Hartnett v. McMahan

46 N.E. 392, 168 Mass. 3, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 133
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedFebruary 25, 1897
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 46 N.E. 392 (Hartnett v. McMahan) 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
Hartnett v. McMahan, 46 N.E. 392, 168 Mass. 3, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 133 (Mass. 1897).

Opinion

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]*4nected 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.

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

Related

Commonwealth v. Young
494 N.E.2d 419 (Massachusetts Appeals Court, 1986)
Commonwealth v. Harris
380 N.E.2d 642 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1978)
Commonwealth v. Fiore
308 N.E.2d 902 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1974)
Rocco v. Boston-Leader, Inc.
17 Mass. App. Dec. 65 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1959)
Reardon v. Marston
38 N.E.2d 644 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Commonwealth v. Simpson
13 N.E.2d 939 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1938)
Kelly v. Hanwick
153 So. 269 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Commonwealth v. Durkin
154 N.E. 185 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1926)
Commonwealth v. Zaidon
149 N.E. 550 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1925)
Birmingham MacAroni Co. v. Tadrick
88 So. 858 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1921)
Gray v. Boston Elevated Railway Co.
102 N.E. 71 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Cooper v. Hopkins
48 A. 100 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1900)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 N.E. 392, 168 Mass. 3, 1897 Mass. LEXIS 133, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartnett-v-mcmahan-mass-1897.