The following reference to some of the matters in which the opinions of expert wit nesses have been held admissible will illus trate this principle. The unwritten or com mon law of foreign countries may be proved by the opinion of witnesses possessing pro fessional- knowledge; Strother. v. Lucas, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 763, 8 L. Ed. 573; Packard v. Hill, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 411 ; Raynham v. Canton, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 293; Frith v. Sprague, 14 Mass. 455 ; Dennison v. Hyde, Et Conn. 508; Dougherty v. Snyder, 15 S. & R. (Pa.) 87, 16 Am. Dec. 520; the degree of hazard of property insured against fire: Hob by v. Dana, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) III ; whether a picture is a good likeness or not; Barnes v. Ingalls, 39 Ala. 193; handwriting; Hop kins v. Megquire, 35 Me. 78; Bowman v. Sanborn, 25 N. H. 87; mechanical opera tions, the proper way of conducting a par ticular manufacture, and the effect of a cer tain method ; Price v. Powell, 3 N. Y. 322; negligence of a navigator, and its effect in producing a collision; Cook v. Parham, 24 Ala. 21; sanity; Stuckey v. Bellah, 41 Ala. 700; People v. Lake, 12 N. Y. 358; impoten cy; :s Phil]. Eccl. 14; value of chattels; Dixon v. Barclay, 22 Ala. 370; Carpenter v. Wait, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 257; Nickley v. Thomas, 22 Barb. (N. Y.) 652; value of land ; Dwight v. County Com'rs, 11 Cush. (Mass.) 201; Clark v. Baird, 9 N. Y. 183; value of services; Beekman v. Platner, 15 Barb. (N. Y.) 550; speed of a railway train; Salter v. R. Co., 59 N. Y. 631; benefit to real property by laying out a street adjacent thereto; Shaw v. Charlestown, 2 Gray (Mass.) 107; survey marks identified as be ing those made by United States surveyors; Brantly v. Swift, 24 Ala. 390; as to the loca tion of surveys; Jackson v. Lambert, 121 Pa. 182, 15 Atl. 502 ; Hockmoth v. Des Grand Champs, 71 Mich. 520, 39 N. W. 737; sea worthiness ; 10 Bingh. 57; whether a person appeared sick or well; Higbie v. Ins. Co., 53 N. Y. 603 ; of the effect of a personal in jury; Evansville & T. H. R. Co. v. Crist, 116 Ind. 446, 19 N. E. 310, 2 L. R. A. 450, 9 Am. St. Rep. 865; Reed v. R. Co., 56 Fed. 184; whether, fright would produce heart trouble; Illinois C. R. Co. v. Latimer, 128 III. 163, 21 N. E. 7; whether a child would have been born alive if he had received medical assist ance in time; Western U. Tel. Co. v. Cooper, 71 Tex. 507, 9 S. W. 598, I L. R. A. 728, IO Am. St. Rep. 772; as to the distance at which it is safe to stop before going upon a crossing; New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. R. Co., 116 Ind. 60, 18 N. E. 182. So an en gineer may be called to say what, in his opinion, is the cause of a harbor having been blocked up ; 3 Dougl. 158. Opinion evi dence as to the age of a person, from his appearance, is not admissible; Morse v. State, 6 Conn. 9; but see Walker v. State, 25 Tex. App. 448, 8 S. W. 644; Elsner v. K. & L. of Honor, 98 Mo. 640, 11 S. W. 991; nor is it in cases involving adultery, on the question of guilt or guilty intent; see Cox's Adm'r v. Whitfield, 18 Ala: 738 ; nor can an opinion be given as to the meaning of an instrument where the words or phrases are not technical; Hill v. Mfg. Co., 79 Ga. 105, 3 8. E. 445; Brendon v. Worley, 8 Misc. 253, 28 N. Y. Supp. 557; nor in a matter requir ing no peculiar knowledge or experience ; Ft. Pitt Gas Co. v. Contract Co., 123 Fed. 63, 59 C. C. A. 281; nor as to the technical mean big of a word used in a written instrument; Butte & B. C. M. Co. v. Ore Purchasing Co., 121 Fed. 524, 58 C. C. A. 634.
It is to be observed, however, that the principle of admitting such opinions is taken with the qualifications necessary to make, as far as possible, the judgment of the jury, and not that of the witness, the final means of determining the issue. Thus opinions of experts are not admissible upon the question of damages ; Lincoln v. R. Co., 23 Wend. (N.
Y.) 425 ; Chandler v. Bush, 84 Ala. 102, 4 South. 207; nor whether damages were oc casioned by negligence; East Tennessee, V. & G. R. R. v. Wright, 76 Ga. 532; Hughes v. Doyle, 91 Tex. 422, 44 S. W. 64 ; National Biscuit Co. v. Nolan, 138 Fed. 6, 70 C. C. A. 436 ; and experts are always confined to opinions within the scope of their profes sions, and are not allowed to give opinions on things of which the jury can. as well judge; Gibson v. Williams, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 320; Kinne v. Kinne, 9 Conn. 102, 21 Am. Dec. 732 Rochester v. Chester, 3 N. H. 349; Law v. Scott, 5 Harr. & J. (Md.) 438; Lynch v. U. S., 138 Fed. 536, 71 C. C. A. 59; a phys ician will not be permitted to give his opin ion based entirely on statements out of court made to him by persons other than the pa tient ; _Heald v. Thing, 45 Me. 392; Wether bee's Ex'rs v. Wetherbee's Heirs, 38 Vt. 454.
A distinction is also to be observed be tween a feeble impression and a mere opin ion or belief ; Crowell v. Bank, 3 Ohio St. 406; Brown v. Cady, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 477. The testimony of experts is not admissible upon matters of judgment within the knowl edge and experience of ordinary jurymen ; De Berry v. R. Co., 100 N. C. 310, 6 S. E. 723. The opinions of a witness are not ad missible as to one's agency ; Larson v. Inv. Co., 51 Minn. 141, 53.N. W. 179.
Upon an issue, in a suit upon a life insur ance policy, as to the insanity of the insured at the time be took his own life, the opinion of a non-professional witness as to his men tal condition, in connection with a statement of the facts and circumstances, within his personal knowledge, upon which that opinion is based, is competent evidence; Connecticut M. L. Ins. Co. v. Lathrop, 111 U. S. 613, 4 Sup. Ct. 533, 28 L. Ed. 536 ; and also to dis prove a representation in an insurance policy that applicant was temperate, witnesses may state whether he was temperate or intemper ate, after giving the source of their informa tion ; Taylor v. Annuity Co., 145 N. C. 383, 59 S. E. 139, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 583, 13 Ann. Cas. 248.
Opinion evidence is not admissible as to whether the mode of coupling cars was care less and not the best way of performing the act; Seese v. R. Co., 39 Fed. 487. There are cases where the opinion of witnesses may be asked as to distance and other circum stances, but such questions are not permis sible when it is practicable to draw out with exactness the data upon which a judgment must be founded; Slack v. Black, 109 Mass. 499. It must be left somewhat to the trial court ; Manufacturers' Acc. Indemnity Co. v. Dorgan, 58 Fed. 948, 7 C. C. A. 581, 22 L. R. A. 620. Whether a particular position on a wharf is a safe place for a wharfinger to stand while a steamboat is approaching is not matter for expert testimony ; Inland & S. Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 139 U. S. 551, 1] Sup. Ct. 653, 35 L. Ed. 270.
Opinion evidence is admissible upon a question concerning the effect of grading a street on the value of the abutting property ; Swift & Co. v. Newport News, 105 Va. 108, 52 S. E. 821, 3 L. R. A. (N. 5.) 404; so as to the opening of a public highway ; Lowe v. Ryan, 94 Ind. 450.
Mere declarations of opinion, which would be inadmissible if the declarant were a wit ness, are inadmissible as dying declarations; State v. Burnett, 47 W. Va. 731, 35 S. E. 983 ; State v. O'Shea, 60 Kan. 772, 57 Pac. 970.
See EXPERTS.
In Practice. The statement of reasons de livered by a judge or court for giving the judgment which is pronounCed upon a case. The judgment itself is sometimes called an opinion ; and sometimes the opinion is spoken of as the judgment of the court.