UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
SCHOOL OF LAW
LIBRARY
JJ
'*
A DIGEST
OF
THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.
A DIGEST
LAW OF EVIDENCE
BY
SIR JAMES FITZJAMES STEPHEN, Bart., K.C.S. I., D.C.L.
FORMERLY A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEEN'S
BENCH DIVISION ; HONORARY FELLOW OF
TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE
SECOND AMERICAN EDITION
(FROM THE SIXTH ENGLISH EDITION)
WITH ANNOTATIONS AND REFERENCES TO AMERICAN CASES
BY
GEORGE CHASE, LL.B.
PROFESSOR OF LAW IN THE NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL, NEW YORK CITY,
AND DEAN OF THE FACULTY
NEW YORK
PRINTED FOR THE EDITOR
T
st 436 a
\838
Copyright,
GEORGE CHASE,
1885.
Copyright,
GEORGE CHASE.
1898.
#
EDITOR'S NOTE TO FIRST AMERICAN EDITION.
a
The merits of "Stephen's Digest" are too well known to need
repetition. It has been accepted in this country, as well as in
England, as a standard treatise upon the subject of Evidence.
The editor has sought in this edition to increase its usefulness
for American lawyers and students of law by fully annotating it,
so as to exhibit the general principles of the American Law of
Evidence in accordance with the latest and best decisions. The
contents of the original work are preserved without change, ex-
cept that, in a few instances, articles stating special provisions
of English statutes have been transferred to the foot-notes or to
the Appendix. These transfers are always clearly indicated where-
ever made. But no omissions have been made, and the editor's
additions are always indicated by being enclosed between brackets.
It will, therefore, be easy to distinguish between the original
articles and notes and those of this edition. The extent of corre-
spondence or difference between the English and the American
law is thus made clearly manifest.
The American cases cited by the editor are considerably more
numerous than the English citations of Mr. Stephen ; this has
seemed necessary in order that the book might satisfactorily ex-
hibit the Law of Evidence for the different States and Territories,
and thus be serviceable in all parts of the country.
A new and more complete index will be found in this edition.
G. C.
New York, October, 1885.
EDITOR'S NOTE TO SECOND AMERICAN EDITION.
This edition incorporates such additions and changes in the
text of the work as were made by Mr. Stephen in the last
English edition which was published before his death.
The annotations which set forth the American law have been
fcfclS.13
EDITOR'S NOTE.
thoroughly revised and largely re-written. Some important topics
have thus received fuller treatment than was given to them in
the former edition. In the twelve years that have elapsed since
that edition appeared several thousand cases have been published
in the American reports, bearing upon the subject of Evidence.
These have been carefully examined, and are extensively cited
in the notes, so as to exhibit the law upon this subject in its latest
development. Many new Illustrations have also been added.
As in the former edition, whatever I have added to the original
English work is inclosed in brackets.
I have received many gratifying assurances from lawyers and
law-students that my former edition has been found by them
very helpful, both in study and in practice. I trust this edition
will be even more so. I can truly agree with Mr. Stephen in
saying (see page xv, infra), that "the labor bestowed upon the
work has been in an inverse ratio to its size."
G. C.
New York, January, 1898. •
PREFACE TO THE SIXTH ENGLISH EDITION.
I have referred in this edition to the cases decided and stat-
utes passed since the publication of its predecessor and down to
the end of 1892. The law has hardly been altered at all since
the book was first published. Short as it is, I believe it will be
found to contain practically the whole of the law on the subject.
J. F. STEPHEN.
CONTENTS.
PAGE
Introduction xiii
Table of Cases Cited xxix
List of Abbreviations xcv
PART I.
RELEVANCY.
Chapter I. — Preliminary.
Art. i. Definition of Terms Pages 3-5
Chapter II. — Of Facts in issue and relevant to the issue.
Art 2. Facts in issue and Facts relevant to the issue may be proved
— 3. Relevancy of Facts forming part of the same transaction
as the Facts in issue — 4. Acts of Conspirators — 5. Title —
6. Customs — 7. Motive, preparation, subsequent conduct, ex-
planatory statements — 8. Statements accompanying acts, com-
plaints, statements in presence of a person — 9. Facts necessary
to explain or introduce relevant Facts Pages 6-33
Chapter III. — Occurrences similar to but unconnected
with the Facts in issue, irrelevant except in certain
cases.
Art. 10. Similar but unconnected Facts — 11. Acts showing inten-
tion, good faith, &c. — 12. Facts showing system — 13. Existence
of course of business, when deemed to be relevant.. . Pages 34-54
Chapter IV. — Hearsay irrelevant except in certain cases.
Art. 14. Hearsay and the contents of documents irrelevant
Pages 55, 56
Section i. — Hearsay when relevant.
Art. 15. Admissions defined — 16. Who may make admissions on
behalf of others, and when- — 17. Admissions by agents and per-
sons jointly interested with parties — 18. Admissions by strangers
CONTENTS.
— 19. Admission by person referred to by party — 20. Admissions
made without prejudice — 21. Confessions defined — 22. Confes-
sion caused by inducement, threat, or promise, when irrelevant
in Criminal Proceeding — 23. Confessions made upon oath, &c.
— 24. Confession made under a promise of secrecy — 25. State-
ments by deceased persons, when deemed to be relevant — '
26. Dying declaration as to cause of death — 27. Declarations
made in the course of business or professional duty — 28. Decla-
rations against interest — 29. Declarations by testators as to
contents of will — 30. Declarations as to public and general
rights — 31. Declarations as to pedigree — 32. Evidence given
in former proceeding, when relevant Pages 57-1 1 1
Section ii. — Statements in Books, Documents, and Records,
when relevant.
Art. 33. Recitals of public facts in statutes and proclamations —
34. Relevancy of entry in public record made in performance
of duty — -35. Relevancy of statements in works of history, maps,
charts, and plans — 36, 37, 38. Entries in bankers' books —
39. Judgment — 40. All judgments conclusive proof of their
legal effect — 41. Judgments conclusive as between parties and
privies of Facts forming ground of Judgment— 42. Statements
in judgments.irrelevant as between strangers, except in Admiralty
Cases— 43. Effect of judgment not pleaded as an estoppel —
44. Judgments generally deemed to be irrelevant as between
strangers — 45. Judgments conclusive in favor of Judge —
46. Fraud, collusion, or want of jurisdiction may be proved —
47. Foreign judgments Pages 11 2- 140
Chapter V.— Opinions, when relevant and when not.
Art. 48. Opinion generally irrelevant — 49. Opinions of experts on
points of science or art — 50. Facts bearing upon "opinions of
experts— 51. Opinion as to handwriting, when deemed to be
relevant— 52. Comparison of handwritings— 53. Opinion as to
existence of marriage, when relevant — 54. Grounds of opinion,
when deemed to be relevant Pages 141-157
Chapter VI. Character, when deemed to be relevant
AND WHEN NOT.
Art. 55. Character generally irrelevant— 56. Evidence of character
in Criminal Cases — 57. Character as affecting damages
Pages 158-162
CONTENTS.
PART II.
ON PROOF.
Chapter VII. — Facts proved otherwise than by Evidence —
Judicial Notice.
Art. 58. Of what P'acts the Court takes judicial notice — 59. As to
proof of such Facts — 60. Evidence need not be given of Facts
admitted Pages 163-174
Chapter VIII. — Of Oral Evidence.
Art. 61. Proof of Facts by oral evidence — 62. Oral evidence raust
be direct Pages 175-177
Chapter IX.— Of Documentary Evidence — Primary and
Secondary, and Attested Documents.
Art. 63. Proof of contents of documents — 64. Primary evidence —
65. Proof of documents by primary evidence — 66. Proof of
execution of document required by law to be attested — 67. Cases
in which attesting witness need not be called — 68. Proof when
attesting witness denies the execution — 69. Proof of document
not required by law to be attested — 70. Secondary evidence —
71. Cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents
may be given — 72. Rules as to notice to produce . . Pages 1 78-195
Chapter X. — Proof of Public Documents.
Art. 73. Proof of public documents — 74. Production of document
itself — 75. Examined copies — 76. [General records of the
Nation or State] — 77. Exemplifications — 78. Copies equivalent
to exemplifications — 79. Certified copies — 80. [Documents and
records of the several States admissible throughout the United
States] — 81. [Officially printed copies] — 82. [Proof of the
statutes of any State or Territory] — 83. [Proclamations, Acts of
State, Legislative Journals, etc.] — 84. [Foreign written laws,
Acts of State, records, etc.] Pages 196-208
CONTENTS.
Chapter XL— Presumptions as to Documents.
Art. 85. Presumption as to date of a document— 86. Presumption
as to stamp of a document— 87. Presumption as to sealing and
delivery of deeds — 88. Presumption as to documents thiny
years old — 89. Presumption as to alterations Pages 209-218
Chapter XII.— Of the Exclusion of Oral by Documi.ntai
Evidence, and of the Modification and Interpreta-
tion of Documentary by Oral Evidence.
Art. 90. Evidence of terms of contracts, grants, and other disposi-
tions of property reduced to a documentary form — 91. What
evidence may be given for the interpretation of documents —
92. Cases to which Articles 90 and 91 do not apply. . Pages 219-236
CO iNTENTS.
PART III.
PRODUCTION AND EFFECT OF EVIDENCE.
Chapter XIII.— Burden of Proof.
Art. 93. He who affirms must prove — 94. Presumption of inno-
cence— 95. On whom the general burden of proof lies — 96.
Burden of proof as to particular Fact — 97. Burden of proving
Fact to be proved to make evidence admissible — 97 A. Burden
of proof when parties stand in a fiduciary relation. .Pages 237-254
Chapter XIV.— On Presumptions and Estoppels.
Art. 98. Presumption of legitimacy — 99. Presumption of death
from seven years' absence — 100. Presumption of lost grant — 101.
Presumption of regularity and of deeds to complete title — 102.
Estoppel by conduct — 103. Estoppel of tenant and licensee — 104.
Estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange — 105. Estoppel of bailee,
agent, and licensee Pages 255-269
Chapter XV. — Of the Competency of Witnesses.
Art. 106. Who may testify — 107. What witnesses are incompetent —
108. Competency in Criminal Cases — 109. [Husband and wife
in civil cases — Cases of adultery] — -no. Communications during
marriage — ill. Judges and advocates privileged as to certain
questions — 112. Evidence as to affairs of state — 113. Informa-
tion as to commission of offences — 114. Competency of jurors —
115. Professional communications — 116. Confidential commu-
nications with legal advisers — 117. Clergymen and medical men
- — 118. Production of title-deeds of witness not a party — 119.
Production of documents which another person, having posses-
sion, could refuse to produce — 120. Witness not to be compelled
to criminate himself — 121. Corroboration, when required —
121 a. Claim on estate of deceased person — 122. Number of
witnesses Pages 270-305
CONTENTS.
Chapter XVI. — Of taking Oral Evidence, and of the
Examination of Witnesses.
Art. 123. Evidence to be upon oath, except in certain cases —
124. Form of oaths; by whom they may be administered —
125. How oral evidence may be taken — 126. Examination in
chief, cross-examination, and re-examination — 127. To what
matters cross-examination and re-examination must be directed
■ — 128. Leading questions — 129. Questions lawful in cross-exam-
ination— 129 A. Judge's discretion as to cross-examination to
credit — 130. Exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to
questions testing veracity — 131. Statements inconsistent with
present testimony may be proved — 132. Cross-examination as to
previous statements in writing — 133. Impeaching credit of
witness — 134. Offences against women — 135. What matters
may be proved in reference to declarations relevant under
Articles 25-32. — 136. Refreshing memory — 137. Right of ad-
verse party as to writing used to refresh memory — 138. Giving,
as evidence, document called for and produced on notice — 139.
Using, as evidence, a document production of which was refused
on notice » Pages 306-345
Chapter XVII — Of Depositions.
Art. 140. Depositions before magistrates — 141. Depositions under
30 & 31 Vict. c. 35, s. 6. — 142. Depositions under Merchant
Shipping Act, 1854 Pages 346-349
Chapter XVIII.— Of Improper Admission and Rejection of
Evidence.
Art. 1 43 Page 350
Appendix of Notes Pages 35 1-406
Index Page 407
INTRODUCTION.
In the years 1 870-1 871 I drew what afterwards became the Indian
Evidence Act (Act 1 of 1872). This Act began by repealing (with
a few exceptions) the whole of the Law of Evidence then in force
in India, and proceeded to re-enact it in the form of a code of 167
sections, which has been in operation in India since Sept., 1872. I
am informed that it is generally understood, and has required little
judicial commentary or exposition.
In the autumn of 1872 Lord Coleridge (then Attorney-General)
employed me to draw a similar code for England. I did so in the
course of the winter, and we settled it in frequent consultations.
It was ready to be introduced early in the Session of 1873. Lord
Coleridge made various attempts to bring it forward, but he could
not succeed till the very last day of the Session. He said a few
words on the subject on the 5th August, 1873, just before Parliament
was prorogued. The Bill was thus never made public, though I
believe it was ordered to be printed.
