Fuller v. Fuller

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Fuller v. Fuller

58 N.E. 588, 177 Mass. 184, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 1026

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedNovember 28, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 58 N.E. 588 (Fuller v. Fuller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fuller v. Fuller, 58 N.E. 588, 177 Mass. 184, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 1026 (Mass. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

Hammond, J.

The exception to the admission of the evidence of the husband as to the conversation between him and [185]*185his wife at the hotel on the day she left his house must be sustained.

While it is true, as said in French v. French, 14 Gray, 186, 188, that the word “ conversation ” in the statute does not include all language between husband and wife, still it must be held to include the language in this case. Here there was no abuse, no threat, no assault. It was a plain case of a conversation between husband and wife, and even if, as contended by the counsel for the husband, it was a conversation which accompanied and explained the act of the wife in going to the hotel, and her mental attitude in that act, still it was within the prohibition of the statute. The fact that the conversation accompanies and explains the act is not sufficient to take it out of the operation of the rule. Jacobs v. Hesler, 113 Mass. 157. See further, as to the application of the statute, Raynes v. Bennett, 114 Mass. 424, 427; Drew v. Tarbell, 117 Mass. 90; Commonwealth v. Cleary, 152 Mass. 491; Lyon v. Prouty, 154 Mass. 488. In the latter case, where the nature of the conversation was much like that in the present case, the evidence was admitted o:i the ground that some one else was present.

It is contended, however, by the counsel for the husband that the exception at the trial was taken to the first question and answer only, and that there was nothing prejudicial to the wife in that answer. Assuming, without deciding, that this contention as to the scope of the exception is correct, we think the answer to the first, question was of a nature prejudicial to the wife. It was not in dispute that the wife left the house of her husband and went to the hotel, but it was in dispute whether that was by the acquiescence of the husband, and whether she intended not to return. Whether she intended to return and whether her husband desired her return were very material facts. It is clear that upon those issues the statement of the husband that he asked his wife to return, when taken in connection with the undisputed fact that she did not return, might have a very important bearing prejudicial to the wife. Since the exceptions to this evidence must be sustained, it is unnecessary to pass upon the other questions raised.

Exceptions sustained.

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

Hammond, J.

The exception to the admission of the evidence of the husband as to the conversation between him and [185]*185his wife at the hotel on the day she left his house must be sustained.

While it is true, as said in French v. French, 14 Gray, 186, 188, that the word “ conversation ” in the statute does not include all language between husband and wife, still it must be held to include the language in this case. Here there was no abuse, no threat, no assault. It was a plain case of a conversation between husband and wife, and even if, as contended by the counsel for the husband, it was a conversation which accompanied and explained the act of the wife in going to the hotel, and her mental attitude in that act, still it was within the prohibition of the statute. The fact that the conversation accompanies and explains the act is not sufficient to take it out of the operation of the rule. Jacobs v. Hesler, 113 Mass. 157. See further, as to the application of the statute, Raynes v. Bennett, 114 Mass. 424, 427; Drew v. Tarbell, 117 Mass. 90; Commonwealth v. Cleary, 152 Mass. 491; Lyon v. Prouty, 154 Mass. 488. In the latter case, where the nature of the conversation was much like that in the present case, the evidence was admitted o:i the ground that some one else was present.

It is contended, however, by the counsel for the husband that the exception at the trial was taken to the first question and answer only, and that there was nothing prejudicial to the wife in that answer. Assuming, without deciding, that this contention as to the scope of the exception is correct, we think the answer to the first, question was of a nature prejudicial to the wife. It was not in dispute that the wife left the house of her husband and went to the hotel, but it was in dispute whether that was by the acquiescence of the husband, and whether she intended not to return. Whether she intended to return and whether her husband desired her return were very material facts. It is clear that upon those issues the statement of the husband that he asked his wife to return, when taken in connection with the undisputed fact that she did not return, might have a very important bearing prejudicial to the wife. Since the exceptions to this evidence must be sustained, it is unnecessary to pass upon the other questions raised.

Exceptions sustained.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 N.E. 588, 177 Mass. 184, 1900 Mass. LEXIS 1026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-fuller-mass-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack