Hawks v. Inhabitants of Charlemont

110 Mass. 110
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 1872
StatusPublished
Cited by17 cases

This text of 110 Mass. 110 (Hawks v. Inhabitants of Charlemont) 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
Hawks v. Inhabitants of Charlemont, 110 Mass. 110 (Mass. 1872).

Opinion

Colt, J.

Whether a witness whose testimony is offered has the knowledge or experience which qualifies him to give an opinion, in a matter where opinions are admissible In evidence, is a question of fact in the first instance for the court. It concerns the competency of the evidence, and no exception lies to the ad [113]*113mission or rejection of the proffered opinion, unless upon a report of all the évidence before the judge it plainly appears that his decision was not justified by the facts proved. Gorton v. Hadsell, 9 Cush. 508. O' Connor v. Hallinan, 103 Mass. 547. As to the first exception, it is sufficient answer that it does not here appear that the evidence offered was not rejected because the witnesses were not properly qualified to give an opinion as to what caused the injury complained of. It is not necessary to decide whether the matter in dispute was of a character to require for its solution the opinions of witnesses possessing peculiar knowledge or experience.

The evidence of what occurred from the action of the water at another locality and at another time would have a tendency to mislead the jury, unless the forces and conditions which combined to produce this injury were the same. Similarity in situation would not be enough, and the witnesses offered were unable to state with certainty the actual condition of things on either occasion. There was no error in the exclusion of this evidence. Presbrey v. Old Colony & Newport Railway Co. 103 Mass. 1, 9.

Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Shea v. Town of Lexington
290 Mass. 356 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
State v. Dunn
109 So. 56 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1926)
Scotton v. Wright
122 A. 541 (Court of Chancery of Delaware, 1923)
Arakelian v. Southern Pacific Co.
220 Ill. App. 160 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1920)
Poole v. Boston & Maine Railroad
102 N.E. 918 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1913)
Thomson v. Pentecost
92 N.E. 1021 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1910)
St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Saunders
107 S.W. 194 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1908)
Rowe v. Northport Smelting & Refining Co.
76 P. 529 (Washington Supreme Court, 1904)
Chicago City Railway Co. v. Brecher
112 Ill. App. 106 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1904)
American Bell Tel. Co. v. National Tel. Mfg. Co.
109 F. 976 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts, 1901)
Riley v. Boehm
45 N.E. 84 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1896)
Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburgh Railroad v. Champion
36 N.E. 221 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1894)
Baxter v. Doe
8 N.E. 415 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1886)
Campbell v. Russell
1 N.E. 345 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1885)
Eaton v. New England Telegraph Co.
68 Me. 63 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1878)
Commonwealth v. Piper
120 Mass. 185 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1876)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 Mass. 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawks-v-inhabitants-of-charlemont-mass-1872.