Penn State Law Review Volume 6 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1901 edition. Excerpt: ...on the part of the plaintiff. The court excluded the testimony, and hence the motion for a new trial. We think the court was right in excluding this evidence. The learned counsel for the defendant claims that the oral statement which he made five minutes after the accidentshould have been admitted as a part of the res gestae, and he cites numerous authorities which will be noticed hereafter in support of his contention. We think those cases can be distinguished from the one now under consideration. We must first understand the principle of the res gestae, and the reason for its exception to the "hearsay rule." Taylor says. " In all these cases the principal points of attention are whether the circumstances and declaration offered in proof were so connected with the main fact under consideration as to illustrate its character, or to further its objects." Tayler on Ev. e 588. The reason for its exception is: "That a person's mind is in a state of excitement on account of some event which happened to, or was seen by him, or when a person's mind is occupied with some transaction, and under such a state of mind he makes a statement, the law presumes he told the truth, for he had no time to think of an untruth. But how, when and where shall he be connected with the event or transaction, that his declaration may be admissible? There could no test be given for that. Their admissibility must be determined by the judge according to the degree of their relations to the facts. The law is well settled by text writers and by decisions, that before a statement can be admitted as a part of the res gestae, it must appear that the statement was made contemporaneously with the main fact. or at least, the two shall be...