William J. Fay vs. Nicholas Harlan.
Suffolk.
Nov. 17, 1879.
Jan. 19, 1880.
Morton & Soule, JJ., absent.
The statements of a patient to his physician as to his symptoms and complaints, for the purpose of medical treatment and advice, and the indications of suffering on the part of the patient observed by the physician in his attendance upon him, are admissible in his favor in an action for a personal injury.
The record of a criminal court, showing that a person was indicted for an offence to which he pleaded guilty, and that he was discharged on probation, is not admissible in evidence to impeach the credibility of such person as a witness, under the St. of 1870, c. 393, g 3.
Tort for assault and battery. At the trial in the Superior Court, before Allen, J., the plaintiff offered evidence tending to prove that he was struck upon the head by the defendant with the butt of a whip; and called Luther B. Morse, a physician, who testified that he attended the plaintiff immediately after the injury. The witness was then asked by the plaintiff, against the defendant’s objection, whether there were any complaints of suffering made by the plaintiff at the time. The judge allowed the witness to testify to such complaints made as statements of symptoms to him as attending physician. The witness also testified that he attended upon the plaintiff for several weeks after the injury, making several visits during that time. He was then asked by the plaintiff, against the defendant’s objection, whether there were indications or symptoms of suffering during those visits. The judge allowed the question to be put, and the witness testified to such indications.
The plaintiff testified in his own behalf; and, to affect his credibility as a witness, the defendant offered in evidence a record, which showed that the plaintiff had been indicted for an assault, to which he pleaded guilty, and that, on acknowledgment of satisfaction and payment of costs, he was discharged on probation. The plaintiff objected to its admission; and the judge excluded it. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
G. W. Searle & J. L. Eldridge, for the defendant.
T. Riley, for the plaintiff.
Ames, J.
It is well settled that the declarations of a patient, as to his symptoms and complaints, to his physician, for the *245purpose of medical treatment and advice, are competent and admissible in evidence. They are not to be considered as mere hearsay, if made with a view to be acted on in a matter of grave personal concernment, in relation to which the party has a strong and direct interest to adhere to the truth. Barber v. Merriam,, 11 Allen, 322. All other visible symptoms and indications manifesting pain and suffering stand upon the same ground. The weight and value of such evidence are for the jury to determine in each case.
Under the statute provision that the conviction of a witness of any crime may be shown to affect his credibility, (Gen. Sts. g. 131, § 13; St. 1870, e. 393, § 3,) it has been decided that the term “ conviction ” is used in a sense including the judgment of the court, and that a plea of guilty, without such final judgment, is not sufficient. Commonwealth v. Gorham, 99 Mass. 420. The record offered to impeach the credit of the witness does not show any such judgment, but only that he was discharged on probation. See also Commonwealth v. Lockwood, 109 Mass. 323, 330; Commonwealth v. Dowdicans Bail, 115 Mass. 133; Partridge v. Hood, 120 Mass. 403. Exceptions overruled.