At one time in England it was held on the authority of Luttarell v. Reynell, 1 Mod. 282, that hearsay evidence of a witness' previous declarations might be admitted to confirm his testimony by showing that he "was constant to himself"; but this theory of confirming a sworn statement by declara tions not under oath was abandoned in Eng land; Buller, j., in 3 Doug. 242 ; and (except in a few cases which followed the earlier English case) repudiated in the United States ; Stark. Ev. Sharsw. ed. 253, n. 2; 12 Am. L. Reg. 1, where the cases are collected.
Matters relating to public interest, as, for example, a claim to a ferry or highway, may be proved by hearsay testimony ; 6 M. & W. 234 ; 1 M, & S. 679 ; Noyes v. Ward, 19 Conn. 250; but the matter in controversy must be of public interest ; 2 B. & Ad. 245 ; Pennsyl vania Coal Co. v. Canal Co., 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 593; the declarations must be those of persons supposed to be dead; 11 Price 162 ; 1 C. & K. 58 ; Davis v. Fuller, 12 Vt. 178, 36 Am. Dec. 334; and must have been made before controversy arose; 13 Ves. 514. See Fry v. Currie, 103 N. C. 203, 9 S. E. 393. The rule extends to deeds, leases, and other private documents; 10 B. & C. 17; maps ; 2 Moore & P. 525; Noyes v. Ward, 19 Conn. 250; and verdicts; 10 Ad. & E. 151; 7 C. & P. 181. Testimony based on daily market reports from a com mercial center comes from a public authentic source and is not hearsay ; International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Pasture Co., 5 Tex. Civ. App. 186.
Ancient documents purporting to be a part of the res gestce are also admissible, althougb the parties to the suit are not bound; 5 Price 312; Tolman v. Emerson, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 160. See 2 C. & P. 440 ; Jackson v. Wel den, 3 Johns. Cas. (N. Y.) 283; Carroll v. Norwood, 1 H. & J. (Md.) 174; Willson v. Betts, 4 Denio (N. Y.) 201. So also
declarations which form part of the res gestce, which explain and give character to what was done at the time are not liable to the objection that they are hearsay ; Stark. Ev. Sharwood's ed. 53, note 1, 89, note 1, where the cases illustrating this branch of the subject are collected and classified by the American editor.
When two persons not speaking a common language voluntarily agree on a third to terpret between them, the latter is to be re garded as the agent of each to translate and communicate what he says to the other, and such communication to the interpreter is not hearsay, and the party to it is made may testify to it ; Miller v. Lathrop, 50 Minn. 91, 52 N. W. 274 ; Johnson v. R. Co., 51 Ia. 25, 50 N. W. 543 ; the weight only of such being affected thereby and not its compe tency ; Com. v. Vose, 157 Mass. 393, 32 N. E. 355, 17 L. R. A. 813.
Declarations, incompetent as hearsay, are not rendered admissible because they may tend to corroborate other testimony ; Holt v. Johnson, 129 N. C. 138, 39 S. E. 796.
A statement by a physician to plaintiff that it would be necessary to amputate his band was hearsay and inadmissible; Louis ville & N. R. Co. v. Smith, 84 S. W. 755, 27 1,..y. L. Rep. 257. In an action against a rail way company for wrongful death of a son, a statement made by him to his mother that he would support his parents as long as he lived was held not hearsay ; Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Van Belle, 26 Tex. Civ. App. 511, 64 S. W. 397. In condemnation proceed ings, evidence offered by the owner as to of fers made to him to purchase the property was rightly excluded ; Sharp v. U. S., 191 U. S. 341;24 Sup. Ct. 114, 48 L. Ed. 211.
See DECLARATION; DYING DECLARATIONS; EVIDENCE ; PEDIGREE; RES GESTIE.