Case Name: Sorenson vs. Dundas
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1877-08
Citations: 42 Wis. 642
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sorenson vs. Dundas.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 642–643

Head Matter:
Sorenson vs. Dundas.
Evidence. When declarations a part of the res gestse.
Declarations are verbal parts of the res gestee only when they are contemporaneous; and subsequent statements of what occurred at a meeting of the parties, material to the issue, made by one of them, cannot be put in evidence by him in chief.
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Dane County.
Action for false imprisonment. Defendant appealed from a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor.
The error for which the judgment is reversed, will sufficiently appear from the opinion.
For the appellant, a brief was filed by Jones ds Parkinson and Won. F. Vilas, and the cause was argued orally by Mr. Vilas and Mr. Jones.
To the point that the plaintiff’s declarations, made after the acts constituting the alleged false imprisonment, and after the parties had separated, constituted no part of the res gestee, and were improperly admitted in evidence, they cited 1 Wharton on Ev., § 259; 1 Taylor on Ev., §26; Starkie on Ev., 89; 1 Greenl. Ev., § 110; Boehwell v. Taylor, 41 Conn., 55; Osboo-n v. Pobbiois, 37 Barb., 482; Moore v. Meaohaon, 10 N. Y., 207; Downs v. Railroad, Go., 47 id., 83; People v. Davis, 56 id., 96; Hall v. State, 48 Ga., 607; Weldon v. State, 32 Ind., 81; Lund v. Tyoigsborough, 9 Cush., 37; Haynes v. Rutter, 24 Pick., 242; Scaggs v. State, 8 Sm. & M., 722; Brown v. Lush, 4 Yerg., 210.
For the respondent, a brief was filed by Welch <& Botkin, and the cause was argued orally by Mr. Botkin.
They contended that declarations or acts succeeding closely upon the main transaction, growing directly out of it, and serving to illustrate its character, are admissible in evidence as part of the res gestee. Allen v. Duncan, 11 Pick., 309-10; Mitchuon v. The State, 11 Ga., 615; Handy v. Johoison, 5 hid., 450; 1 Phillipps on Ev., 185-201, and notes.

Opinion:
EyaN, O. J.
A meeting, material to the issue, took place between the parties. The court below permitted the respondent to testify in chief, in his own behalf, to an account of the meeting which he gave to strangers, after it had ended and the parties had finally separated. This was not part of the transaction, bnt a subsequent narrative of it. Declarations are verbal parts of the res gestee, only when they are contemporaneous. The respondent's narrative, after the occurrence, belonged no more to the res gestee, than his evidence on the trial. It is too clearly inadmissible for discussion. 1 Greenl. Ev., § 110.
By the Oonj/rt. — The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded to the court below for a new trial.