Case Name: Tryphena Clapp vs. William Norton
Court: Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts
Decision Date: 1870-11
Citations: 106 Mass. 33
Docket Number: 
Parties: Tryphena Clapp vs. William Norton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Massachusetts Reports
Volume: 106
Pages: 33–34

Head Matter:
Tryphena Clapp vs. William Norton.
The defendant, being called as a witness, was allowed, against the objection of the plaintiff, to testify that a plan drawn by him was substantially correct, and to use it to explain to the jury the position of different localities as to which he testified; and it afterwards went to the jury room without objection at the time. Held, that the plaintiff had no ground of exception.
Tort for an assault upon the plaintiff. At the trial in the superior court, before Pitman, J., the plaintiff testified that she occupied rooms in Boston, and had a right to the walks in the back yard, and to the close where the alleged assault took place. The defendant being called as a witness, a plan drawn by him was shown to him. “ The plaintiff objected to the same, but the judge allowed the defendant to testify that the plan was a substantially correct representation of the premises, and to explain to the jury the different points, locations, walks and fences, as marked on the plan, and where the alleged assault took place; the plan went to the jury room with the other papers; the plaintiff, however, made no further objections thereto, or to the plan, except as stated above, nor did the judge give any directions as to the plan going to the jury.” The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff alleged exceptions.
J. Davis, for the plaintiff.
Gr. 8. Sale, for the defendant, was stopped by the court.

Opinion:
By the Court.
The plan was not evidence, and it does not appear that it was admitted as such. As a means of enabling a witness to explain the position of different points, locations, walks and fences as to which he testifies, such a sketch may be referred to and shown to the jury. It appears to have been used merely as such. It went to the jury without objection at the time, and thus all objection on that point was waived.
Exceptions overruled.