Rathbun v. Brancatella

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey · 1919 · Evidence

93 N.J.L. 222 (1919)

Updated August 22, 2026

Evidencehearsayoriginal evidencecollateral inquirybest evidence rulespontaneous exclamationsres gestaelicense number

Facts

A bystander, Menandier, attracted by the noise of the collision, observed the color and character of the license plate on the striking automobile and loudly called the number to Miss Sullivan. Miss Sullivan immediately went into her home and wrote the number on an envelope so she could remember it, later using it as a reference in proceedings related to the accident before eventually destroying the envelope during house cleaning. Within ten or fifteen minutes she gave the number to Officer Grant, who reported it to police headquarters, and within a week Menandier gave a similar statement to the police department. A state motor vehicle agent identified the number transmitted through this chain as belonging to the defendant's car.

Issue

Whether testimony by Miss Sullivan and Officer Grant about the license number called out by Menandier and transmitted to the police was inadmissible hearsay. Also, whether the destruction of the envelope on which Miss Sullivan wrote the number barred the testimony under the best-evidence rule.

Rule

When the purpose of the evidence is to show that a declaration was in fact made and accurately transmitted through a chain of witnesses, rather than to prove the truth of the declaration itself, the evidence is original evidence and not hearsay. On a collateral or incidental inquiry of that kind, the best-evidence rule does not require production of the writing or document involved.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

During a hit-and-run in Newark, bystander Elena Cruz shouted the van's plate number to Malik Rowan, who immediately repeated it to a traffic officer standing nearby. At trial against the alleged owner, the plaintiff offers Malik's testimony and the officer's testimony to show that the same number Elena shouted was the number the officer received and relayed for investigation.

Are Malik's and the officer's testimonies admissible over a hearsay objection?

Explanation. The majority treated this kind of evidence as original evidence when offered to prove the fact of the declaration and the continuity of its transmission through witnesses. It is not admitted as substantive proof that the number was true in the abstract, but as part of a collateral chain showing that the same identifying information passed from one person to another.