RES G EST /E (Lat.). Transaction; thing done ; the subject-matter.
Those circumstances which are the auto matic and undesigned incidents of a partic ular litigated act, and which are admissible in evidence when illustrative of such act. Whart. Ev. ; People v. Wong Ark, 96 Cal. 125, 30 Pac. 1115.
Events speaking for themselves through the instructive words and acts of partici pants, not the words and acts of participants when narrating the events ; Graves v. Peo ple, 18 Colo. 170, 32 Pac. 63.
"All declarations or exclamations uttered by the parties to a transaction, and which are contemporaneous with and accompany it, and are calculated to thrown light upon the motives and intentions of the parties to it, are clearly admissible as parts of the res gesto." International & G. N. R. Co. v. An derson, 82 Tex. 516, 17 S. W. 1039, 27 Am. St. Rep. 902.
Professor Thayer prefers the singular form res gestas, of which he says in a note to 14 Am.
L. Rev. 817: "In using this form . . . the writer is aware that he runs the risk of seeming over-nice about a trifle. It is believ ed, however, that the endeavor to give preci sion to the phrase will be more materially for warded by fixing the mind upon the singular form of expression instead of the plural; that was the regular usage, at least in ques tions of evidence, and it is not at all obsolete today." It is used in Waldele v. R. Co., 95 N. Y. 274, 47 Am. Dec. 41.
When it is necessary in the course of a cause to inquire into the nature of a partic ular act, or the intention of the person who did the act, proof of what the person said at the time of doing it is admissible evidence as a part of the res gestce, for the purpose of showing its true character. On an indict
ment for a rape, for example, what the girl said so recently after the fact as to exclude the-possibility of practising on her, has been held to be adMissible evidence as a part of the transaction; 2 Stark. 241; 1 Phill. Ev. 4th Am. ed. 185.
Declarations or acts, accompanying the fact in controversy and tending to illustrate or explain it, as conversations contempora neous with the facts; State v. Mason, 112 Mo. 374, 20 S. W. 629, 34 Am. St. Rep. 390; Brockett v. Steam-Boat Co., 18 Fed. 156; Weir v. Plymouth Borough, 148 Pa. 566, 24 Atl. 94; or the complaints of the injured par ty, both as to bodily suffering and the cir cumstances of the occurrence; Elkins v. Mc Kean, 79 Pa. 493; Hall v. Masonic Accident' Ass'n, 86 Wis. 518, 57 N. W. 366; Louis ville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Buck, 116 Ind. 566, 19 N. E. 453, 2 L. R. A. 520, 9 Am. St. Rep. 883; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Urlin, 158 U. S. 271, 15 Sup. Ct. 840, 39 L. Ed. 977; Chicago West Div. R. Co. v. Becker, 128 Ill. 545, 21 N. E. 524, 15 Am. St. Rep. 144; or the dec larations and conduct of third persons at the time; Kleiber v. R. Co., 107 Mo. 240, 17 S. W. 946, 14 L. R. A. 613; Railway Co. v. Her rick, 49 Ohio St. 25, 29 N. E. 1052; Mo. Pac.
R. Co. & I. & G. N. R. Co. v. Collier, 62 Tex. 318; Petrie v. Cartwright, 114 Ky. 103, 70