Wicker v. State

1. The plaintiff in error was aceirsed of larceny from the house, and the nature of the testimony against him required, upon his part, a satisfactory explanation of his possession of the property alleged to have been stolen. _The court correctly permitted proof of the state*666ment alleged to have been made by him at the time of his arrest, touching the origin of his possession; for the alleged explanation constituted a part of the res gestae of the possession; but it was error to admit, over his timely objection, testimony as to a statement of his wife, made in his presence, which imputed to him…