Dunham v. McMichael

Citations

• 214 Pa. 485
• 63 A. 1007
• 1906 Pa. LEXIS 685

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Declarations—Telephone—Identification of person speaking over telephone.</p> <p>In an action by a wife against another woman for the alienation of the affections of plaintiff’s husband, plaintiff sought to prove declarations of the defendant made to herself over the telephone. Plaintiff called her young son to testify that the phone hung in a bathroom where he could hear everything that was said while his mother held the receiver. He testified that he heard the defendant announce her name and start an angry conversation. On cross-examination he admitted that he did not know the defendant, had never seen her, and had never heard her voice before, unless it was she who had earlier in the same day attempted to call up the plaintiff on the ’ phone. The evidence was ruled out. Defendant was then called on cross-examination, and was asked whether she had called up the plaintiff on the day designated by the boy. She admitted one conversation with the plaintiff over the ’ phone, but asserted her inability to fix the date when it occurred, hour, day or month. She also admitted that the conversation was an angry one. The boy was subsequently recalled, and permitted to testify as to the alleged statements of defendant over the ’ phone. Held, that the defendant’s voice was not sufficiently identified, and that it was error to permit the boy to testify as to what he heard.</p> <p>Testimony may be rejected which appears to be founded on data so scanty that the witness’s alleged inferences from them may be pronounced either absurd or extreme.</p> <p>Husband and wife — A lienation of husband’s affections — Damages—Evidence.</p> <p>In an action by a wife against another woman to recover damages for the alienation of her husband’s affections, where the plaintiff shows as the basis of damage the probable annual expenditure required for the support of plaintiff’s family in the style in which they had been living before the cause of action arose, the defendant may show tha