
    Commonwealth vs. John Cronin.
    Essex.
    November 17, 1903.
    February 25, 1904.
    Present: Knowlton, C. J., Morton, Lathrop, Barker, & Braley, JJ.
    
      Evidence, Private conversations between husband and wile.
    In a criminal case in which the defence is insanity, the wife of the defendant is prohibited by R. L. c. 175,.§20, cl. 1, from testifying to a private conversation in which the defendant told her that he would drown himself, although the statement thus excluded is relevant to show the defendant’s state of mind.
    Indictment, found on May 12, 1902, for an assault with intent to murder.
    At the trial, in the Superior Court before Harris, J., the defence relied upon was insanity caused by epilepsy. It appeared, that after committing the assault in question the defendant, being pursued by persons who had come up, ran to a pond and threw- himself in, and was rescued from the pond in an unconscious condition. The defendant’s wife testified to an illness of the defendant alleged to be epilepsy, and was allowed without objection to testify in regard to the condition of the defendant as manifested by his symptoms. The defendant then offered to show by his wife that immediately upon coming out of this attack the defendant declared that he would drown himself. The judge excluded this evidence solely upon the ground that it was a private conversation between husband and wife. The jury returned a verdict of guilty; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      W. iS. Knox W. Qoulson, for the defendant.
    
      W. S. Peters, District Attorney, for the Commonwealth.
   Barker, J.

The defendant’s statement that he would drown himself was made in private to his wife. It was relevant to his condition of mind, but was made incompetent and inadmissible as evidence in his favor by the prohibition of the statute, “Neither husband nor wife shall testify as to private conversations with each other.” R. L. c. 175, § 20, cl. 1. Fuller v. Fuller, 177 Mass. 184, and cases cited. It did not come within the reason of the exception which allows abusive language addressed by a husband in private to his wife to be given in evidence to show abusive treatment. See French v. French, 14 Gray, 186.

Exceptions overruled.  