A child of six is not too young to be received as a witness if the trial judge is first satisfied that it has sufficient capacity to understand and appreciate the nature and obligation of an oath. A transcript of evidence and of the charge, which, although not printed, are made part of the record by the trial court, may be referred to for any proper purpose in argument in this court. An appellant is not entitled to urge, as error, a claim which was not made a reason of appeal either originally or by amendment; and especially if such claim contradicts the only reason of appeal which is stated.
BALDWIN, J.
But one reason of appeal is assigned, namely, that the court erred in ruling on the preliminary examination of the child that she understood the nature of an oath and that she was competent to testify as a witness. The finding shows that this reason is without foundation. Holcomb v. Holcomb, 28 Conn. 177; Wheeler v. United States, 159 U.S. 523, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 93.
On the argument before us another point was pressed, namely, that it appears from the transcript of the stenographer's notes that the court did not pass upon the competency of the child to be a witness before admitting her to testify, but only ruled that it would allow the oath to be administered to her and leave the matter to be disposed of in its charge to the jury.
Although the transcript and the charge have not been printed for use on this appeal, they became, by the action of the trial court, part of the record of the cause in this court, and could be referred to as such for any proper purpose. See Rules of Court, p. 99, §§ 20-22. Without considering whether there is anything in them inconsistent with the finding, it is enough to say that they cannot be of any benefit to the appellant, since the claim of error in question was not made a reason of appeal; contradicts the only reason of appeal which is stated; and no leave has been sought to introduce it by an amendment of the appeal. General Statutes, §§ 798, 802; Rules of Court, p. 103, § 39.