
    Commonwealth vs. James K. Jardine.
    Middlesex.
    Jan. 28. — Feb. 23,1887.
    C. Allen & Holmes, JJ., absent.
    At the trial of an indictment for an assault and battery, if the defendant introduces evidence that he was not the aggressive party, but acted in self-defence, and was severely beaten by the other party, and was confined to his bed for weeks, he may also show that, during his confinement, he complained of pain and suffering in limbs and body.; and the fact that he made such complaints may be proved by the testimony of his wife.
    Indictment for an assault and battery. At tbe trial in tbe Superior Court, before Thompson, J., tbe jury returned a verdict of guilty; and tbe defendant alleged exceptions to tbe exclusion of certain evidence, tbe nature of which appears in tbe opinion.
    
      O. H. Hudson, for tbe defendant.
    
      H. N. Shepard, Assistant Attorney General, for tbe Commonwealth.
   Gardner, J.

The defendant at tbe trial offered evidence tending to show that be was not tbe aggressive party, and that, at tbe time of tbe alleged assault, be was acting in self-defence. He offered testimony that he was severely beaten by tbe person alleged to have been assaulted, and that be was laid up and confined to his bed for weeks. This evidence was apparently admitted without objection. Tbe defendant then attempted to show that, during bis confinement, he made complaints of pain and suffering in limbs and body. This was in tbe same line of the testimony already introduced. It was offered for tbe purpose of showing tbe extent and amount of bis injuries. It was competent for tbe purpose for which it was offered, and should have been admitted. Tbe complaints of pain and suffering would not include statements of facts, nor narrations of past occurrences. Tbe inquiry called for exclamations of pain and suffering, and nothing more. Hatch v. Fuller, 131 Mass. 574.

Tbe fact that tbe wife of the defendant was tbe witness by whom tbe exclamations of pain were to be proved, does not exclude her from testifying to these facts. She is not brought ■within the limitation of the Pub. Sts. c. 169, § 18, cl. 1, as the inquiry did not call upon her to testify to private conversations with her husband.

Exceptions sustained.  