the conversation being an account of an injury sustained by one of the parties, the third person could not testify to what was said, because the story of the injured person would be unimportant except as evidence of the accident to which it related, and on that point it would be pure hearsay. When, however, the substance of the conversation is itself an issue, not only in the case of the contract just cited, but in an action for slander when it is necessary to determine whether or not slanderous words were used, and in other cases that will readily suggest themselves, testimony of a third person to the statements made, is admissible. § 86. Exclamations and statements accompanying acts. The circumstances covered by res gestæ have, moreover, a wider scope than has yet been indicated. They include spontaneous exclamations of pain, horror, anger, or other emotions accompanying acts. If I see a woman struck by an automobile, I may testify not only to seeing her fall but to hearing her frightened shriek, because her outcry is just as much a part of the event as is the blow struck by the machine; it is not hearsay evidence, but an element of the occurrence in controversy. Going a little farther, the courts have held that not merely exclamations, but also statements accompanying acts are admissible in evidence, under this head. Thus, in a suit against an insurance company on an accident policy, it became important to determine whether the insured person, one Mosley, who had fallen down stairs at night and died sometime thereafter, came to his end as a result of the accident or from natural causes. On this issue, both his wife and his son, who saw him only a few minutes after the fall, were allowed to testify that he said he had fallen down stairs and hurt himself badly (62). Such a statement is a little different from an exclamation, because it calls for thought, and yet when it is made at the very time of the accident, and obviously under the influence of it, it is competent evidence, on the theory that the person concerned is merely responding to conditions which have acted upon him, and has had no opportunity to frame a false or designing statement. § 87. Same: When made too late. A very slight interval is, however, sufficient to change the conditions and compel the rejection of the testimony. Thus, where thirty minutes elapsed after an accident, a statement as to the circumstances of his injury by the victim, who meanwhile had been removed from the railroad track, where he was struck, to a sidewalk, was rejected (63). It was held by the court that the accident was complete, and the initial shock had passed off before the statement was made. The victim's position even had been changed and the chain of causation broken. On the facts, it would probably be difficult to harmonize this case with the one previous in which the declarations might seem almost equally too late. But, however difficult it may be to apply the principle in close cases, there can be little doubt as to what it is: that statements made as part and parcel of an occurrence in issue, are themselves admissible in evidence. They are unlike admissions, in that they may count in favor of the maker as well as against him and they differ from dying (62) Insurance Company v. Mosley, 8 Wall. 397. declarations in that they are admissible in all cases, civil as well as criminal, and they are not dependent upon death or even the fear of death, for their character as evidence. The assurance of their truth rests in the utter lack of opportunity for premeditation or design, either of these elements being fatal to their admissibility. SECTION 12. STATEMENTS OF CONDITION OR INTENTION. § 88. Statements of physical condition. Statements by a person, as to his condition or intention, are frequently admissible although made out of court. For instance, in a personal injury suit, persons who knew the plaintiff and talked with him after his accident can testify as to what he said about his health, whether or not he suffered pain, and whether he was feeble or strong. Accounts of the injury of a narrative nature, detailing how it happened, are not admissible because they are pure hearsay. But it is the theory of the law that what a man says descriptive of his physical condition is usually induced by his real sensations and is likely to be true. From our knowledge of the frauds often practiced in personal injury cases, some of us are inclined to be skeptical of this doctrine, but it nevertheless prevails. Perhaps it is a survival of former times when a party was not allowed to testify in his own behalf, and the only way that he had of showing in court that he suffered pain from an accident, was by the testimony of his friends that he had given evidence of it. The rule allowing the testimony persists and is firmly established, although the disqualification of parties to testify in their own behalf has long since been removed. § 89. Same: Some stricter views. In some jurisdictions, declarations as to pain and physical weakness are admissible only when made to a physician in the course of treatment, it being thought that the physician from his superior knowledge can detect fraud, and, furthermore, that statements made for the purpose of treatment are most likely to be true (64). Generally, however, expressions of present suffering are not so limited, but are admissible if made to a wife (65), or for that matter to anybody else. Frequently, a plaintiff in a personal injury case describes his symptoms to a physician solely for the purpose of enabling the latter to testify in his behalf, and, in such a case, it has sometimes been held that statements of pain by the person examined are inadmissible, because the motive is too strong for the party to manufacture evidence of pain in his own behalf (66). Even in such a case, however, the trend of practice is to admit the statements, and leave the question of their credibility to the jury. § 90. Statements of mental condition. Clearly a person's statements are admissible on the question of his mental condition; for instance, his sanity, or insanity, or intoxication. The query in the question of sanity is not whether the things stated by the person concerned were true, but whether they were such statements as marked a rational mind. Accordingly, what the statements were may be shown on the witness stand by anybody who has overheard them. The same principle holds on the question, whether or not a person's conversation, by its in (64) Williams v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 68 Minn. 55. (65) Bennett v. Northern Pac. R. R. Co., 2 N. D. 112. Jones v. Portland, 88 Mich. 598. (66) coherence or hesitancy or foolishness, indicated that he was drunk. § 91. Statements of intention. When we pass from mental condition to purpose, we touch more dangerous ground, because design enters into purpose and the manifestation of it. A person very often intends to do one thing and deliberately, by his words, leads the world to believe that he means another. Yet, inasmuch as sometimes it is only by a man's statements that his intention can be discovered, they are usually admissible for that purpose. For instance, to sustain the plea of self-defense in a trial for murder, the accused often endeavors to show previous threats by the deceased, which, coupled with his acts on the occasion in question, put the defendant in fear of his own life and led him to kill. Any declarations by the victim of a purpose to injure the prisoner, provided they came to the prisoner's knowledge, are admissible on this theory (67). Likewise, in a suit to enforce an insurance policy on the life of a person believed to be murdered, the plaintiff's theory was that the deceased went on a journey, in the course of which the crime was committed, but the identification of his body was uncertain and it was a question whether he ever took the journey. In this situation the court admitted in evidence a letter, written shortly before, in which he stated his purpose to do so. In other words, the statements of the deceased were allowed as evidence of his intention, which was one link in the chain. of circumstantial evidence necessary to prove his death '(68). (67) State v. Beckner, 194 Mo. 281. (68) Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U. S. 285. |