “relationship is a matter than can scarcely be testified to directly in any case,” and that portion of the oral charge of the court AAdiich avc have quoted, and which Avas excepted to by the defendant, Avas erroneous. The Avritten charges requested by defendant are clearly argumentative and were properly refused.

For the errors pointed out the judgment of the court must be m’ersed and the cause remanded,

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

DOWDELL, J.

While hearsay eAddence is admissible to prove pedigree, it seems to be the settled rule in this State, that the hearsay statements are limited to declarations made by a deceased relative or member of the family.—White v. Strother, 11 Ala. 720; Rowland v. Ladiga’s Heirs, 21 Ala. 32; Cherry v. State, 68 Ala. 29; Rogers v. DeBardelaben, 97 Ala. 154; 1 Greenleaf on Ev., (15th ed.), § 103; 18 Am. & Eng. Encyc. Law, 258-9.

Pedigree cannot be proven .by general reputation in the neighborhood. The court, therefore, erred in permitting the State to prove, against the objection of the defendant, the relationship betAveen the defendant and Rachel Elder and Paralee Elder by general reputation in the neighborhood in AAdiich they lived.

It cannot be stated as a conclusion of laAV that “relationship is a matter than can scarcely be testified to directly in any case,” and that portion of the oral charge of the court AAdiich avc have quoted, and which Avas excepted to by the defendant, Avas erroneous. The Avritten charges requested by defendant are clearly argumentative and were properly refused.

For the errors pointed out the judgment of the court must be m’ersed and the cause remanded,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 Ala. 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elder-v-state-ala-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack