In a suit for alienation of husband's affections, plaintiff testified as to certain statements made by her husband in the absence of the defendant. These statement purported to be repetitions of statements made by the defendant to plaintiff's husband. Defendant objected to the admission of this testimony on the ground that it was hearsay. The court held that the testimony was admissible, not to prove the truth of the facts, words, or conduct embodied in the statements and chargeable to the defendant, but to show the husband's state of mind toward the plaintiff. Richards v. Lorleberg, (App. D. C. 1935) 79 F. (2d) 413.