Sherman v. Stafford Manufacturing Co.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Sherman v. Stafford Manufacturing Co.

51 A. 48, 23 R.I. 529, 1902 R.I. LEXIS 137

CourtSupreme Court of Rhode Island

DecidedJanuary 24, 1902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A. 48 (Sherman v. Stafford Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sherman v. Stafford Manufacturing Co., 51 A. 48, 23 R.I. 529, 1902 R.I. LEXIS 137 (R.I. 1902).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

(1) The court is of opinion that there is no evidence to show negligence on the part of the defendant, or due care on the part of the deceased. The testimony relied on by the plaintiff for that purpose is the statement made to him by the deceased, which is hearsay, and which was only admitted for the purpose of giving the whole of a conversa *530 tion relating to statements against interest. While the whole admission, embracing favorable and unfavorable parts, may be given, the rule allowing it does not .extend to matters distinct from the admissions, nor enable a party, under the guise of giving the whole statement, to introduce other statements which amount only to hearsay testimony upon other points. 1 Gr. on Ev. § 201 (16th Ed.); 1 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2nd Ed.), p. 721. Such was the character of the evidence given by the plaintiff; but, even taking it as it stands, it fails to make out the case.

Franklin P. Owen, for plaintiff. Ballou & Tower, for defendant.

Petition for new trial granted.

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

Per Curiam.

(1) The court is of opinion that there is no evidence to show negligence on the part of the defendant, or due care on the part of the deceased. The testimony relied on by the plaintiff for that purpose is the statement made to him by the deceased, which is hearsay, and which was only admitted for the purpose of giving the whole of a conversa *530 tion relating to statements against interest. While the whole admission, embracing favorable and unfavorable parts, may be given, the rule allowing it does not .extend to matters distinct from the admissions, nor enable a party, under the guise of giving the whole statement, to introduce other statements which amount only to hearsay testimony upon other points. 1 Gr. on Ev. § 201 (16th Ed.); 1 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2nd Ed.), p. 721. Such was the character of the evidence given by the plaintiff; but, even taking it as it stands, it fails to make out the case.

Franklin P. Owen, for plaintiff. Ballou & Tower, for defendant.

Petition for new trial granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A. 48, 23 R.I. 529, 1902 R.I. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sherman-v-stafford-manufacturing-co-ri-1902.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack