Evidence amounting to opinions when permissible is generally confined to the testimony of expert witnesses, such as the opinions of medical experts, and others where peculiar skill is required.51

Whenever the subject matter of inquiry is of such a character that it may be presumed to lie within the common experience and education of all men, moving in the ordinary walks of life, then opinions of experts are not competent.52

48 State vs. Fairo, 1 Marv. (Del.), 492; Carle vs. People, 200 Ill., 494, 504; Cannon vs. People, 141 Ill., 281.

49 Parkinson vs. People, 135 Ill., 405; Brom vs. People, 216 Ill., 148, 151; Bishop vs. People, 194 Ill, 365. 369.

50 Schultz vs. People, 210 Ill., 196, 202; Glover vs. People, 204 Ill., 170,175; Lyons vs. People, 137 Ill., 612.

51 Hellyer vs. People, 186 Ill., 550; Rogers, Expert Test., Sec. 8; Green vs. State, 154 Ind., 655.

52 Hellyer vs. People, 186 Ill., 550.

Opinions of ordinary or non-experts, however, are sometimes under some circumstances permissible, in such matters, for instance, involving magnitude or quantities, portions of time, space, speed, motion and the like.53

A common or non-expert witness is competent to testify and give his opinions as to the mental state or condition of a person, whether sane or insane; but he must first state the facts which he knows of his own knowledge, upon which he bases his opinion; he cannot give an opinion from facts related to him by some one else.54