“Did John Milicant, at any time, tell you anything concerning his true identity?”
“Yes, he did.”
“What was it?”
Judge Knox said, “Just a minute before you answer that question,” and looked down at Mason as though expecting an objection. When he heard none, he said, “I’m not certain, gentlemen, but what this question plainly calls for hearsay evidence.”
Kittering pulled his brief case toward him, and took out several pages of closely-written, legal foolscap.
“If Your Honor will permit me,” he said, “I would like to be heard on this. While it is true that the question may, in one sense of the word, call for hearsay evidence, in another sense of the word, it is the sort of hearsay evidence which, by law and custom, has been universally accepted in all courts of justice.
“For instance, the question is frequently asked a witness, ‘How old are you?’ And the witness replies, giving his age. Obviously, the question calls for hearsay evidence, and the answer is founded on hearsay. Yet, it is universally accepted as being necessary in the nature of things that such an exception to hearsay evidence should be permitted.
“Now we come to another and similar situation. A man establishes his identity by going under a certain name. If a man goes under a certain name, that is all that is necessary to establish at least a claim to identity. In the present case, we propose to show that the decedent went for many years under the name of Bill Hogarty, that it was under this name, he met and prospected with Leeds in the Yukon...”
“I understand,” Judge Knox said, “but this question asks the witness to repeat something which the decedent told him. It is your contention that this is part of the res gestae?”
“Yes, Your Honor.”