Chase, John K.

English

The Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University)

Volume 37 Issue 3 Article 13 April 1931 Evidence--Jury Trial Rules of Evidence as Applicable to Administrative Tribunals John K. Chase West Virginia University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr  Part of the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation John K. Chase, Evidence--Jury Trial Rules of Evidence as Applicable to Administrative Tribunals, 37 W. Va. L. Rev. (1931). Available at: https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol37/iss3/13 This Recent Case Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the WVU College of Law at The Research Repository @ WVU. It has been accepted for inclusion in West Virginia Law Review by an authorized editor of The Research Repository @ WVU. For more information, please contact ian.harmon@mail.wvu.edu. RECENT CASE COMMENTScite any authority for the proposition evidently accepted."The difficulty of reasonable enforcement of the rule thusnecessarily implied becomes manifest when one considers that theletter might have been temporarily mislaid in transit, and per-haps not have been delivered for eight months. Quaere: would theofferee have eight days from the receipt of the offer after the ex-piration of eight months in which to accept, despite the date uponthe letter and its obvious limitation!.' And, if not, just wherewould the line be drawn?-SDNEY J. KWASS.EVIDENE--JURY TRIAL Rurzs OP EVIDENCE AS APPLICABLE TOADmINISTRATIVE TRmuNAL.-In the case of Machala v. State Com-pensation Commissioner, the question involved was what causedthe employee's death. The evidence relied upon consisted chieflyof statements of the deceased, clearly hearsay testimony. In ad-dition to this, there was competent legal evidence regarding somevital surrounding circumstances. The court, in allowing the claim,held that under our statute, an award may not be based entirelyupon hearsay, which would be inadmissible by jury-trial rules,but that such evidence may be considered in connection with com-petent and sufficient corroborating evidence.'This decision appears to be an adoption of the New York"residuum rule," that is, the rule that the administrative tribunalmitted that the brief of appellant led the Court into the erroneous assump-tion noted, as that brief, in citing authority for its contention that the limita-tion period ran from the date the letter was received, cited cases dealing withacceptance, and with the proposition that an offer is not made until it reachesthe offeree, two entirely different propositions. See: 13 C. J. 300; 6 R. C.L. 600; Lucas v. Western Union Co., 131 Iowa 669, 109 N. W. 191, 6 L. R.A. (N. S.) 1018 (1906); and Campbell v. Beard, 57 W. Va. 501, 50 S. E.747 (1905) ; which are cited by appellant's counsel, and are not in point.The court also seems to place great reliance on Adams v. Lindsell, 1 B. &Ald. 681 (1818), an English case dealing with the mode of acceptance of anoffer, rather than with a time limitation contained in an offer, the latterbeing the true issue in the case under discussion.8 To hold that the offeree would have eight days from that time would beagainst the present rule. See: 1 WMLISTON, CONTRACTS (1920) 112, § 63;and § 51 of the American Law Institutes' Restatement of the Law of Con-tracts; which are to the effect that if the offer is delayed, even if throughthe fault of the offeror, and the offeree knows or has reason to know of thedelay, the period of acceptance is not thereby extended. See also WILisToN,op. cit. §§ 50 and 53.1155 S. E. 169 (W. Va. 1930) ; see also 108 W. Va. 391.2W. VA. REV. CODe (1931), c. 23, art. 1, § 15.1Chase: Evidence--Jury Trial Rules of Evidence as Applicable to AdministrPublished by The Research Repository @ WVU, 1931WEST VIRGINTA LAW QUARTERLYin its inquiries, need not be limited by jury-trial rules. However,there must somewhere be found, in the mass of evidence accepted,sufficient evidence legally acceptable by jury-trial rules to sustainthe finding.' This rule is followed by several courts and it promisesto become even more widely accepted.Professor Wigmore, generally recognized as the authority inthe field of evidence, thinks that this is an unsatisfactory rule. Itstill virtually requires the tribunal to test its proceedings by thejury-trial rules, throwing itself open to the order of technicalitiesof trial tactics. "The requirement of a 'residuum of legalevidence' rests on the assumption that the legal evidence is alwayscredible and sufficient, while the illegal evidence is never crediblenor sufficient.'Our statute provides that the commission shall not be boundby the usual common law or statutory rules of evidence. It seemsthat this statute could be properly interpreted so as to allow thecommission greater latitude in regard to the use of evidence inproceedings before it, and we would doubtless be justified in trust-ing to its expert judgment and good faith.' To permit such liber-ality seems to be consonant with the purpose and spirit of legisla-tion in this field.--JoN K. CHASE.INSURANE-EFFECT OF CLAUSE IN AUTO LiABnITY POLICYEXCEPTING RISKS Op OPERATION BY INFANTS.-The plaintiff in thecase of Raptis v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company'had what is commonly known as an automobile liability insurancepolicy with the defendant, which policy contained a provision ex-empting the defendant from liability in case the car was operated bya person under the age of sixteen years. The defendant hired oneFarris to operate the truck and one McClain as helper. Farrishaving left the truck with McClain in it for some moments to makea delivery, a traffic jam occurred and McClain in attempting to3Carroll v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 218 N. Y. 435, 113 N. E. 507 (1916).See collection of cases in (1923) 36 HARV. L. Rzv. 263.r1 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE (2d ed. 1923) § 40.a Poccardi v. Public Service Commission, 75 W. Va. 542, 546, 84 S. E. 242(1915); Caldwell v. Compensation Commissioner, 106 W. Va. 14, 16, 144 S.E. 568 (1928).-156 S. E. 53 (1930).2West Virginia Law Review, Vol. 37, Iss. 3 [1931], Art. 13https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/wvlr/vol37/iss3/13

Evidence--Jury Trial Rules of Evidence as Applicable to Administrative Tribunals

https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5320&amp;context=wvlr

Evidence--Jury Trial Rules of Evidence as Applicable to Administrative Tribunals

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

The Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University)