It was drawn on the model of the Indian Evidence Act, and
contained a complete system of law upon the subject of Evidence.
The present work is founded upon this Bill, though it differs from
it in various respects. Lord Coleridge's Bill proposed a variety of
amendments of the existing law. These are omitted in the present
work, which is intended to represent the existing law exactly as it
stands. The Bill, of course, was in the ordinary form of an Act of
Parliament. In the book I have allowed myself more freedom of
expression, though I have spared no pains to make my statements
precise and complete.
In December, 1875, at tne request of the Council of Legal Edu-
cation, I undertook the duties of Professor of Common Law, at the
Inns of Court, and I chose the Law of Evidence for the subject of
lNTKODI ("1'ION.
my first course of lectures. It appeared to me that the draft Bill
which I had prepared for Lord Coleridge supplied the materials
for such a statement of the law as would enable students to obtain
a precise and systematic acquaintance with it in a moderate space
of time, and without a degree of labor disproportionate to its im-
portance in relation to other branches of the law. No such work,
so far as I know, exists ; for all the existing books on the Law of
Evidence are written on the usual model of English law-books,
which, as a general rule, aim at being collections, more or less
complete, of all the authorities upon a given subject, to which a
judge would listen in an argument in court. Such works often
become, under the hands of successive editors, the repositories of
an extraordinary amount of research, but they seem to me to have
the effect of making the attainment by direct study of a real
knowledge of the law, or of any branch of it as a whole, almost
impossible. The enormous mass of detail and illustration which
they contain, and the habit into which their writers naturally fall,
of introducing into them everything which has any sort of connec-
tion, however remote, with the main subject, make these books
useless for purposes of study, though they may increase their utility
as works of reference. The enormous size and length of the stand-
ard works of reference is a proof of this. They consist of thousands
of pages and refer to many thousand cases. When we remember
that the Law of Evidence forms only one branch of the Law of
Procedure, and that the Substantive Law which regulates rights
and duties ought to be treated independently of it, it becomes
(ib viuus that if a lawyer is to have anything better than a familiarity
with indexes, he must gain his knowledge in some other way than
from existing books. No doubt such knowledge is to be gained.
Experience gives by degrees, in favorable cases, a comprehensive
acquaintance with the principles of the law with which a prac-
titioner is conversant. He gets to see that it is shorter and simpler
than it looks, and to understand that the innumerable cases which
at first sight appear to constitute the law, are really no more than
INTRODUCTION.
illustrations of a comparatively small number of principles ; but
those who have gained knowledge of this kind have usually no
opportunity to impart it to others. Moreover, they acquire it very
slowly, and with needless labor themselves, and though knowledge
so acquired is often specially vivid and well remembered, it is
often fragmentary, and the possession of it not unfrequently renders
those who have it sceptical as to the possibility, and even as to the
expediency, of producing anything more systematic and complete.
The circumstances already mentioned led me to put into a sys-
tematic form such knowledge of the subject as I had acquired. This
work is the result. The labor bestowed upon it has, I may say,
been in an inverse ratio to its size. My object in it has been to
separate the subject of evidence from other branches of the law
with which it has commonly been mixed up ; to reduce it into a
compact systematic form, distributed according to the natural divis-
ion of the subject-matter ; and to compress into precise definite
rules, illustrated by examples, such cases and statutes as properly
relate to the subject-matter so limited and arranged. I have at-
tempted, in short, to make a digest of the law, which, if it were
thought desirable, might be used in the preparation of a code, and
which will, I hope, be useful, not only to professional students, but
to every one who takes an intelligent interest in a part of the law
of his country bearing directly on every kind of investigation into
questions of fact, as well as on every branch of litigation.
The Law of Evidence is composed of two elements, namely,
first, an enormous number of cases, almost all of which have been
decided in the course of the last ioo or 150 years, and which have
already been collected and classified in various ways by a suc-
cession of text writers, from Gilbert and Peake to Taylor and
Roscoe ; secondly, a comparatively small number of Acts of Parlia-
ment which have been passed in the course of the last thirty or
forty years, and have effected a highly beneficial revolution in the
law as it was when it attracted the denunciations of Bentham.
Writers on the Law of Evidence usually refer to statutes by the
INTRODUCTION.
hundred, but the Acts of Parliament which really relate to the
subject are but few. A detailed account of this matter will be
found at the end of the volume, in Note XLVIII.
The arrangement of this book is the same as that of the Indian
Evidence Act, and is based upon the distinction between relevancy
and proof, that is, between the question, What facts may be proved ?
and the question, How must a fact be proved, assuming that proof
of it may be given ? The neglect of this distinction, which is con-
cealed by the ambiguity of the word evidence (a word which some-
times means testimony and at other times relevancy) has thrown
the whole subject into confusion, and has made what is really plain
enough appear almost incomprehensible.
In my Introduction to the Indian Evidence Act published in 1872,
and in speeches made in the Indian Legislative Council, I entered
fully upon this matter. It will be sufficient here to notice shortly
the principle on which the arrangement of the subject is based,
and the manner in which the book has been arranged in conse-
quence.
The great bulk of the Law of Evidence consists of negative rules
declaring what, as the expression runs, is not evidence.
The doctrine that all the facts in issue and relevant to the issue,
and no others, may be proved, is the unexpressed principle which
forms the center of and gives unity to all these express negative
rules. To me these rules always appeared to form a hopeless mass
of confusion, which might be remembered by a great effort, but could
,ot be understood as a whole, or reduced to a system, until it occurred
o me to ask the question, What is this evidence which you tell me
hearsay is not? The expression "hearsay is not evidence" seemed
to assume that I knew by the light of nature what evidence was, but
I perceived at last that that was just what I did not know. I found
that I was in the position of a person who, having never seen a cat,
is instructed about them in this fashion: " Lions are not cats, nor are
tigers nor leopards, though you might be inclined to think they were."
Show me a cat to begin with, and I at once understand both what is
INTRODUCTION.
meant by saying that a lion is not a cat, and why it is possible to call
him one. Tell me what evidence is, and I shall be able to understand
why you say that this and that class of facts are not evidence. The
question "What is evidence?" gradually disclosed the ambiguity of
the word. To describe a matter of fact as "evidence" in the sense
of testimony is obviously nonsense. No one wants to be told that
hearsay, whatever else it is, is not testimony. What then does the
phrase mean? The only possible answer is : It means that the one
fact either is or else is not considered by the person using the expres-
sion to furnish a premise or part of a premise from which the existence
of the other is a necessary or probable inference, — in other words,
that the one fact is or is not relevant to the other. When the inquiry
is pushed further, and the nature of relevancy has to be considered
in itself, and apart from legal rules about it, we are led to inductive
logic, which shows that the judicial evidence is only one case of the
general problem of science — namely, inferring the unknown from the
known. As far as the logical theory of the matter is concerned, this
is an ultimate answer. The logical theory was cleared up by Mr.
Mill. Bentham and some other1 writers had more or less discussed
the connection of logic with the rules of evidence. But I am not
aware that it occurred to any one before I published my ' Introduction
to the Indian Evidence Act' to point out in detail the very close
resemblance which exists between Mr. Mill's theory and the existing
state of the law.
The law has been worked out by degrees by many generations of
judges who perceived more or less distinctly the principle on which
it ought to be founded. The rules established by them no doubt
treat as relevant some facts which cannot perhaps be said to be so.
More frequently they treat as irrelevant facts which are really
1 See, e.g., that able and interesting book 'An Essay on Circum-
stantial Evidence,' by the late Mr. Wills, father of Mr. Justice Wills,
Q. C. Chief Baron Gilbert's work on the Law of Evidence is
founded on Locke's 'Essay,' much as my work is founded on Mills
1 Logic'
INTRODUCTION.
relevant, but exceptions excepted, all their rules are reducible to the
principle that facts in issue or relevant to the issue, and no others,
may be proved.
The following outline of the contents of this work will show how,
in arranging it, I have applied this principle.
All law may be divided into Substantive Law, by which rights,
duties, and liabilities are defined, and the Law of Procedure by which
the Substantive Law is applied to particular cases.
The Law of Evidence is that part of the Law of Procedure which,
with a view to ascertain individual rights and liabilities in particular
cases, decides :
I. What facts may, and what may not be proved in such cases ;
II. What sort of evidence must be given of a fact which may be
proved;
III. By whom and in what manner the evidence must be produced
by which any fact is to be proved.
I. The facts which may be proved are facts in issue, or facts rele-
vant to the issue.
Facts in issue are those facts upon the existence of which the
right or liability to be ascertained in the proceeding depends.
Facts relevant to the issue are facts from the existence of which
inferences as to the existence of the facts in issue may be drawn.
A fact is relevant to another fact when the existence of the one
can be shown to be the cause or one of the causes, or the effect or
one of the effects, of the existence of the other, or when the existence
of the one, either alone or together with other facts, renders the
existence of the other highly probable, or improbable, according to
the common course of events.
Four classes of facts, which in common life would usually be
regarded as falling within this definition of relevancy, are excluded
from it by the Law of Evidence except in certain cases :
1. Facts similar to, but not specifically connected with, each other.
{Res inter alios actce.)
2. The fact that a person not called as a witness has asserted the
existence of any fact. {Hearsay.)
INTRODUCTION.
3. The fact that any person is of opinion that a fact exists.
{Opinion.)
4. The fact that a person's character is such as to render conduct
imputed to him probable or improbable. {Character.)
To each of those four exclusive rules there are, however, important
exceptions, which are defined by the Law of Evidence.
II. As to the manner in which a fact in issue or relevant fact must
be proved.
Some facts need not be proved at all, because the Court will take
judicial notice of them, if they are relevant to the issue.
Every fact which requires proof must be proved either by oral or
by documentary evidence.
Every fact, except (speaking generally) the contents of a docu-
ment, must be proved by oral evidence. Oral evidence must in
every case be direct, that is to say, it must consist of an assertion by
the person who gives it that he directly perceived the fact to the
existence of which he testifies.
Documentary evidence is either primary or secondary. Primary
evidence is the document itself produced in court for inspection.
Secondary evidence varies according to the nature of the docu-
ment. In the case of private documents a copy of the document, or
an oral account of its contents, is secondary evidence. In the case
of some public documents, examined or certified copies, or exempli-
fications, must or may be produced in the absence of the documents
themselves.
Whenever any public or private transaction has been reduced to a
documentary form, the document in which it is recorded becomes
exclusive evidence of that transaction, and its contents cannot, except
in certain cases expressly defined, be varied by oral evidence, though
secondary evidence may be given of the contents of the document.
III. As to the person by whom, and the manner in which the proof
of a particular fact must be made.
When a fact is to be proved, evidence must be given of it by the
person upon whom the burden of proving it is imposed, either by the
INTRODUCTION.
nature of the issue or by any legal presumption, unless the fact is
one which the party is estopped from proving by his own represen-
tations, or by his conduct, or by his relation to the opposite party.
The witnesses by whom a fact is to be proved must be competent.
With very few exceptions, every one is now a competent witness in
t»ll cases. Competent witnesses, however, are not in all cases com-
pelled or even permitted to testify.
The evidence must be given upon oath, or in certain excepted
>;ases without oath. The witnesses must be first examined in chief,
then cross-examined, and then re-examined. Their credit may be
tested in certain ways, and the answers which they give to questions
affecting their credit maybe contradicted in certain cases and not in
others.
This brief statement will show what I regard as constituting the
Law of Evidence, properly so called. My view of it excludes many
things which are often regarded as forming part of it. The principal
subjects thus omitted are as follows : —
I regard the question, What may be proved under particular issues ?
(which many writers treat as part of the Law of Evidence) as belong-
ing partly to the subject of pleading, and partly to each of the different
branches into which the Substantive Law may be divided.
A is indicted for murder, and pleads Not Guilty. This plea puts
in issue, amongst other things, the presence of any state of mind
describable as malice aforethought, and all matters of justification
or extenuation.
Starkie and Roscoe treat these subjects at full length, as supplying
answers to the question, What can be proved under an issue of Not
Guilty on an indictment for murder? Mr. Taylor does not go so
far as this ; but a great part of his book is based upon a similar
principle of classification. Thus chapters i. and ii. of Part II. are
rather a treatise on pleading than a treatise on evidence.
Again, I have dealt very shortly with the whole subject of pre-
sumptions. My reason is that they also appear to me to belong to
different branches of the Substantive Law, and to be unintelligible,
INTRODUCTION.
except in connection with them. Take for instance the presumption
that every one knows the law. The real meaning of this is that,
speaking generally, ignorance of the law is not taken as an excuse
for breaking it. This rule cannot be properly appreciated if it is
treated as a part of the Law of Evidence. It belongs to the Criminal
Law. In the same way numerous presumptions as to rights of
property (in particular easements and incorporeal hereditaments)
belong not to the Law of Evidence but to the Law of Real Property.
