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
- Whether the plaintiff’s wife was a competent witness for the defendant in an action for criminal conversation under the governing spousal-incompetency statute.
- 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.