Wilkins v. Babbershall

32 Me. 184

Opinion

Howard, J.,

orally.—The plaintiff contends that it was not competent for defendant to prove the out-door statements of Fowles, till, upon inquiry, Fowles had had opportunity to explain. Such is the rule in England and in some of the other States. It was never so in Maine. It has always been understood that the declarations of a witness may be proved, without such previous inquiry. The rule is well known. It is a salutary one, and we see no reason for changing it.

Exceptions overruled.