The only presumptions which, in my opinion, ought to find a place in
the Law of Evidence, are those which relate to facts merely as facts,
and apart from the particular rights which they constitute. Thus the
rule, that a man not heard of for seven years is presumed to be dead,
might be equally applicable to a dispute as to the validity of a
marriage, an action of ejectment by a reversioner against a tenant
pur aider vie, the admissibility of a declaration against interest, and
many other subjects. After careful consideration, I have put a few
presumptions of this kind into a chapter on the subject, and have
passed over the rest as belonging to different branches of the Sub-
stantive Law.
Practice, again, appears to me to differ in kind from the Law of
Evidence. The rules which point out the manner in which the
attendance of witnesses is to be procured, evidence is to be taken on
commission, depositions are to be authenticated and forwarded to the
proper officers, interrogatories are to be administered, &c, have' little
to do with the general principles which regulate the relevancy and
proof of matters of fact. Their proper place would be found in
codes of civil and criminal procedure. I have however noticed a fe
of the most important of these matters.
A similar remark applies to a great mass of provisions as to the
proof of certain particulars. Under the head of " Public Docu-
ments," Mr. Taylor gives amongst other things a list of all, or most,
of the statutory provisions which render certificates or certified copies
admissible in particular cases.
To take an illustration at random, section 1458 begins thus : " The
INTRODUCTION.
registration of medical practitioners under the Medical Act of 1858,
may be proved by a copy of the ' Medical Register,' for the time
being, purporting," &c. I do not wish for a moment to undervalue
the practical utility of such information, or the industry displayed in
collecting it ; but such a provision as this appears to me to belong
not to the Law of Evidence, but to the law relating to medical men.
It is matter rather for an index or schedule than for a legal treatise,
intended to be studied, understood, and borne in mind in practice.
On several other points the distinction between the Law of Evi-
dence and other branches of the law is more difficult to trace. For
instance, the law of estoppel, and the law relating to the interpre-
tation of written instruments, both run into the Law of Evidence. I
have tried to draw the line in the case of estoppels by dealing with
estoppels in pais only, to the exclusion of estoppels by deed and by
matter of record, which must be pleaded as such ; and in regard to
the law of written instruments by stating those rules only which
seemed to me to bear directly on the question whether a document
can be supplemented or explained by oral evidence.
The result is no doubt to make the statement of the law much
shorter than is usual. I hope, however, that competent judges will
find that, as far as it goes, the statement is both full and correct. As
to brevity, I may say, in the words of Lord Mansfield :— " The law
does not consist of particular cases, but of general principles which
are illustrated and explained by these cases." '
Every one will express somewhat differently the principles which
he draws from a number of illustrations, and this is one source of
that quality of our law which those who dislike it describe as vague-
ness and uncertainty, and those who like it as elasticity. I dislike
the quality in question, and I used to think that it would be an
improvement if the law were once for all enacted in a distinct form
by the Legislature, and were definitely altered from time to time as
occasion required. Fur many years I did my utmost to get others to
take the same view of the subject, but I am now convinced by
1 7?. v. Bembridge, 3 Doug. 332.
INTRODUCTION.
experience that the unwillingness of the Legislature to undertake
such an operation proceeds from a want of confidence in its power
to deal with such subjects, which is neither unnatural nor un-
founded. It would be as impossible to get in Parliament a really-
satisfactory discussion of a Bill codifying the Law of Evidence as to
get a committee of the whole House to paint a picture. It would, I
am equally well satisfied, be quite as difficult at present to get Par-
liament to delegate its powers to persons capable of exercising them
properly. In the meanwhile the Courts can decide only upon cases
as they actually occur, and generations may pass before a doubt is
set at rest by a judicial decision expressly in point. Hence, if any-
thing considerable is to be done towards the reduction of the law to a
system, it must, at present at least, be done by private writers.
Legislation proper is, under favorable conditions, the best way of
making the law, but if that is not to be had, indirect legislation, the
influence on the law of judges and legal writers who deduce, from a
mass of precedents, such principles and rules as appear to them to be
suggested by the great bulk of the authorities, and to be in them-
selves rational and convenient, is very much better than none at all
It has, indeed, special advantages, which this is not the place to
insist upon. I do not think the law can be in a less creditable con-
dition than that of an enormous mass of isolated decisions, and
statutes assuming unstated principles ; cases and statutes alike being
accessible only by elaborate indexes. I insist upon this because I
am well aware of the prejudice which exists against all attempts to
state the law simply, and of the rooted belief which exists in the
minds of many lawyers that all general propositions of law must be
misleading, and delusive, and that law books are useless except as
indexes. An ancient maxim says " Omnis clcfinitio in jure pcricit-
losa." Lord Coke wrote, " It is ever good to rely upon the books at
large ; for many times compendia sunt dispendia, and Melius est
petere fofites quam sectari rivtitos." Mr. Smith chose this expression
as the motto of his 'Leading Cases,' and the sentiment which it em-
bodies has exercised immense influence over our law, It has not
INTRODUCTION.
perhaps been sufficiently observed that when Coke wrote, the "books
at large," namely the ' Year Books ' and a very few more modern
reports, contained probably about as much matter as two, or at most
three, years of the reports published by the Council of Law Report-
ing ; and that the compendia (such books, say, as Fitzherbert's
'Abridgment') were merely abridgments of the cases in the 'Year
Books' classified in the roughest possible manner, and much inferior
both in extent and arrangement to such a book as Fisher's ' Digest.' '
In our own days it appears to me that the true fontes are not to be
found in reported cases, but in the rules and principles which such
cases imply, and that the cases themselves are the rivtili, the follow-
ing of which is a dispendium. My attempt in this work has been
emphatically petere fo?ites, to reduce an important branch of the law
to the form of a connected system of intelligible rules and principles.
Should the undertaking be favorably received by the profession
and the public, I hope to apply the same process to some other
branches of the law ; for the more I study and practice it, the more
firmly am I convinced of the excellence of its substance and the
defects of its form. Our earlier writers, from Coke to Blackstone,
fell into the error of asserting the excellence of its substance in an
exaggerated strain, whilst they showed much insensibility to defects,
both of substance and form, which in their time were grievous and
glaring. Bentham seems to me in many points to have fallen into
the converse error. He was too keen and bitter a critic to recognise
the substantial merits of the system which he attacked ; and it is
obvious to me that he had not that mastery of the law itself which is
unattainable by mere theoretical study, even if the student is, as
1 Since the beginning of 1865 the Council has published eighty-six
\olumes of Reports. The Year Books from 1307— 1535, 228 years,
would fill not more than twenty-five such volumes. There are also
ten volumes of Statutes since 1865 (May, 1876). There are now (Feb.,
1877) at least ninety-three volumes of Reports and eleven volumes of
Statutes. There are now 154 volumes of Reports and twenty-three of
Statutes (1887).
INTRODUCTION.
Bentham certainly was, a man of talent, approaching closely to
genius.
During the last generation or more Bentham's influence has to
some extent declined, partly because some of his books are like
exploded shells, buried under the ruins which they have made, and
partly because under the influence of some of the most distinguished
of living authors, great attention has been directed to legal history,
and in particular to the study of Roman Law. It would be difficult
to exaggerate the value of these studies, but their nature and use are
liable to be misunderstood. This history of the Roman Law no
doubt throws great light on the history of our own; and the compari-
son of the two great bodies of law, under one or the other of which
the laws of the civilized world may be classified, cannot fail to be
instructive ; but the history of bygone institutions is valuable mainly
because it enables us to understand, and so to improve existing insti-
tutions. It would be a complete mistake to suppose either that the
Roman Law is in substance wiser than our own, or that in point of
arrangement and method the Institutes and the Digest are anything
but warnings. The pseudo-philosophy of the Institutes, and the
confusion of the Digest, are, to my mind, infinitely more objection-
able than the absence of arrangement and of all general theories,
good or bad, which distinguish the Law of England.
However this may be, I trust the present work will show that the
law of England on the subject to which it refers is full of sagacity
and practical experience, and is capable of being thrown into a form
at once plain, short, and systematic.
I wish, in conclusion, to direct attention to the manner in which I
have dealt with such parts of the Statute Law as are embodied in this
work. I have given, not the very words of the enactments referred
to, but what I understand to be their effect, though in doing so I have
deviated as little as possible from the actual words employed. I
have done this in order to make it easier to study the subject as a
whole. Every Act of Parliament which relates to the Law of Evi-
dence assumes the existence of the unwritten law. It cannot, there-
INTRODUCTION.
fore, be fully understood, nor can its relation to other parts of the law
be appreciated, till the unwritten law has been written down so that
the provisions of particular statutes may take their places as parts of
it. When this is done, the Statute Law itself admits of, and even
requires, very great abridgment. In many cases the result of a
number of separate enactments may be stated in a line or two. For
instance, the old Common Law as to the incompetency of certain
classes of witnesses was removed by parts of six different Acts of
Parliament, — the net result of which is given in five short Articles
^106-110).
So, too, the doctrine of incompetency for peculiar or defective
,eligious belief has been removed by many different enactments the
effect of which is shown in one Article (123).
The various enactments relating to documentary evidence (see
Chap. X.) appear to me to become easy to follow and to appreciate,
when they are put in their proper places in a general scheme of the
law, and arranged according to their subject-matter. By rejecting
every part of an Act of Parliament except the actual operative words
which constitute its addition to the law, and by setting it (so to
speak) in a definite statement of the unwritten law of which it as-
sumes the existence, it is possible to combine brevity with substantial
accuracy and fulness of statement to an extent which would surprise
those who are acquainted with Acts of Parliament only as they
stand in the Statute Book.1 At the same time I should warn any
one who may use this book for the purposes of actual practice in
or out of court, that he would do well to refer to the very words of
the statutes embodied in it. It is very possible that, in stating their
effect instead of their actual words, I may have given in some par-
ticulars a mistaken view of their meaning.
Such are the means by which I have endeavored to make a state-
1 Twenty Articles of this work represent all that is material in the
ten Acts of Parliament, containing sixty-six sections, which have been
passed on the subject to which it refers. For the detailed proof of
this, see Note XLYIII. [Appendix],
INTRODUCTION.
ment of the Law of Evidence which will enable not only students of
law, but I hope any intelligent person who cares enough about the
subject to study attentively what I have written, to obtain from it a
knowledge of that subject at once comprehensive and exact, — a
knowledge which would enable him to follow in an intelligent man-
ner the proceedings of Courts of Justice, and which would enable
him to study cases and use text-books of the common kind with
readiness and ease. I do not say more than this. I have not
attempted to follow the matter out into its minute ramifications, and I
have avoided reference to what after all are little more than matters
of curiosity. I think, however, that any one who makes himself
thoroughly acquainted with the contents of this book, will know fully
and accurately all the leading principles and rules of evidence which
occur in actual practice.
If I am entitled to generalise at all from my own experience, I
think that even those who are already well acquainted with the
subject will find that they understand the relations of its different
parts, and therefore the parts themselves more completely than they
otherwise would, by being enabled to take them in at one view, and
to consider them in their relation to each other.
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Abbott v. Heath 47
v. People 20
Abeel v. Van Gelder 61
Abercrombie v. Sheldon 32
Abington v. Duxbury 256
Abouloff v. Oppenheimer 138, 368
Abrath v. N. E. Ry 242, 252
Accola v. Chicago, etc. R. Co 171
Ackerson v. People 75, 76
Adae v. Zangs 342, 343
Adams v. Adams 119
v . Cowles 136
v. Davidson , 62
v. Greenwich Ins. Co 337
v. Lawson 161
v. Lloyd 293
v. O'Connor 184
v, Olin. . 92
v. People 22, 142
v. Pittsburgh Ins. Co 19, 305
v. Porter 293
v. State 274, 276, 331
v. Sullivan 190
v. Swansea 104
v. Way . 169
v . Wheeler 329
Adie v. Clark 229
Adler-Goldman v. Adams Exp. Co.. 73
iEtna Life Ins. Co. v. Ward 238, 250
A. G. v. Bryant 283
v. Hitchcock 324, 325
Agan v. Hey 281
Agnew v. U. S 243
Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Keeler 70
Aikin v. Martin 193, 315
Akers v. Demond 312
Ala. etc. R. Co. v. Frazier 303
Ala. Fertilizing Co. v. Reynolds — 176
Ala. Southern R. Co. v. Hill 176
v. Mt. Vernon Co 191
Albany Co. Sav. Bk. v. McCarty 240
Albany, etc. R. Co. v. Lundberg 36
PAGE
Albert v. Nor. Central R. Co 40
Alberti v. N. Y. etc. R. Co 293
Alberts v. Vernon 38
Alden v. Goddard 289
Aldous v. Cornwell 21;, 218
Alexander v. Chamberlain 105
v. Comm 20
v. Kaiser 324
v . Pennsylvania Co 146
y.U.S 29,288
Alivon v. Furnival 188
Alger v. Andrews 63
Allans. Dundas 119
Allegheny Co. Workhouse v. Moore. 65
Allen, Appeal of 281
v. Allen 239
v. Chouteau .. in
v. Furbish 223
v . Killinger 73
v. Kirk 59
v. Pink 227
v. Shaw 264
v. State 276
v. U. S 23,263
v . Withrow 218, 240
Allgood v. Blake 376
Allison v. Chapman 14°
v. Coal Co 327
v. Comm 87, 88
v. Whittier. 122
Allison's Case 124
Alner v. George 361
Alpin v. Morton 45
Alschulerw. Schiff 223
Alston v. State 83
Alvord v . Collin 342
Ambler v. Whipple 140
American Bible Soc. v. Pratt 230
Amer. Ex. Nat. Bk. v. N. Y. Belting
Co 244
Amer. Express Co. v. Patterson 161
American Ins. Co. v. Hazen 160
XXX
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
American Life Ins. Co. v. Rosenagle
146, 188, 197
American Nat. Bk. v. Bushey 165
Ames v . Brown , 215
v. Quimby 36
Amherst Bk. v. Root 153
Amidon v. Hosley 336
Amos v. Amos 219
Amoskeag Co. v. Head 7
Anchor Milling Co. v. Walsh 93
Anderson v. Edwards 91
v. How 252
v. McCormick 17, 167,262
v. Moore 223
v. Read 265
v. Rome, etc. R. Co 65
v. State 134
v. Weston 210
Andrews v. ^Etna Ins. Co 264
v . Dyer 229
v. Flack 202
v. Hayden's Admr 154
v, Knox Co 173
v. Ohio, etc. R. Co 296
v. U.S 6
Aneals v. People 326
Angell v. Duke 226
v. Pickard 1 76
Angle v. Life Ins. Co 214 218
Anglo-American Co. v. Cannon 179
Angus v. Dalton 259
Anheuser-Busch Ass'nz/. Hutmacher 180
Ankersmit v. Tuch 327
Annesley v. Anglesea 291
Anonymous 177, 297, 309
Ansley v. Meikle 206
Anson v. People 43
Anthony v. Harrison 212, 221
Appel v. Byers 233
Apperson v. Dowdy 99
Applegate v. Lexington, etc. Mining
Co 213
Appletonf. Braybrook 373
Armoury v. Delamirie 249
Arms v. M iddleton 91
Armstrong v. Ackley 56
v. Armstrong 247
v. Granite Co 224
v. Potter 66
v. State 247
v. U. S 112, 169
PAGE
Arnd v. Ambling 272
Arnold v. Chesebrough 296, 315
v. Pawtuxet Co 193
Arnott v. Hayes 394
Arnstine v. Treat 192
Aron v . Chaffe 118
Arthur v. James 74
Artz v. Railroad Co 329
Ashland v. Marlborough 47
Ashtabula v. Bartram 38
Askew v. Steiner 195"
Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Feehan..327, 328
v. Headland 165
v. Johns 47
v. Stanford 40, 317
v. Thul 177
v. Wilkinson 70, 143
Atkins v. Anderson 122
Atkinson v. Goodrich Transp. Co. . . 243
v. Linden Co 174
v. Morris 101
v. Truesdell 228
Atlanta Journal v. Mayson 239
Atlanta R. Co. v. Walker 48
Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Fitzpatrick 312
Attorney Gen'l v . Bradlaugh 272, 307
Atwell v. Miller 194
Atwood v. Barney 92
v. Dearborn 338
v. Impson 335
v. Scott 32
Audenried v. Betteley 265
Augusta v. Windsor 91
Aulls v. Young 117
Aultman v. Ritter 179
v. Timm 263
Austin, In re 289
v. Holland 54, 262
v. Remington 45
v. State 317
v. Thompson 344
v. Vrooman 135
Averill v. Sawyer 222
Avery v. Maude 167
A veson v. Lord Kinnaird 48
Ayer v. Bell Mfg. Co 222
v. Colgrove 340
v. Tel. Co 180
Ayers v. Hewett 185
v. State 302
< ■. Watson 327, 332
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Ayers v. Weed 231
Aylesford Peerage Case 24,256,257
Ay res v. Hubbard 65
Babcock v. Booth 278
v. Fitchburg R. Co 4
Baccio v. People 24, 25
Backus v. Sternberg 222
v. Taylor 265
Bacon v. Chesney 71
v. Frisbie 287
Bacon's Will, In re 233
Badder v. Kiefer 319
Badger v. Titcomb 124
Bagley v. McMickle 188
Bagley Elev. Co. v . Amer. Exp. Co.. 246
Bahr v. Lombard 244
Bailey v. Bidwell 184
v. Corliss 69
v. Kalamazoo Pub'g Co 171
v. Rome, etc. R. Co 50
v. Woods no
Bain v. Cushman 143
Baird v. Abbey 239
v. Baird 221
v. Daly 41
v. Gillett 31
v. U. S 121
Baker v. Gausin 9
v. Palmer 140
v. Pike 192, 193
v. Stackpole 66
v. Taylor 95
v. Thompson 281
Balbo v. People 78
Baldwin v. Bricker 116
v. Parker 247
Bales v. State 116
Ball v. Chancellor 132
Ballew v. U. S 198, 318
Balliett v. Fink 184
Ballinger v. Davis 182
Ballman v. Heron 108
Baltimore v. State itfi
Baltimore Elevator Co. v. Neal 37
Baltimore, etc. Ass'n v. Post 65
Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Campbell. 70
v. Wilkens 269
Banfield v. Whipple 21
Banister v. Ovit 277
Bank v. Fordyce 232
PAGE
Bank v. Kennedy 224
v. Kingsley 171
v. Sargent 218
Bank of Batavia v. N. Y. etc. R. Co. 269
Bank of Brighton v. Smith 70
Bank of Hindustan, etc., Allison's
Case 124
Bank of Ireland v. Evans 379
Bank of Monroe v. Culver 91
v. Gifford 108
Bank of Montreal v. Richter 244
Bank of Oswego v.- Babcock 131
Bank of Utica v. Hillard 296
v. Mersereau 288
Barber v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co 10
Barber's Admr. v. Bennett 60, 6i
Barber's Appeal 27, 147, 247
Barbie v. Goodale 221
Barhydt v. Alexander 169
Barker v. Binninger 60
v. Haskell 93
v. Hebbard 271
v. Jones 263
v. Kuhn 291
Barkley v. Copeland 321, 338
Barlow v. Buckingham 220
v. Steel 202
Barmby v. Plummer 187
Barnard v. Barlow 229
v. Campbell 265
v. Gantz .211, 254
v. Kellogg 224
Barnes v. Barnes , 241
v. Harris 290
v. Keene 28, 31
Barnett v. Abbott 212
v. People 109
v. State 25, 301
Barnewall v. Murrell 185, 246
Barney v. Rickard 34
Barnum v. Barnum 105, 106, 312
v. Reed 240
Baro'n de Bode's Case 145
Barrett v . Hammond 39
v. James 281
v. Long 45
Barrows v. Downs 146
Bans v. Jackson 123
Barry v. Hamburg Ins. Co 221
v. Ryan 181
Bartholomew v. Farwell 91
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Bartholomew v. People 274, 325
Bartlett v. Boston Gas Co 130
v. Patton 95
v. Tarbox 74
Bartley v. People 78
v. Phillips 176
Barton v. Dawes 225
v. Gray 223
v. Kane 194
Bascom v. Manning 121
Bass v. State 109
Bassett v. Ct. Riv. R. Co 120
v. Crafts 119
v. Shares 5°
v. U. S 277
Bateman v . Bailey 26
v. Miller 136
Bates v. Barber 336
v. Morris 3J4
v. Preble 343
v. State 321
v. Swiger 264
Bathrick v. Detroit Post Co 161
Battle v. Baird 184
v. State 34i
Battles v. Fobes 220
v. Laudenslager 160
v. Tallman 343
Bauer, In re 289
Bauerman v. Radenius 361
Baughmant'. Baughman 142
Baulecz'. N. Y. etc. R. Co 37,5°
Baxendale v. Bennett 266
Baxters. Abbott 33.246
v. Doe 41
v. New Eng. Ins. Co 127
Baylis v. A. G 232
Bayliss v. Cockciroft : 176
Bays v. Trulson 129
Beaconsfield, The 131
Beadles v. Alexander 100
Beakes V. Dacunha 53
Beal v. Nichols 315
Beaman v. Russell 217
Bean v. Tonnele 32
Beard v. Ryan 214
v. State 5°
Beardsley v. Day 211
Bearss v. Copley 64
Beason v. State 274
Beatrice Gas Co. v. Thomas 41
PAGE
Beatson v. Skene 282
Beattie v. Delaware, etc. R. Co 53
v. Billiard 188
Beatty v. Trustees 232
Beauchaine v. McKinnon 132
Beaudette v. Gagne 74, 317
Beazley v. Denson 246
Becker v. Koch 329, 330
v. Phila. etc. R. Co 37
Beckett v. Ramsdale 304
Bedgood v. State 339
Beebe v. Knapp 73
Beeler v. Webb 14
Beeston:s Case ill
Beggarly v. State 79
Behler v. State 83
Behrens v. Behrens 99
v. Germania Ins. Co 239
Behrensmeyer v. Kreitz 120
Beldenz\ Allen 319
v . State 130
Belfast Bk. v . Harriman 218
Belknap v. Nat. Bk. of N. America.. 265
Bell v. Brewster 213
v. Kendrick 113
v, Kennedy 218
v. McGuinness 239
v. Merrifield 125, 130
v. Morrison 67
Bellamy v. State 245
Bellefontaine, etc. R. Co. v. Bailey. . 148
Beloit v. Morgan » 121
Bemis v. Temple 38
Benedict v. Cowden 214
v. State 290
Beneway v. Thorp 45
Benham v. State 34°
Benjamin v. Rogers 63
v. Smith 60
Bennett v. Cadwell's Excr 147
-•.Camp 61
v. Clemence 144
v. Edwards 31 1
' v. Hood 121
v. State 148, 248
Benson v. Clark 170
v. Shortwell 108
v. State 19. 79
v. Titcomb 252
v. U.S 276,316
Benstinez'. State 339
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
XXXUl
PAGE
Benton v. Coram 273
v. Starr 24, 301
Berdan v. Greenwood 309
Berg v. Peterson 152
Bergen v. State tog
Bergwin v. Bishop 216
Berkeley Peerage Case 106, 366
Berneker v. State 159
Berney v. Dinsmore 36, 249
v. Mitchell 108, 109
Bernheim v. Dibrell 314
Berry v. Raddin 17
Berwind v. Greenwich Co 249
Best v. Hammond 230
Bethea v. Byrd 101
Bethlehem v. Watertown 123
Beuerlien v. O'Leary 44
Biddies. Bond 268
Bigelow v. Foss 60
v. Gillott. 217
v. Hall 342
v. Sickles 278
v. Stilphens 215
Bigler v. Reyher 292
Bigley v. Williams 9
Billingslea v. Smith 342
Binck v. Wood 125
Binford v. Young 74
Bingel v. Volz 229
Birch v. Hall 327
Bird v. Co mm 164
v. Hueston 95
Birdseye v. Butterfield 317
Birmingham v. Anderson 101
Birmingham R. Co. v. Alexander 38
Birmingham Union R. Co. v. Hall. . 238
Birt v. Barlow 155
Bischoff v. Wetherel .' 140
Biscoe v. State 77. 81
Bishop v. Amer. Preservers' Co 187
Bissell v. Adams 66
v. Campbell 19, 305
v. Cornell 337
v. Hamblin 113
v. Kellogg 130
v. Saxton 70
Bissing v. Smith 172
Bitner v . Boone 279
Bixby v. Carskaddon 200, 242
Bizer v. Ottumwa Co 123
Black 7'. Bachelder 220
PAGE
Black v. Miller 281
v. Sharkey 212
v . Woodrow 109
Blackburn v. Crawfdrds 94, 106, 289
v. State 75
Blackett v. Royal Exchange Co 232
Blackington v. Johnson 315
v. Rockland 178
Blaeser v . Milwaukee Ins. Co 239
Blagborne v. Hunger 223
Blain v. Blain 129
Blair v. Bartlett 125
v. Ellsworth 110
v. Seaver 272
Blaisdell v. Bickum 105
v. Pray 136
Blake v. Albion Life Assurance Co . 53, 54
v. Griswold 143
v. People 176
v . Sawin 183
v. Stump 318
v. Taylor 240
Blaker v. State 245
Blakeslee v. Hughes 161
Blanchard v. Brown 122
v. Hodgkins 26
v. Steamboat Co 36
Blatz v . Rohrbach 172
Bleecker v. Johnston 314
Blewitt v. Boorum 222
Bliss v. Brainard 252
v. Johnson 46
v. N. Y. Cent. R. Co 124
Block v. Dorman 67
Bloomington v. Legg 34
v. Osterlee 40, 313
v. Shrock 116
Bloor v. Delafield 38
