
    CASE 58 — PETITION ORDINARY
    JANUARY 17.
    Morris vs. Hazelwood.
    APPEAL PROM OREEN CIRCUIT COURT.
    Statements of a party claiming to have been robbed, though made immediately after the alleged misfortune, are not evidence in his behalf at the suit of another to recover money so alleged to have been lost. In such a case the issue is a fact and not character, and it is erroneous to admit defendant to prove former good character for the purpose of sustaining his defense.
    Harlan & Harlan, For Appellant,
    CITED—
    3 Conn., 250, page 611.
    1 Bouvier’s Diet., 581.
    4 Wash. C. C. R., 729.
    
    14 Sergeant Sf Rawle, 275.
    21 How. St. Tr., 535.
    6 East., 193.
    1 Phil, on Ev., 31, 229-30.
    1 Greenleaf on Ev., secs. 54-55, 124, 334-335.
    
      Barker vs. Dixie, cas. temp., Hardw., 264.
    1 Yesey, 10.
    5 City Hall Record, 141, 153, 154.
    1 Wheeler’s Crim. Cases, 479.
    
      Willis, 577.
    6 T. R., 680.
    3 Yes. 4" Beam, 165.
    
      Bull, N. P., 28.
    
      Caines, 120; Ruan vs. Perry.
    7 Parsons on Con., 586, note.
    
    2 Bosanquit 4’ Pullen’s Rep., 530, note.
    
    
      16 Wend., 653 ; Gough, fyc., vs. St. John.
    
    6 Cowen, 673 ; Fowler vs. JEtna Fire Insurance Co.
    
    7 Conn., 116; Humphrey vs. Humphrey.
    
    
      Swifts Ev., 140.
    2 Starkie's Ev., 366.
    
      Kirby, 62; Woodruff vs. Whittlesey.
    
    2 Barb. Sup. Court Rep., Houghtaling vs. Kelderhouse 1 Comstock, 630,
    4 Comstock, 493 ; Pratt vs. Andrews.
    
    5 Ala. Rep., 383; Ward vs. Porter.
    
    10 Serg. Sf Rawle, 55 ; Anderson vs. Long, fyc.
    
    7 Ind. Rep., 19 ; Church vs. Drummond.
    
    1 Strobhart, 377 ; Sneet vs. Plunket.
    
    
      5 Sergt. Sj- Rawle, 354; Nash vs. Gilkeson.
    
    24 Penn. Rep., 401; Lickey vs. Bloser.
    
    
      6 Greenleaf, 9; Potter vs. Webb.
    
    30 Maine Rep., 475; Thayer vs. Boyle.
    
    23 Missouri R., 172; Gutxmiller vs. Lochman.
    
    2 Blackford, 155.
    3 Penn. R., 49.
    1 Camp., 460.
    1 Camp., 518.
    9 Barr., 137.
    1 Starkie ,303.
    2 Saunders' PI., 785.
    1 Selwyn's N. P., 35, note a.
    
    2 Philips' Ev., 456 to 458; Cowan <§• Hill's Notes.
    
    3 Bibb, 192; Givens <$f Bradley.
    
    2 Barbour's Rep., 150-1.
    Andy Barnett, For Appellee,
    CITED—
    
      3Caines, 121; Rúan vs. Perry.
    
    
      Anthon's Law Student, 177.
    6 Cowan, 673; Fowler vs. JEtna Ins^Co.
    
    
      3 Paige, 454; Townsend v. Graves.
    
    
      Green, 59.
    
      Low vs. Jolxffe, 1 he. rep., 395, doc. 4, dem.
    
    
      Stephenson vs. Walker, 4 esp., 50.
    
      Anthon, N. P., 21. n. a.
    
    
      Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, sec. 451.
    
      Greenleaf, 65.
    
      Lord Chancellor Erskine in Mclllville’s case, 29.
    
      Hon. Lt. Trials, 764.
    3 Littell, 292.
   JUDGE WILLIAMS

delivered the opinion op the court:

We have at the present term decided, in Tucker vs. Hood, that the statements of a party claiming to have been robbed, though made immediately after the alleged misfortune, are not evidence in his behalf at the suit of another to recover money so alleged to have been lost.

As the pleadings in this and in all such cases put in issue a fact, and not character, it was erroneous to admit the defendant to prove former good character for the purpose of sustaining his issue.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed for a new trial in accordance herewith.  