106:
submitted as circumstantial evidence that the author believed the testator was of sound mind and the issue was whether these letters could be admitted as evidence to prove competence or whether they constituted hearsay. Wright had argued that the letters were admissible because they showed that the testator was seen and treated as a competent in the eyes of those who knew him. Tatham argued that they were inadmissible and so would have to sworn under oath before they could be admissible.
144:
105:
Tatham was the claimant and heir to the fortune of the deceased. The will, however, had devised a portion of the property to Wright, a former servant. The main issue was whether the deceased had the required testamentary capacity when he wrote his will. Three letters written to the testator were
122:
The case appears in numerous treatises and evidence text books because of the difficult hearsay issue it raised. Baron Parke held that conduct consistent with a belief in a fact is hearsay when offered to prove the existence of that fact. The approach taken by
185:
114:
The House of Lords held that the letters were inadmissible as hearsay because the letters implied the statement "Marsden was of sound mind."
127:
801(a) does not yield the same result, as it requires that there be an intention to assert, which was absent from the "statement" in
219:
214:
209:
178:
204:
124:
224:
171:
93:
155:
80:
29:
198:
143:
88:
87:
within a trial. The case was further one of the main inspirations for
Dickens'
151:
66:
84:
53:
91:. The decision was later upheld by the House of Lords in
159:
60:
48:
43:
35:
25:
20:
179:
8:
186:
172:
17:
7:
140:
138:
158:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by
14:
142:
1:
241:
137:
125:Federal Rules of Evidence
65:
220:Exchequer of Pleas cases
130:Wright v. Doe d. Tatham.
83:decision on the use of
21:Wright V. Doe d. Tatham
76:Wright v Doe d. Tatham
110:Judgment of the Court
215:House of Lords cases
210:1838 in British law
79:(1838) is a famous
167:
166:
72:
71:
232:
205:1838 in case law
188:
181:
174:
146:
139:
18:
240:
239:
235:
234:
233:
231:
230:
229:
195:
194:
193:
192:
135:
120:
112:
103:
81:Exchequer Court
30:Exchequer Court
12:
11:
5:
238:
236:
228:
227:
225:Case law stubs
222:
217:
212:
207:
197:
196:
191:
190:
183:
176:
168:
165:
164:
147:
119:
118:Subsequent use
116:
111:
108:
102:
99:
70:
69:
63:
62:
58:
57:
50:
49:Related action
46:
45:
41:
40:
37:
33:
32:
27:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
237:
226:
223:
221:
218:
216:
213:
211:
208:
206:
203:
202:
200:
189:
184:
182:
177:
175:
170:
169:
163:
161:
157:
154:article is a
153:
148:
145:
141:
136:
133:
132:
131:
126:
117:
115:
109:
107:
100:
98:
96:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
68:
64:
59:
56:
55:
51:
47:
42:
38:
34:
31:
28:
24:
19:
16:
160:expanding it
149:
134:
129:
128:
121:
113:
104:
92:
75:
74:
73:
52:
44:Case history
15:
89:Bleak House
199:Categories
94:R v Kearly
152:case law
97:(1992).
67:Case law
61:Keywords
85:hearsay
54:hearsay
36:Decided
150:This
101:Facts
26:Court
156:stub
39:1838
201::
187:e
180:t
173:v
162:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