Blough v. Parry 331
Blount v. Kimpton 287
Blum v . Jones 116
Board of Commrs. v. Leggett 48
v. O'Connor 337
Board of Trustees v. Misenheimer. . 152
Boardman v. Woodman 56, 160
Bodman v. Amer. Tract Soc 231
Bodwell v. Heaton 240
Boehl v. Chicago, etc. R. Co 246
Bogardus v. Trinity Church 17, 114
Boggess v. Read » 4
Boggs v. Taylor 229
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Bogie v . Nolan 58, 254
Bogle's Excrs. v. Kreitzer 335
Bohan v . Avoca Borough 317
Boies v. Hartford, etc. R. Co 246
Boiling z/.'Speller 137
v. State 248
Bollinger v. Gallagher 146
Bolton v. Schriever 119, 135, 137
Bond v . Fitzpatrick 63, 64
v. Markstrum 121
Bond's Appeal 229
Bonelli, In the Goods of 147
Bonesteel v. Lynde 193, 194, 294
Bonnell v. Mawha 93
Bonner v. State 15
Bonnet v. Glattfeldt 341
Bonnie v. Earl 303
Bonynge v. Field 37
Bookhout v. State 340
Bookman v. N. Y. El. R. Co 173
v. Stegman 312
Boomer v. Laine 281
Booth v. Powers 214,218
v. Robinson 221
Boothbay v. Giles 211
Boren v . State 248
Borst v. Empie 181
Boscowitz, Ex parte 297
Boston v. Richardson 17, 213. 355
v. Worthington 132
Boston, etc. Co. v. Hanlon 102
v. Shanley 241
B. & M. R. Co. v. Ordway 70
Boston & W. R. Co. v. Dana 30, 189
Boston Relief Co. v. Burnett 242
Bottles v. Miller 69
Boulden v. Mclntire 241
v. State 89
Bouldin v. Alexander 119
Bourne v. Buffington 192
Bovee v. Danville 252
Bow v. People 307
Bowdle i'. Railway Co 272
Bowe v. Wilkins 120
Bowen v. Chase 61
v. Mo. Pac. R. Co 173
Bowers v. Wood 256
Bowles v. Bingham 256
Bowling v. Hax 183
Bowman v. Patrick 280
Bowyer v. Schofield 129
PAGE
Boyce v. Cheshire R. Co 40
Boyd v. Conshohocken Mills 317
v. Jones 63
v. Paul 220
v. State 325
v. U.S 35.273. 294
Boyer v. Rhinehart 38
Boyerstown Nat. Bk. v. Hartman... 240
Boy kin v. Boykin 256
Boylan v. Meeker 55, 100
Boyle v. Smithman 294
v. State 86, 116, 317
Boynton v. Boynton 194
Boyse, In re 309
v. Rossborough 30
Brachman v. Hall 153
Brackett v. Barney 222
v. People 122
Bradford v. People 155
v. Randall 212
v. State 77
Bradlaugh, Re 275
Bradley v. Beetle. . 123
v. Bradley 124
v. Brigham 126
v. Hartford, etc. Ins. Co 38
v . James 96
v. Mirick no, in, 316
v. Rees 231
v. Welch 138
Bradshaw v. Combs 319
Bradstreet v. Rich 226
Brady v. Nally 221, 236
v. State 288
Brague v. Lord 271
Brahe v. Kimball 71
Brain v. Preece 94
Bram v. U. S 78
Branch v. Libbey 39
Brand v. Johnrowe 216
Brandt v. Klein 187
Branson v. Caruthers 282
Brassington v. Brassington 295
Braunschweiger v. Waits 238
Brawley v. U. S 229
Bray v. Doheny 68
v . Flickinger 264
Brazill v. Isham 129
Breen v. N. Y. C. R. Co 250
Bremner v. Newcastle 38
Brennan v. Friendship 51
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Brennan v. Hall 95
Bressler v. People 286, 328
Breton v. Cope 182
Brewers. Porch 329
Brewing Co. v. Bauer 34
Brewster v. Doane 91
Brice v. Bauer 74
Brick v. Brick 224
Bricker v. Stroud 268
Bride v. Clark 205
Bridgeport Ins. Co. v. Wilson 132
Bridgewater v. Plymouth 284
v. Roxbury 91
Brierly v. Davoll Mills 38
Briesenmeister v. Knights 293
Briffit v. State 172
Brigg v. Hilton 224
Briggs v. Rafferty 91
v. Smith 281
Brigham v. Fayerweather 127, 133
v . Palmer 183
Bright v. Young 184
Brighthope R. Co. v. Rogers 41
Brim v. Fleming 218
Bristow v. Sequeville 147
Brittain v. Kinnaird 13$
Britton v. Thornton 123
Broad v. Pitt 384
Brockley v. Brockley 68
Brogy v. Comm 109
Brolley v. Lapham 212
Bronner v. Frauenthal 28
Bronson v. Gleason 170
v. Leach 328
Brooke v. N. Y. etc. R. Co 269
Brookin v. State 30$
Brooks v. Belfast, etc. R. Co 59
v. Brooks 45
v. Goss 62
v. Weeks 331
Brookville v. Arthurs 132
Broschart v. Tuttle 74
Brothers v. Jasper 285
Brotherton v. Brotherton 311
v. People 87
Brough v. Lord Scarsdale 18
Broult v. Hanson 238
Brower v. Bowers 233
Brown, Ex parte 193, 297
v . Barnes 45
v. Brown 232, 280
PAGE
Brown v. Calumet Riv. R. Co 329
v. Comm 23, 35, 87, 276, 347, 364
v. Eastern, etc. R. Co 38
v. Eaton 139
v. First Nat. Bk 218
v. Foster 290
v. Galesburg Brick Co '. . . . 342
v. Gallaudet 121
v. Grant 265
v. Jewett 289
v. Keny on 57
v. Kimball 181
v. Littlefield 192
v. Mailler 60, 72
v. Mass. Ins. Co 176
v. Mooers 337
v. Oldham 185
v. Piper 168
v . Powell Co 269
v. State 27, 315, 327, 339
»-U.S 335
v. Walker 297
v. Wright 147
Brownell v. Palmer 261
Browning v. Gosnell 329
Brubaker's Admr. v. Taylor 330
Bruce v. Nicolopulo 188
v. Priest 160
v. Roper Co 236
v . Slemp 224
v . State 205
v . Westcott 218
Brungger v. Smith 290
Brunsden v. Humphrey 124
Bruschke v. N. Chicago Verein 139
Bryan v. Forsyth 206
v. Scholl 170
Buchanan v. Hubbard 147
Buchanon v. Adams 224
Buck v. Pa. R. Co 246, 250
v. Wilson i2r
Buckley v. Silverberg 324
Buddz'. MeridenElec. R. Co 318
Buell v. State 167
v. Van Camp 311
Buffalo, etc. Loan Co. v. Knights
Templar Ass'n 62
Buff urn v. Jones 141
v. Ramsdell 137
Bulkley v. Devine 350
Bull v. Loveland 294, 295, 299
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Bullard v. Creditors 239
v. Pearsall 330
Bullis v. East on 189
Bullock v. Knox 255
Bundy v. Bruce 66
Bunker v. Barron 224
Bunnell v. Butler 337
Burckhalter v. Coward 239
Burdell v. Taylor 153
Burdett v. May 240
Burdette v. Coram 321, 325
Burdge v. State 77
Burdick, In re 137
v. Hunt 285
v. Norwich 130
Burdict v. Mo. Pac. R. Co 147
Burg v . Chicago, etc. R. Co 116
Burgess v. Langley 284
Burke v. Delaney 222
v. Kaley 32
v. Lacock 168
v. Mascarich 174
v. Miltenburger 169
Burlen v. Shannon 119, 130, 134
Burley v. German-American Bk 93
Burlington Lumber Co. v. White-
breast Co 187
Burnaby v. Baillie 256
Burnell v. Weld 202
Burnham v. Allen 243
v. Brennan 62
v. Dorr 221, 236
v. Heselton 254
v. Morrissey 294
Burns v. Fidelity Co. 223
v. Thompson 236
Burritt/'. Belfy 125
Burrows v. Klunk ^18, 266
Bursill v. Tanner 295
Burt v. Panjaud 249
v. Place 118
z\ State 24
i\ Winona, etc. R. Co [65
Burton v. Driggs 188, 189, 195
v. State 85
Burwell v. Sneed 1 1 S
Buse v. Page 336
Bush ?'. Barrett 250
-■. Coram 273
v. Roberts 63
v. Stow ell 67
TAGE
Busson v. Forsythe 107
Buswell v. Fuller 246
v. Lincks 27
Buswell Trimmer Co. v. Case 31
Butler v. Gale 232
v. Millett 59
v. Moore 3S3
v. St. Louis Ins. Co 95
v. Watkins 42
Butrick v. Tilton 212
Button v. Amer. Tjact Soc 230
v. Frink •. 242
Buxton v . Edwards 66, 67
v. Somerset Works 1.45
Byass v. Sullivan 294
Byers v. Hoppe 99
v. Wallace 104
By rd v. Jones 63
Byrne v. Boadle 250
Caddy v. Barlow 118
Cadell v. Allen 211
Cadman v. Peter 240
Cady v. Walker 289
Caermarthen R. Co. v. Manchester
R. Co 71
Cagger v. Lansing 17
Caha v. U. S 167
Cahen v. Continental Ins. Co 1S7
Cahill v. Cincinnati R. Co 252
Calm v. Cahn 177
Cake v. Shull 240
Calderon v. O'Donahue 315
Calkins, In re 48
v . Hartford 39
Call v. Dunning 183
Callender v. Callender 74
Calloway v. Varner 342
Calvert v. Flower 344
v. Friebus 2S1
Calypso, The 133
Camden v. Belgrade 187
Cameron v. Blackman 165
v. Bryan 45, 50
v. Peck 186
Camp v. Cm- 233
Campbell v. Brown 67
v. Campbell 328
v. Chace 280
v. Hall 126
v . Hoff 244
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Campbell v. Johnston 193
v. Kalamazoo 39
v. Mo. Pac. R. Co 40
v. People 75, 302
v. Rankin 120
Canaday v. Krum 31
Canajoharie Nat. Bk. v. Diefendorf . 244
Canal Co. v. Ray 223
Cancemi v. People 158
Cannaday v. Lynch 272
Cannon v. People 20,141
Card v . Card 271
v. Foot 273, 274, 341
Carey v. Bright 232
v. Hart 317
Carland v. Cunningham 187, 195
Carleton v. Lombard 132
Carlson v. Winterson 335
Carlton v. People 248
Carnes v. Crandall 106
v. Piatt 291
v. White 72
Carney v. Gleissner 277
Carpenter v. Cohoes 115
». Dame 191
v. Dexter 164
v. Eastern Trans. Co 148
v. First Nat . Bk 242, 243
v. Grand Trunk R. Co 147
v. Sheldon 69
Carr v. Coke 165
v. L. & N. W. Railway 379
v. Moore 36
v. State 238, 273, 276
Carrington v. St. Louis 293
Carroll v. Carroll 133
v. Deimel 32
v. M. &R. R. Corp 264
v. Peake 179
v. Sprague 289
z'. State 320
Carruthers v. McMurray 223
Carter v. Boehm 144
v. Fishing Co 259
v. Montgomery 106
v. State 274
v . Thurston 144
v. West 290
Carthage Co. v. Andrews 47, 142
Carthaus v. State 159
Cartier v. Troy Lumber Co 187
PAGE
Cartwright v. Green 298
Carver v. State 341
v. United States 87, 88
Case v. Huey 202
v. Kelly 163
v. Marks 161
v. Perew 50, 171
Casoni v. Jerome 218
Cassady v. Trustees 108, 113
Castner v. Sliker 9, 142
Castor v. Davis 241
Castrique v. Imrie. . .126, 133, 139, 145,368
Catherwood v. Caslon 155
Cattison v. Cattison 27
Caujolle v. Ferrie 106,123
Caulfield v. Hermann 220
v. Sullivan 137
Cavallaro v. Texas, etc. R. Co 147
Cavanaugh v. Austin 45
Caverno v. Jones 20
Caylus v. N. Y.-etc. R. Co 126
C. B. U. P. R. Co. v. Andrews 282
Cecil Bk. v. Snively 224
Celluloid Mf'gCo. v. Arlington Mf'g
Co 316
Central Bk. v. Allen 194
Central Branch, etc. R. Co. v . Shoup 59
Central Bridge Corp. v. Butler 243
Central, etc. R. Co. v. Rockafellow.. 307
Central R. Co. v. Allmon 328
v. Dodd 337
v. Murray 109
Central Sav. Bk. v. Baltimore 163
Chadsey v. Gre*ne 73
Chadwick v. Fonner 60
v. U. S 194
Chaffee v. Taylor 152
v. U. S 90, 91, 94
Chamberlain v. Carlisle 118, 129
v. Enfield 50
v. Piatt 141
v. Sands 342
v. Vance 45
Chamberlin v. Ball 200
v. Ossipee 341
Chambers v. Bernasconi 94
v. Hunt 312
Champlin v. Stoddart 294
Chandler v. Le Barron 15^
Chapin v. Chicago, etc. R. Co 222
Chapman v. Chapman 10O
KXXVI11
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Chapman v. Rose 264
v. Twitchell 73, 101
v. Wilber 170
Chappell, In re 234
Charles Morgan, The 334
Charlton v. Reed 214
v. Unis 328
Charter v. Charter 375
Chase v. Caryl 203
v. Chase 9
v. Horton .*. 62
v. Maine Central R. Co 51, 160
v. Smith 95
v. Spring Vale Mills Co. . . 108, in
v. Sycamore, etc. R. Co 114
v. Winans 141
Chase's Appeal 264
Chasemore v. Richards 260
Chateaugay Iron Co. v. Blake 19. 94
Chatfield v. Wilson 260
Cheatham v. State 302
Chelmsford Co. v. Demarest 70
Chemical Light Co. v. Howard 284
Chenango Bridge Co. v. Lewis 91
v. Paige 95
Cheney v. Arnold 120, 183
v. Patton 120
Cherry v. Baker 167
Chesapeake Club v. State 297, 298
Chester v. Wilhelm 330
Chicago v. Gage 218
v. Powers 38
Chicago Lumbering Co. v. Hewitt. . . 94
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v Artery 334
v. Becker 13
v. Chancellor 26
v. Clark 50
i'. Hastings 333
v. Levy 252
v. McBride 250
v. McDaniel 284, 287
i'. McLaughlin 333
V. Nix 143
v. Packet Co 132
v. Trayes 113
t. Van Yleck 142
v. Wolcott 189
Childs v. Jordan 60
v. Merrill 290, 297
Chilton v. People 211
Chisholm v. Beaman Co 93, 94
l'AGE
Chism v. State 331
Chrisman v. Chrisman 246
Christianson v. Pioneer Co 10
Christmas v. Russell 140
Christopher St. R. Co. v. 23rd St. R.
Co 225, 240
Chrysler v. Renois 190
Chubb v. Gsell 161
v. Salomons 283
Church v. Florence Iron Works 223
v. Howard 62, 69
v. Hubbart ...169, 207
Chute v. State 343
Cihak v. Klekr 176
Cincinnati v. Cameron 311
Citizens' Nat. Bk. v. Williams 215
City of Goshen v. England 38
City of Paterson v . Baker 121
City of Rochester v. Montgomery. . . 132
City of Sandwich v. Dolan 303, 319
City Pass. R. Co. v. Knee ... 338
Claflin v. Dodson 330
v. Fletcher 120
v. Meyer 245
Clapp v. Banking Co 236
Clare v. People 238
Clark, In re 72
v. Baird 143
v. Bradsti eet 32
v. Brown 45, 162
v. Burn 67, 97
v. Clark 142, 254
v. Costello 137
v. Dillon 131
v. Freeman 152
v. Hills 243
v. Little 137
v. Miller 249
v. Morrison 69
v. Murphy 242
v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co 115
v. Owens 107, 213
v. Sigourney 67
v. Yorce 110, 318
v. Woodruff 228
Clason v. Milwaukee 145
Clay ?'. Langslow 362
Clayborn v. Tompkins 136
Clayton v. Lord Nugent 232
v. Wardell 156
Clegg v. Lemessurier 212
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Clemens v. Meyer 112, 206
Clement v. Bullens 311
v. Packer 101
v. Spear 284
Cleveland v. Bangor 131
v. Hopkins k 138
v. Newsom . . 10
v. N. J. Steamboat Co 39
Cleveland, etc. R. Co. v. Ball 144
v. Mara 10
v. Monaghan 177
v. Newell 34, 47, 48
v. Perkins 179
v. Wynant 38
Clever v. Hilberry 338
Clews v. Kehr 64
v. N. Y. Banking Ass'n 68
Clifford v. Burton 70
v. Drake 342
Clifton v. Granger 340
Cline v. State 336
Clinton v. State 272
Cliquot's Champagne 116
Clodfelter v. Hulett 137
Closmadeuc v. Carrel 210
Closson v . Morrison 216
Clough v. McDaniel 97
Clouser v. Ruckman 60
Cloyes v. Thayer 297
Clune v. U. S 14
Coal Co. v. Brick Co 124
Coates v. Burlington, etc. R. Co. 49, 141
v. Sulan 336
Cobb v. Wells 94
Cobbs v. Fire Ass'n 223
Coble v. State 274
Coburn v. Odell 297
Cochrane v. Libby 107
v. Little 148
Coffee v. State 85
Coffin v. Hydraulic Co 174
v. U. S 238
^.Vincent 342
Cohen, Ex parte 297
v. Teller 155
Cohn v. Goldman 73
Cohoes v. D. & H. Canal Co 262
Coit v. Churchill 239
v. Haven 136
v. Howd 63
v. Milliken 168
PAGE
Coit v. Patchen 30
Colburn v. Groton 74
Cole v. Hills 216
v. Jessup 342
v. Lake Shore, etc. R. Co.. 303,314
v. Sherard 170
v. State 335
Coleman, Re 287
v. Comm 272
v. Dobbins , 165
v. Manhattan Co 229
v. People 43
v. State 314
Coleman's Appeal 130
Collagan v. Burns 99
Collender v. Dinsmore 228
Collier v. Dick 26
Collins v. Ball 216
v. Bayntun 184
v. Collins 156
v. Hydorn 130
v. State 302
v. Stephenson 326
v. Voorhees 156
Collyer v. Collyer 182
Colorado Coal Co. v. U. S 241, 252
Colt v. McConnell. 289
v. People 22
Colton v. Beardsley 135, 225
Coltraine v. Brown 338
Columbia R. Co. v. Hawthorne 31
Comer v. Cole, etc. Co 252
Comins v. Hetfield 316
Commrs. of Wilson Co. v. Mcintosh 122
Comm. v. Abbott 5,7, 19
v. Allen 154
v. Annis 23, 28
v. Bacon 291
v. Barnacle 20
v. Bell 45. 297
v. Bezek 247
v. Bigelow , 43
v. Billings 303
t'. Bishop.. 90, 302
v. Blair 22
v. Boroschino 23
v. Bradford 19, 35,49, 83
v. Brady 29
v. Brailey 27
v. Brewer 87
v. Brigham 23
a!
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
. v. Brown 76, 190, 276, 313
. Buccieri 19
• Burke 343
. Burlington 49
. Buzzell 307
. Campbell 28
. Caponi 280
. Carey 87
. Casey 86
. Castles 185
. Choate 20, 21, 35, 49, 248
.Clark 83
. Cleary 41,109,158
. Coe 44
. Cooper 88, 341
. Costley 238
. Crowe 20
. Crowley 9
. Cuffee 78,81,85
. Cullen 80
, Culver 77
. Curtis 78
. Damon 45
Densmore 8, 95
, Desmond 170
, Dill 190
. Dorsey 31, 144
Drake 79
, Dunlop 168
Eastman i?j
Elisha 134
Emigrant Sav. Bk 218
Emmons 177
Felch 105, 106
Ferrigan 21
Follansbee 313
Ford 274, 342
Galavan 25
Gauvin 41
Goddard 289
Goodman 36
Goodwin 20, 23
Gorham 325
Gray 340
Griffin 280
Hackett 12
Hall 112, 152
Haney 88,89
Harman 83
Harris 339
Hawkins 263
PAGE
Comm. v . Hayes 280
v. Hill 116,285
v. Hollister 302
v . Holmes 20, 302
v. Holstine 76
v. Howe 80,85
v. Hudson 19
v. Ingersoll 302
v. Ingraham 15, 76, 337
v. Jackson 35, 42, 44
v. James 80
v. Jarboe 308
v. Jardine 47
v. Jeffries 5, 180
v- Jeffs 342, 343
v. Johnson 43
v . Kane 225
v. Kennon 50
v. Kimball 53
v. King 115,170
v. Knapp 79
v. Lannan 343
v. Leach 48, 151, 238
v. Leonard 158
v. Littlejohn 156
v. Lynes 274
v. Marzynski 171
?'. McCabe 75. 3'4
v. McCarthy 51
v. McDermott 75
v. McGorty 245,315
v. McGrath 249, 262
v . McKenna 109
v. McKie 244
v. McNamee 50
v. M'Pike 12
v. Mead 285
v. Meany. 5°
i'. Meserve 284
v. Moore 263, 277
v . Morey 78, 81
v. Morrell 190
v. Mosler 78
?•. Moyer 297
v. Mudgett 238
v. Myers 81
v. Nagle 158
v. Nef us 12
v. Nichols 298
v. Nott 81
v. O'Brien 142, 159.335
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
xli
PAGE
Conim. v. Parker 305
v. Parmenter 23
v . Phillips 104
v. Piper 157
v. Pitsinger 76
v. Place 45
v. Pomeroy 49, 247
v. Pratt 297
v. Preece 77, 78
v. Price 43
v. Ratcliffe 29
v. Reynolds 5S
v. Ricker 56
v. Roberts 87
v. Robertson 177
v. Robinson 4. 49. 272
v. Russell 43
v. Ryan 50, 352
v . Sapp 276, 278, 280
v. Schaffner 321
v. Scott 15, 35. 276
v. Scowden 286
v. Sego 77, 78, 80
v. Shaw 297
v. Shepherd 256
v. Shurn 187
v. Sliney 26
v. Smith 16, 78, 153, 191, 298
v. Sparks 299
v. Stevens 190
v. Stevenson 104
v. Straesser 20, 88
v. Sturtivant 115, 142, 353
v. Sullivan 192,323
v. Switzer 115
v. Tibbetts 6
v. Tolliver 22, 329
v . Towle 251
v. Trefethen 26, 47
v. Trider 297
v. Tuckerman 79
v. Vose 73
v. Weber 314
v. Webster 4.7,21
v. Werling 51
v. Werntz 12
v. Wesley 83
v. White 284
v. Williams 28
v. Wilson 302
Comstock v, Crawford 137
PAGE
Comstock v. Smith 216
Conant v. Leslie 45
v. Nat. State Bk 221
Concha v. Concha 130
Conestoga Co. v. Finke 228
Confederate Note Case 232
Conkey v. Barbour 67
v. People 159, 339
Conn. Ins. Co. v. Lathrop 141, 143
v. Union Trust Co 293
Conn. Life Ins. Co. v. Schaefer 287
v. Schwenk 104, 105
Connelly v. McKean 262
v. O'Connor 271
Connolly v. Pardon 234
v. Straw 282
Connors v. Morton 37
Conrad v. Griffey . 338
Conselyea v. Swift 242
Consol. Ice Machine Co. v. Keifer... 328
Continental Ins. Co. v. Delpeuch 315
v. Jachnichen 239
Converse v. Colton 282
v. Sickles 68
v. Wales 49
v. Wead 228
Conway v. State 25,276
Conyers v. Postal Tel. Co 179
Coogler v. Rhodes 320
Cook v. Barr 58, 61
v. Brown 328
v. Champlain, etc. Co 50
v. Ins. Co 142
v. New Durham 38
v. N. Y. Central R. Co 111
v. State 171
Cooke v. Tanswell 1S4
Coole v. Braham 72
Coombes v. State 338
Coon v. Swan 288
Coon's Appeal 97
Coonrod v. Madden 190, 195
Cooper v. Cooper 258, 301
v. M ayhew 62
v. Phipps 161
v. State 298
Cope v. Cope 113, 256
Copeland v. State 169
v. Taylor 73
Copperman v. People 43
Corbett v . Gibson 187, 193
xlii
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Corbett v. State 76
Corbin v. Jackson 178
Corbishley's Trusts, Re 258
Corbitt v. Timmerman 138
Corbley v. Wilson 133
Corby v. Wright 2H1
Corcoran v. Peekskill 31
Corder v. Corder 57
Corley v. Holloway .• 258
Corlies v. Van Note 212
Corn Exch. Bk. v . Nassau Bk 224
Cornelius v. Hambay 278, 299
Cornett v. Williams 191
Corning v. Corning 160
Cornish v. Farm, etc. Ins. Co 150
Corr v. Sellers 92
Corrigan v. Chicago 267
Cortes Co. v. Tannhauser 309
Cory v. Bretton 73
Costello v. Crowell. . 35, 149, 154, 342, 343
Costigan v. Lunt 109,110
Cosulich v. Standard Oil Co 244
Cothran v. Ellis 355
Cotton v. Smithwick 230
Cottrell, Matter of 185
v. Cottrell 314
Coulter v. Amer. Exp. Co 329
Counselman v. Hitchcock 297
Countryman v. Bunker 93
County Commrs. v. Minderlein 322
County of Mahaska v. Ingalls 95
Coveney v. Tannahill 296
Coventry v. Great Eastern Ry. Co.. 266
Covert v. Sebern 231
Coward v. Clanton 58
Cowley v. People 177
Cox v. Bruce 269
v. Co mm 302
v. Davis . . 181
v. Eayres 329
v. Ellsworth 258
v. Palmer 217
Coye v. Leach
Coyle v. Comm 145, 1 (8
Coyne v. Weaver 62
Cozzens v. Higgins 188
Craft v. Comm 332
Craig v. Brown 202
V. Miller 277
v. State 76
Craig's Appeal 28
PAGE
Craighead v. McLoney 214, 218
Crawcoui v. Salter 291
Crawford v. Loper 109, 115
v. West SideBk 265
Crawfordsville v. Braden 172
Crean v. Hourigan 320
Crease v. Barrett 100, 102, 103
Creighton v. Hoppis 61
Crill v . Rome 114
Crispell v. Dubois 100
Crist v. Erie R. Co 40
Crittenden v. Rogers 342, 344
Crocker v. Agenbroad 331
v. Crocker 233
v. McGregor 38
Crockett v. Davis 148
Crofton v. Crofton 309
Cromer v . Pinckney 230
Cronk v. Frith 183
Cronkhite v. Herrin 67
Crook v. State 337
Crooks v. Bunn 338
v. Whitford 232
Crosby v. Berger 289
Cross v. Brown 246
v- Cross 139, 255,330
v. Lake Shore, etc. R. Co 314
v. Sabin 172
v. State 24
Crossley v. Dixon 268
Crossman v. Crossman 179
Croswell v. Labree 214
Croudson v. Leonard 127
Crow v. Jordan 32
Crowell v. Western Res. Bk 176,312
Crowninshield v. Crowninshield 246
Cruikshank v. Gordon 45
Cuddy v. Brown 104
Cullison v. Bossom 293
Cullmans v. Lindsay '223
Culrose z\ Gibbons 122
Culver <•. Marks 91
v. Scott Lumber Co 342
Culver's Appeal 136
Cumberland Ins. Co. v. Giltinan 178
Cummer i<. Kent Judge 193
Cummings v. Arnold 223
v, I .i\ lor 315
Cummins v. Hurlbutt 240
Cunningham v. Hudson Riv. Bk 152
Cuppy v. State 256
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
xliii
PAGE
Currier v. Richardson 239
Curry v . Walter 282
Curtice v. West 316
Curtis v. Aaronson 102
v. Belknap 185
v. Bradley 343
v. Cochran 273
v. Daughdrill 97
v. State 116
Curtiss v. Ayrault 115
Cushingw. Field 218
v. Laird 127
Cushman v. Coleman 344
Cuthbertson's Appeal 249
Cutler v . Thomas 224
v. Wright 174
Cutter v. Caruthers 167
Cuyler v. McCartney 14. 63
Dabney v. Mitchell 281, 341
Daby v. Ericsson 30
Da Costa v. Jones 354
Dade v. ./Etna Ins. Co 192, 195
Daily v. N. Y. etc. R. Co 87
Dain v. Wyckoff 160
Dale v. Delaware, etc. R. Co 8
v. Gilbert 59
Daley v. American Printing Co 50
Dalrymple v. Williams 284, 285
Dalton v. Angus 260
v. West End, etc. R. Co 68
Daly v . Byrne 45
Dan v. Brown 69
Dana v. Conant 194
v. Fiedler 232
v. Nat. Bk. of Republic 36
v. Tucker 287
Daniel v. Daniel 291
v. Pitt 73
Daniels v. McGinnis 63
v . Smith 190
Dann v. Kingdom 156
Dantz v. State 76
Darby v. State 88
Darling v. Westmoreland 5. 142
Darlington's Estate 254
Darrow v. Pierce 188
Daugherty v. Rogers 230
Davenbagh v. M 'Kinnie 294
Davenport Co. v. Pa. R. Co 296
Davidson v. Cooper 215, 218
PAGE
Davidson v. Cornell 48
Davie v. Briggs 258
Davies v. Lowndes. 104, 107, 367
v. Waters 295
v. White. 394
Davis, Ex parte 163
v. Brown 271
v. California Powder Works... 318
v . Comm 00, 336
v . Cornue 139
v. Davis 137, 240
v. Field 342,343
v. Gallagher 69
v. Gann 221
v. Greve 119
v. Kline no
v. McCrocklin 59
v. Melson 60
v. Poland 66, 68
v. Roby 325
v. Seaman 92
v. Smith 132
v. Spooner 182
w.State n6,338
w.U.S 247
Davison v. Gibson 147
v. Sherburne 67
Dawson v. Mayall 104
v. State 49
Day v. Day 274
v. Floyd 119
v. Ross 160
v. Stickney 326, 329
Dayton v. Monroe 49
Dazey v. Mills 59
Deal v. State 4
Dean v. Chapin 204
v. King 269
z'. Wilkerson 95
De Armond v. Neasmith 117
Deasey v. Thurman 63
Deck v. Johnson 65
Decker v. Decker 231
Dedrick v. Hopson 273
Deer Isle v. Winterport 26, 47
Deere v. Bagley 329
De Haven v. De Haven 106
Deimel v. Brown 305
Deininger v. McConnell 211
Deip's Estate 289
Deitz v. Regnier 189
xliv
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Dejarnette v. Comm 248
De Kay v . Irving 230
Delafield v. Hand 169
Delaware Co. v . Diebold Co 58
Den v . M'Allister 192
Denman v. Johnston 117, 252
Denney v. State 166, 170
Dennie v. Williams $8,67
Denning v. Butcher 141, 247, 287, 293
Dennison v. Page 256
Denny v. Pinney 100, 182
Denton v. C. R. I. & P. R. Co 246
v. Roddy 138
Denver Tramway Co. v. Owens 287
De Pauw v. Bank 218
Derby v. Ailing 115
v. Thrall 218
De Rosaz, In the Goods of 235
Derrick v. Luddy 266
De Thoren v . A. G 155
Detrick v. Sharrar 122
Devala Co., Re 66
Deveney v. Baxter 9
Devlin v. Comm 119
v. Greenwich Sav. Bk 240, 303
Dewey v. Moyer 15
Dewitt v. Prescott 192
Dexter v. Hall 148
v. Harrison 176
Diamond v. Henderson 263
Diamond State Iron Co. v. Rarig 120
Dibble v. Dimmock 4
Dickerman v. Graves 278
Dickerson v. Colgrove 264
v. State 83
Dickinson v. Buskie 317
V. Dickinson 75
v. Poughkeepsie 19
Dickson v. Hartman Mfg. Co 222
v. State 313
Diehl v. Rodgers 273
Diel v. Stegner 315
Dietzf. Fourth Nat. Bk 154
Diggin's Estate 152
Dill v. People 277
Dille v. Lovell 243
Dilleber v. Life Ins. Co 48
Dillon, In re 283
Dilts v. Stevenson 303
Diniick v. Downs 142
Dinsmore v. Abbott 246
PAGE
Dismukes v. State 12
Di Sora v. Phillipps 145
Disque v. State 298
Dist. of Columbia v. Armes. . 38, 272, 275
v. Cornell 266
v. Gallaher 228
Division of Howard Co 165
Dix v. Atkins 54
Dixon v. Hammond ^ 268
v. Niccolls 171
v. People 241
v. State 329
Dobson v. Graham 294
v. Pearce 139
Dodge v. Gallatin 213
v . Goodell 63
v. Haskell 216
v. Trust Co 61, 63
v. Zimmer 226
Doe v. Barton 266
v. Baytup 267
v. Beviss 98
v. Brydges 127
v. Catomore 215
v. Coulthred 249
v. Date 295
v. Derby m
d. Devine v. Wilson 259
v. Edwards 169
d. Hammond v. Cooke 261
v. Hiscocks 234, 375, 376
v. Hodgson 345
v. Kemp 14
v. Needs 235, 375
v. Palmer 101
v . Pegg 266
v. Pulman 17
v . Ross 197
v. Smyth 266
v. Suckermore 153
v. Tatham m, 356, 369
v . Turf ord 90
v. Vowles 98, 99
d. Wright v. Tatham 359
Doherty v. O'Callaghan 289
Dole v. Belden 194
v . Wilson 169
i'. Wooldredge 318
Doles v. State 87
Dollner v. Lintz 335, 336
Donahue v. Coleman 262
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
xlv
PAGE
Donahue v. Railroad Co 252
Donellan v. Hardy 196
Donelson v. Taylor 317
Donnelly v. State 88, 90, 317
Donohue v. People.- 22
v. Whitney 115
Donovan v. Boston, etc. R. Co 91
Dooley v. Baynes 61
v. Moan 92
Doon v. Ravey 74
Dooner v. Canal Co 145
Dorman v. Kane 51
Dorr v. Tremont Nat. Bk 243
Dorrell v. State 118
Dost Aly Khan, In the Goods of 147
Doty v. Brown 126
Doughty v. Doughty 139
Douglas v. Mitchell's Excr 68
Dover v. Child 123
Dow v. Blake 1 39
Dowell v. Guthrie 244
Downer v. Button 194
v. Rowell 342
Downey v . Dillon 161
Downs v. N. Y. C. R. Co 57
Doyle v , Jessup 340
v. N. Y. Infirmary 151
v. People 276
v. St. Paul, etc. R. Co 39, 50
Draper v. Draper 272
v. Hatfield 74. 192
Drennan v. Douglas 257
Dresler v. Hard 155
Drew v. State 335
v. Swift 230
Driscoll v. Fall River 46
v. People 24, 325
Drosten v. Mueller 263
Drown v. Allen 161
Drum v. Drum 214, 215, 216
Drummond v. Prestman 131
Drury v. Hervey 26
v. Midland R. Co 101, 103
Du Barre v. Livette 383
Dubois v. Hermance 118
Duchess of Kingston's Case
128, 133, 139, 292, 368
Ducie v. Ford 221
Dudleys. Beck 288
v. Cadwell 209
Duff^.Duff 58
PAGE
Duffin v. People 180
Duffy ». People .' 80
Dugan v. Mahoney 342, 343
Duke of Bedford v. Lopes 17
Duke of Buccleughz*. Met. Bd. Works 282
Duke of Newcastle v. Broxtowe 103
Dulaney v. Payne 125
Dumont v. Dumont 247
Dunbar v. McGill 108, 329,334
v. U. S 187, 192
Duncan v. Lawrence 6i
v. Seeley 343
Dundee Mortgage Co. v. Cooper — 146
Dunham v. Averill 230, 234
v. Barnes 227
v. Bower 125
Dunlap v. Richardson 329
Dunlop v. U. S 53.241
Dunn, In re 294
Dunn v. Price 236
v. Record 249
v. State 25
Dunn's Case 43
Dunstan v. Higgins 140,208
Durant v. Abendroth 127, 140
Durfee v. Abbott 94
Durgin v. Somers 74
Duringer v. Moschino 137
Durkee v. Cent. Pac. R. Co 9
v. Leland 296
v. Vermont R. Co 179
Dusky v. Rudder 268
Duttenhofer v. State -287, 291
Duval v. Covenho ver 73
v . Davey 162
DuvalFs Excr. v. Darby 176
Dwain v. Descalso 27
Dwight v. Brown 95
Dwyer v. Collins 192, 194, 372
Dyckman v. Mayor of N. Y 135
Dye v. Young 49
Dyer v. Fredericks 191
Eagan v. Connelly 205
v. State 172
Eames v. Eames 261
Earl v. Tupper. no
Earle v. Grout 287
Earle's Trust 170
Early v. Comm 80
East v. Pace 190
xivi
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
East St. Louis R. Co. v. O'Hara 329
Eastman v. Boston, etc. R. Co 13
v. Dearborn 140
v. Martin 108
Eaton v. Alger in
v. Knowles 68
v. Tallmadge 104, 107
v. Telegraph Co 6
Eckel v. Eckel 263
Eckert v. Louis 215
v . Pickel 214
Eckford v. Eckford 231
Eckstein's Petition 297
Eddy v. Gray 32
Edgar v. Board of Commrs 165
v. Buck 121
v. Richardson 178
Edgecomb v. Buckhout 143
Edgell v. Francis 47
Edgerton v. Wolf 69
Edgington v. U. S 158
Edington v. Life Ins. Co 48, 293
Edison Electric Co. v. U. S. Electric
Co 296
Edison Light Co. v. U. S. Lighting
Co 344
Edwards, In re 241
v. Bonneau 194
v. Knapp 239
v. Noyes 187
v. Tracy 178
Egan v. Bowker 23
Egbert v. Egbert 141
v . Greenwalt 255
Ehle'sWill 258
Eickhoff, In re 119, 136
Eickman v. Troll 289
Eidt v. Cutter 156
Eighmie v. Taylor 222
Eighmy v. People 9, 26
Eilbert v. Finkbeiner 192
Eisenlord v. Clum 104, 105, 156, 271
Eisfield v. Dill 155
Elcessor v. Elcessor 141
Electric Light Co. v. Grant 322
Elgin v. Joslyn 228
Elkin v. Janson 252
Elkins v. McKean 8
Elkinton v. Brick 100, 246
Ellicott v. Pearl 101
Elliott t>. Boyles 324
PAGE
Elliott v . Dyche 183
v. Hayden 58
v. Russell 160
v. Van Buren 142
Ellis' Estate, In re 204
Ellis v. Buzzell 239
v. Duncan 260
v. State 77
Ellison v. Cruser 344
v. Lindsley 54
v. Weathers 281
Elmira, etc. Co. v. Harris 264
Elmore v. Johnson 37
Eisner v. Supreme Lodge 142
Elsworth v. Muldoon 96
Elwell v. Cunningham 198
v. Mersick 188, 191
Elwood v. Flannagan 200
Ely v. Ely 216
Elyton Co. v. Denny 311
Embden v. Lisherness 120
Emerson v. Bleakley no
v. Lowell Gas Co 145
Emery v. Fowler 109
v. Hildreth 119
Emery's Case 297
Emmett v. Penoyer 221, 228
Empire Mf'g Co. v. Stuart 152
Enders v. Sternbergh 60, 213
Engelhorn v. Reitlinger 226
English v. Porter 271
Enix v. Miller 166
Ennis v. Smith 145, 207
Enos v. Enos 45
v. Tuttle 10
Entick v. Carrington 187
Eppert v. Hall 327
Eppinger v. Scott 54
Epps v. State 116
Erickson v. Drazkowski 143
