Court Opinion

ID: 6424351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-06-25 12:02:38.671078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:51:55.085752
License: Public Domain

Knowlton, J.
The defendant excepted to the admission in evidence of a conversation between him and the deceased person carried on through an interpreter, he speaking English and she French, and the witness understanding only French.
When two persons who speak different languages and who cannot understand each other converse through an interpreter, they adopt a mode of communication in which they assume that the interpreter is trustworthy, and which makes his language presumptively their own. Each acts upon the theory that the interpretation is correct. Each impliedly agrees that his language *395may be received through the interpreter. If nothing appears to show that their respective relations to the interpreter differ, they may be said to constitute him their joint agent to do for both that in which they have a joint interest. They wish to communicate with each other, they choose a mode of communication, they enter into conversation, and the words of the interpreter, which are their necessary medium of communication, are adopted by both, and made a part of their conversation as much as those which fall from their own lips. They cannot complain if the language of the interpreter is taken as their own by any one who is interested in the conversation. Interpretation under such circumstances is prima facie to be deemed correct. How far either would be bound by it if the interpreter should prove false, may depend on a variety of circumstances which it is unnecessary in this case to consider.
In a case like the present, we are of opinion that either party, or a third person who hears the conversation, may testify to it as he undei’stands it, although for his understanding of what was said by one of the parties, he is dependent on the interpretation which was a part of the conversation. The fact that a conversation was had" through an interpreter affects the weight, but not the competency, of the evidence. Camerlin v. Palmer Co. 10 Allen, 539. 1 Greenl. Ev. § 183.

Exceptions overruled.