HEARSAY EVIDENCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 25800, 22 March 1945, Page 4

HEARSAY EVIDENCE

MISCONCEPTION CORRECTED LIMITED ADMISSIBILITY (Special) ■ AUCKLAND, Mar. 21. A common misconception regarding hearsay evidence and its admissibility in laW was corrected' by Mr Justice Blair during the hearing of an appeal against a conviction for a gaming offence. • His Honor said that it was commonly considered that hearsay evidence was not admissible unless the accused person was present and heard what was said. In the present case, the evidence objected to was that of a detective who answered the accused s telephone when the caller asked that some money should be placed on a certain , racehorse. The accused was in the room but did not hear what was said. Shortly after that incident his Honor continued the accused took and held both telephones in the room at the same time remarking that the detective would not get any more evidence of betting on those telephones. The evidence in that instance was admissible, because of the reaction of the accused man. His reaction was that of a guilty man. It showed that he realised that evidence of betting might be obtained if the detective were allowed to answer the telephone. Hearsay evidence was therefore admissible when the accused person’s reaction was of a kind to throw light on the case, as when an accused person replied with a denial of the charge made against him, his Honor concluded.