what did the court mean by this in adkins v. brett, 184 cal. 252 (cal. 1920) when Plaintiff brought an alienation of affection suit against defendant after plaintiff's wife asked for a separation because of her feelings for defendant. At trial, evidence of plaintiff and his wife's conversations were admitted to show her mental state. Judgment was entered for plaintiff, and defendant appealed. The court reversed and ordered a new trial. The court held that the conversations, offered as proof of the wife's mental state, were admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. The fact that the content of the conversations would be hearsay if offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted did not render them inadmissible. However, because the conversations could be construed by the jury in this way, defendant was entitled to protection in the form of jury instructions. Here, the judge failed to properly instruct the jury; therefore, the judgment was reversed