## Facts

- A husband sued another man for criminal conversation, alleging adulterous relations with the husband’s wife.
- At trial, the husband offered evidence of the alleged affair, including testimony about letters purportedly written by the defendant to the wife.
- The original letters were not produced, and a witness was permitted to testify that the letters were “love letters” in “very passionate terms.”
- The defendant sought to call the plaintiff’s wife to rebut the plaintiff’s evidence; the trial court excluded her as incompetent under a spousal-incompetency statute applicable to criminal conversation.
- The jury found for the plaintiff, and judgment was entered.
- The defendant appealed, challenging (1) admission of the witness’s generalized description of the letters’ contents and (2) exclusion of the wife’s testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiff’s wife was a competent witness for the defendant in an action for criminal conversation under the governing spousal-incompetency statute.
2. Whether secondary evidence describing missing letters as “love letters” in “very passionate terms” was admissible proof of the letters’ contents.

## Decision

- The court held the plaintiff’s wife was incompetent to testify in an action for criminal conversation under the statute and affirmed her exclusion.
- The court held the secondary evidence of the letters’ contents was improperly admitted because it stated only the witness’s impression rather than the substance of the writings.
- The court ordered a new trial due to the evidentiary error regarding the letters.

## Legal Principles

- Where a statute makes spouses incompetent to testify for or against each other in actions for criminal conversation (and related adultery-based proceedings), the disqualification applies even when the spouse is offered by the opposing party.
- When secondary evidence of a writing is permitted because the original is unavailable, the witness must be able to state the substance of the writing; testimony offering only a characterization or the effect on the witness is inadmissible.
- In criminal conversation cases, letters and evidence of conduct and conversations may be admissible if properly proved; admissibility turns on compliance with evidentiary requirements, including the best-evidence rule and standards for secondary proof.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed the statutory exclusion of spousal testimony in criminal conversation actions but reversed for improper admission of vague secondary evidence about missing letters, requiring a new trial because the witness’s impressions did not sufficiently prove the letters’ contents.


Grant v. Mitchell, 156 N.C. 16, 71 S.E. 1087 (N.C. 1911)