Atlanta Georgian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1912-1939, 1914-02-17
Case Now Will be Car
ried to the Supreme
Court of the United
States as Last Resort.
Continued From Page 2.

tution for a particular crime, evi-
dence which in any manner shows. or
tends TO show, that the accused has
committed another crime, even though
1t be a crime OF the same sort, Is r.
relevant and inadmisSipIe. The sun
stance of this general rule was in
corporated in our first Civil Code, ms
follows:
The general character OF the par
ties, and especially their conduct in
other transactions are irrelevant mat
tiers unless the nature of the action
renders proper the investigation OF
such conduct"
The dissenting justices also, in up
holding this contention, cited Under
hill on criminal evido1eA as follows:
The large majority OF persons Of
average intelligence are unframed in
logical methods Of thinking, and are
therefore prone to draw illogical and
incorrect differences and conclusions
without adequate foundation. From
such persons jurors are selected. They
will very naturally believe that a per-
son % guilty of a crime with which
he Is charged II II is proved to their
sa tisfaction that he has committed an
offense of an equally heinous crime.
q
general rule to forbid the introduce
ton OF evidence to show that the de-
PENDANT has committed such other
crimes
This general rule, in our opinion. is
well taken.
Question Conley's Competence.
Because Conley testified that, in a
statement made to him by the de-
PENDANT in connection with The homt-
eide. that II the defendant said "Of
course, you know | amt built like
other men," was II competent for the
witness to testify directly and in de-
tail as to specific acts of lascivious-
ness constituting generally what is
usually classed as sexual offenses"
on the part OF the defendant with
other women and with their consent.
at indefinite times, within n period OF
some two years on former occasions.
We think not. IT Is well settled
that a witness should not be permit
ted to give his understanding of
words and phrases, and even where
he has heard the language he should
not be permitted TO give his under
standing as 10 the speakers meaning
Vol 4. Enc. E,v., pages 712.
ut Is not permissible for a witness
who testifies to n conversation be-
tween himself and another to state to
WnOIn SuCn .OtneT peTSOT ItltITeu,
when, in such conversation, he used
the pronoun them the opinion of the
witness on this question not being
competent evidence. McCray VS.,
state. 1874. pages Ais.
Quoting from another opinion:
State VS.. Wright. 4lst La. wherein
Ii was held:
Can't Explain Words Meanings
1t is not competent for witness to
explain the meaning of words used
by another person whose converse
ton he has recited to the jury.
The same rule has been applied in
the matter of dying declarations to
the effect that III n witness under
takes to give the exact words of the
declaration. IT is for the jury to Judge
of their import, and a witness can
not be asked as to what the declar-
ance meant"
Suppose a defendant on trial for
murder in a conversation with n witt
ness relating to such offense had stat
ed: you know ] am a bad man"
Would it be competent for a person
to whom such declaration was
made to testify directly and in detail
TO every violent and unlawful act in
the past life of the defendant, or
within several prior years. about
which he knew the witness had ltnowl-
edge. and which. in the opinion of the
witness. showed the defendant to be
q bad man where there was no logi-
cal connection between such acts and