
    D. Holmes & Co. v. Washington Real Estate Co.
    PROVIDENCE
    DECEMBER 2, 1897.
    Present : Matteson, C. J., Stiness and Tillingbast, JJ.
    Statements by workmen relating to tbeir work, spoken jocularly and so understood by the hearers, are not admissible as evidence against their employer in an action by him to recover compensation for the work; but, if uttered seriously, they might have been competent testimony.
    Assumpsit for work done and materials furnished.
    Heard on defendant’s petition for a new trial.
    
      Simon S. Lapham, for plaintiff.
    
      Charles A. Wilson, Thomas A. Jenckes, Richard B. Com-stock, Rathbone Gardner and Arthur Cushing, for defendant.
   Per Curiam.

The record shows that the statements of the plaintiffs’ workmen to the witness Tillinghast, which were excluded by the court subject to defendant’s exception, were spoken jocularly, and were so understood by the witness. This being so, we do not think that they were admissible as part of the res gestae to bind the plaintiffs on the issue whether or not they had performed their work with due diligence, though they might have been competent testimony for that purpose had they been uttered seriously. We think, therefore, that they were properly excluded.

New trial denied, and case remitted to the Common Pleas Division with direction to enter judgment on the verdict.  