HEARSAY EVIDENCE. That kind of ev idence which does not derive its value solely from the credit to be given to the witness himself, but rests also, in part on the veraci ty and competency of some other person. 1 Phill. Ev. 185.
Hearsay evidence is incompetent to estab lish any specific fact, which fact is in its nature susceptible of being proved by wit nesses who speak from their own knowledge; this species of testimony supposes some bet ter which might be adduced in a particular case and its intrinsic weakness, its incom petency to satisfy the mind of the existence of the fact, and the frauds which might be practiced under its cover combine to sup port the rule that it is inadmissible; Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 581, 4 Sup. Ct. 202, 28 L. Ed. 262; Queen v. Hepburn, 7 Cra. (U. S.) 295, 3 L. Ed. 348.
The term applies to written as well as oral matter; but the writing or words are not necessarily hearsay, because those of a per son not under oath. Thus, information on which one has acted; 2 B. & Ad. 845; Cole man v. Southwick, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 45, 6 Am. Dec. 253; the conversation, of a person sus pected of insanity ; 2 Ad. & E. 3; see Myers v. Knobe, 51 Kan. 720, 33 Pac. 602; Ellis v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. R. 86, 24 S. W. 894; replies to inquiries; 8 Bing. 320 ; Phelps v. Foot, 1 Conn. 387; Johns v. Johns, 29 Ga. 718 ; gener al reputation; Stallings v. State, 33 Ala. 425 ; Sanscrainte v. Torongo, 87 Mich. 69, 49 N. W. 497; expressions of feeling; 8 Bing. 376; Gilchrist v. Bale, 8 Watts (Pa.) 355, 34 Am. Dec. 469 ; Laughlin v. State, 18 Ohio 99, 51 Am. Dec. 444; Bacon v. Inhabitants of Charl ton, 7 Cush. •(Mass.) 581; Looper v. Bell, 11 Head (Tenn.) 373; general repute in the family, in questions of pedigree; 2 C. & K. 701; Jackson v. Browner, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 37 ; Chapman v. Chapman, 2 Conn. 347, 7 Am. Dec. 277; Anderson v. Parker, 6 Cal. 197; Waldron v. Tuttle, 4 N. H. 371; Jewell v. Jewel, 1 How. (U. S.) 231, 11 L. Ed. 108; Butrick v. Tilton, 155 Mass. 461, 29 N. E. 1088; Town of Londonderry v. Town of An dover, 28 Vt. 416; (see 1 De G. & Sm. 51, for
a discussion as to pedigree by Knight-Bruce, V. C.); see DECLARATION ; EVIDENCE ; entries made by third persons in the discharge of official duties ; 4 Q. B. 132; and see Nicholls v. Webb, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 326, 5 L. Ed. 628; Welsh v. Barrett, 15 Mass. 380; Wilbur •v. Selden, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 162; Farmers' Bank of Lancaster v. Whitehill, 16 S. & R. (Pa.) 89; Herring v. Levy, 4 Mart. N. S. (La.) 383; New Haven County Bank v. Mitchell, 15 Conn. 206; entries in the party's shop book ; Ingraham v. Bockius, 9 S. & R. (Pa.) 285, 11 Am. Dec. 730; Prince v. Smith, 4 Mass. 455; Pelzer v. Cranston, 2 McCord (S. C.) 328; Wilson v. Wilson, 6 N. J. L. 95; Earner v. Turner, 1 Ia. 53; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 119; or other books kept in the regular course of business; 10 Ad. & E. 598 ; Nicholls v. Webb, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 326, 5 L. Ed. 628; Welsh v. Barrett, 15 Mass. 380; Halliday v. Martinet, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 168, 11 Am. Dec. 262 ; indorsements of partial payments ; Whitney v. Bigelow, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 110; Roseboom v. Billington, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 182; Gibson v. Peebles, 2 McCord (S. C.) 418; declarations as to boundaries; Clement v. Packer, 125 U. S. 321, 8 Sup. Ct. 907, 31 L. Ed. 721; have been held admissible as original evidence under the circumstances, and for particular purposes. As to a person's testifying to his own age, see AGE.
As a general rule, hearsay reports of a transaction, whether oral or written, are not admissible as evidence; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 124; Gatling v. Newell, 9 Ind. 572 ; Ibbitson v. Brown, 5 Ia. 532 ; State v. Maitremme, 14 La. Ann. 830 ; Persons' Adm'rs v. Burdick, 6 Wis. 63; Gross v. Moore, 68 Hun 412, 22 N. Y. Supp. 1019; Brown v. Prude, 97 Ala. 639, 11 South. 838 ; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Parker, 55 Fed. 595, 5 C. C. A. 220 ; Forman v. Com., 86 Ky. 605, 6 S. W. 579. The rule applies to evidence given under oath in a cause between other litigating parties; 3 Term 77; Queen v. Hepburn, 7 Cra. (U. S.) 290, 3 L. Ed. 348.