Erie, etc. Dispatch v. Stanley 317
Erie R. Co. v. Heath 193
Erwin v. English 113, 241
Eschbach v. Collins 217
Eskridge v. State 85
Eslow v. Mitchell 191
Estabrook v. Boyle 244
Este v. Wilshire 298
Estell v. State 9
Esterly v. Eppelsheimer 327
Ettinger v. Comm 19, 25, 75
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
xlvii
PAGE
Evans v. Beattie 7i
v. Keystone Gas Co 34
v. McDermott 44
v. Montgomery 68
v. Rees 365
v. State 251
v. Stewart 258
Evanston v. Gunn 113, 196
Evansville, etc. R. Co. v. Montgom-
ery 327
Evening Journal Ass'n v. McDermott 45
Everett v. Warner Bk 138
Everitt v, Everitt 100
Excelsior Ass'n v. Riddle 293
Excelsior Elec. Co. v. Sweet 243
Exchange Nat. Bk. v. Washita Co. . 192
Excrs. of Clarke v. Canfield 258
Eyer v. Beck 220
Eysamen, Matter of 271
Eyster v. Gaff 166
Fahey v . Crotty 160
v. Mottu 136
Fairchild v. Bascom 329
v. Fairchild 58, 139
Fairfield v. Lawson 230, 231
Fairlie v. Hastings , 362
Fake v. Addicks 45
Fall River v. Riley 137
Fall River Bk. v. Buffinton 264
Falls v. U. S. Sav. etc. Co 205
Fanning v. Hibernia Ins. Co 129
Fanton v. Middlebrook 263
Fargis v. Walton 222
Farkas v. State 84
Farley v. McConnell 168
v. Rodocanachi 57
Farmer's Excr. v. Farmer 304
Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Bair 319, 328
Farmers' L. & T. Co. v. Siefke
238, 243, 250
Farnsworth v. Briggs 202
Farnum v. Farnum 326
Farrar v. Olmstead 119
Farrell v. Boston 318
v . Weitz 32, 55
Farrington v. Payne 124
Farris v. People 35
Farwell v. Ensign 221
Fassin v. Hubbard 175
Faucett v. Nicholls 41
PAGE
Faulcon v. Johnston 190
Faulkner v. Bailey 69
Faunce v. Life Ins. Co 226
Faust v. U. S 315
Faxon v. Hollis 93
Fay v. Guynon 60
v. Hebbard 68
Fearing v. Kimball 58
Feigley v. Whitaker 66
Felder v. State 341
Fellers v. Lee 166
Fellows v . Smith 60
Felska v. N. Y. Cent. R . Co 55, 142
Fengar v. Brown 238
Fenwick v. Thornton 64
Ferguson v. Crawford ...... 136, 137, 138
v. Hubbell 145, 150
Ferris v. Commercial Nat. Bk 167
Ferson v. Wilcox 68
Feversham v. Emerson 129
Few v. Guppy •, • 295
Fickett v. Swift -., 60
Field v. Clark 165
v. Davis ■ . . 39
p.N.Y.C.R.Co ... 40
v. Zemansky 194
Fife v. Coram 76, 78
Filkins v. People . 263
v. Whyland ? . 227
Fillo v. Jones 36
Finch v. Finch 303
Finneran v. Leonard.. , 136
Fire Ins. Ass'n v. Wickham 221
First Nat. Bk. v. Carson . . , 154
v. Crosby 202
v. Dunn 236
v. Post 329
v. Wolff 337
First Presb. Church v. Logan. 240
Fish, In re 230
Fishburne v. Ferguson 141
Fisher v. Fielding 140, 208
v. Fisher 29a
v. Green 176
v. Greene 189
v. Hart 330
v . Mayor 9°. 91
v. Witham 24*
Fisk, Ex parte 3°9
Fiske v. Gowing 176
V. New Eng. Ins. Co 25J
xlviii
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Fiske v. Steele 121
Fitzgerald v. Brennan 60
v.GoB. 3i8
v. McCarty 93
v. Weston 61
Fitzgibbon v. Brown 27
Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick 230, 234
v. Riley 322
Fitzsimons v. Marks 140
Flagg v. M ason 61
v. People 78
Flannery v. Van Tassel 63
Flansburgh, Matter of 246
Flattery v. Flattery 301
Fleming v. Shenandoah 108
Fletcher v. Fuller 17, 259
v. Perry 183
v. Powers 342
-'. Pullen 265
v. State 75, 238
Flint, In re 293
Flitters v. Allf rey 123
Flood v. Growney 258
Flora v. Anderson 105
Flowers v. Fletcher 152
Flowery Co. v. Bonanza Co 211
Floyd v. State 333
Foggz;. Dennis 152
Foley v. State 163
Folger v. Boy ington 58
Folkes v. Chadd 151
Follansbee v. Walker 282,284
Folsom v. Apple River Co 342
v . Batchelder 73
v. Blood 202
v. Brawn 239, 325
v. Cook 54
Fonda v. Burton 236
Foot v. Bentley 180
Foote v. Hambrick 214
v. Hayne 289
Force v. Craig 212
Ford z>. Cunningham 191
v. Jones 340
v. Osborne 240
v. State 247
v. Umatilla Co 251
Forrest v. Forrest 189
v. Kissam 316
Forsythe v. Hardin 184
v. Norcross 93
PAGE
Fort Wayne v. Combs 39
Fosdick v. Van Arsdale 176
v. VanHorn 18S
Foster v. Newbrough 192, 336
v. People 23
v. Persch 58
Foster's Excrs. v. Dickerson 27, 141
Fowle v. Coe 136
Fowler v. Black 229
v. Scott 213
v. Wallace 239
Fox v. Bearblock 95
v. Coram 168
v. Moyer 311
v. Peninsular, etc. Works 116
v. People 23
v. Riel 183
Foye v. Patch 121, 129, 152
Francis v. Franklin T'p 336
v. Newark 200
Frankel v. Satterfield 136
Franklin v. Baker 217
Franklin Ins. Co. v . Gruver 150
Fraser v. Hunter 102
v. Jennison 293
v. Schroeder 38
Fratini v. Caslini 47, 210
Frauenthal's Appeal 122
Frazier v. Brown 260
Frear v. Evertson 60
Fred M. Lawrence, The 314
Fredrickson v. Johnson 45
Free v. Buckingham 272, 323
Freeman v. Bartlett 190
v. Cooke 264, 379
v. Fogg 282
v. Hamilton 247
v. Sanderson 45
v. State 305
French v. Hall 282
v. Sale 3M
V. Ware 278
Frew v. Clarke 30
Friederich v. People 263
Friedlander v. Texas, etc. R. Co 269
Fries v. Brugler 321
Friess v. N. Y. C. R. Co 297
Frobisher v. Fifth Ave. Co 39
Frost v . Deering 183, 185
v. Frost 196
v. McCargar 337
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
xlix
PAGE
Fruin v. Crystal R. Co 229
Fry v. Stowers 26, 101
V. Wood 108
Fulham v. Howe 26
Fulkerson v. Holmes 104, 106, 107
Fuller v. Green 218
v. Linzee 258
v. Metropolitan Ins. Co 130
v. Naugatuck R. Co 49
v. Rice 316
v. Shattuck 125
Fullerton v. Fordyce 177
Fulton's Estate 93
Funk v. Ely 52
v. Funk 124
Funkhouser v. Wagner 246
Furbush v. Goodwin 318
Furgeson v. Jones 136
Furst v. State 247
Gabbey v. Forgens 176
Gadsden v. Woodward 299
Gaffer v. American Mortgage Co 187
Gaffney v. People 333
Gage v. Campbell 345
v. Gowdy 118
v. Railway Co's 238
Galbraith v. Fleming 20
Gall v. Gall 155
Gallagher v. London Assur. Corp. . .
182, 190, 224
v. Market St. R. Co 116
Gallinger v. Lake Shore Co 53
Gallup v. Wright 235
Galpin v. Page 136
Gait v. Galloway 113
Galvin v. Palmer 115, 200
Gamble v. Mullin 252
Gandy v. M acaulay 303
Gannon v . People 4, 280
Ganser v. Fireman's Ins. Co 176
Garber v. Doersom 61
Garden City Co. v. Miller 204
Gardiner v. People 22
Gardner v. Connelly 330
v. Eberhart 179
v. Frieze 48
v. Gardiner 217
v. Gardner 99
v . People 76
v. State.- 237
PAGE
Garland v. Jacomb 267
Garman v. State 314
Garner v. White 311
Garner's Case 358
Garnett, In re 303
Garnsey v. Rhodes 15, 322
Garrard v. Lewis 218
Garretson v. Ferrall 166
Garrett v. Hanshue 68,183
v. Trabue 176
Garth v. Caldwell 171
Gartside v. Comm. Ins. Co 293
Gass v. Stinson 316
Gastrell v. Phillips 108
Gates v. Cornett 254
v. Fisk 67, 69
v. Fleischer 148
Gaunt v. Harkness 155
v. State 32
Gawtry v. Doane 91
Gay v. Bowen 66
Gebhart v. Burkett 160
Geer v. Lumber Co 213
Gelott v. Goodspeed 181, 182
Gelston v. Hoy t 127, 168
v . Shields 233
Genz v. State 141, 350
George v. Pilcher 338
v . Surrey 152
Gerish v. Charlier 46
German Ins. Co. v. Gibe 221
German Nat. Bk. v. Leonard 109
Germania Bk. v. Distler 209
Germania Ins. Co. v. Klewer 239
Gertz v. Fitchburg R. Co 337
Gery v. Redman 23
Gethin v. Walker 194, 200
Getty v. Hamlin 174
Gettysburg Nat. Bk. v. Chisolm 214
Geyer v. Aguilar 118, 128
Giannone v. Fleetwood 186
Gibbons v. Wisconsin, etc. R. Co... 41
Giberson v. Jolly 244
v. Patterson Mills Co 65
Gibney v. Marchay 61
Gibson v. Hunter 4;
v. Poor 115
v. Trowbridge Co 152
Giese v. Schultz 301
Giffin v. Brooks 217
Gifford v. People 335
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Gilbert v. Flint, etc. R. Co 172
v. Knox 100
v. MolineCo 350
v. Sage 318
v. Simpson 154
v. West End R. Co 177
Gildersleeve v. Landon 57
Gill v. Honirighousen 251
Gillett v. Wiley 254
Gillies v. Smither 182
Gillooley v. State 293
Gillrie v. Lockport 38
Gilman v. Gilman 139, 140
v. Moody 209
Gilmanton v. Ham 32
Gilmer v. Stone 231
Gilmor's Estate 229
Gilmore v . Car 132
v. Driscoll 260
Giltinan v. Strong 132
Girard v. Kalamazoo 40, 47
Girard Ins. Co. v. Marr 350
Gitchell v. People 285, 286
Gleadow v. Atkin 95. 365
Gleason v. Hamilton 215
v. Knapp 121
Gleeson v. Va. R. Co 243
Glenister v. Harding 105, 113
Glenn v. Gleason 317, 333
v. Hunt 205
v. Sumner 59
Globe Ins. Co. v. Gerisch 47
Gloucester v. Gaffney 17
Glynn v. George 267
Goble v. Dillon 125
Goblet v. Beechy 232
Godard v. Gray 139, 368
Goddard v. Foster 233
v. Gardner 290
Godeau v. Blood 44
Godfrey v. Crisler 250
Goebel v. Iffla 122
Goelz v. Goelz 280
Goersen v. Comni 35, 49, 52
Goetz v. Bank of Kansas City 65
Goff v. Roberts 231
Goins v. Moberly 324
v. State 14, 29
Golden v. Clinton 38
v . Conner 187
Golder v. Bressler 225
PAGE
Goldsby v. U. S 319
Good v. French 252
v. Knox 330
Goodall v. State 341
Goodbarf. Lidikey 48
Goode v. Riley 225
v. State 338
Goodell v. Hibbard 263
Goodin v. Plugge 216
Goodman v. Mayor of Saltash 260
Goodrich v. City 122
v. Tracy 65
Goodtitle v. Baldwin 259
v. Southern 234
Goodwin v. Appleton 170
v. Goodwin 222
v. Jack 17, 213
v. State 21
Goodwin Co.'s Appeal 289
Gordon z>. Boston & M. R. Co 38
v. Bowne 249
v. Comm 285
v. Richmond 252
v. Ritenour 46
Gore v. Curtis 339
Gorgas v. Hertz 188
Gorrissen v. Perrin 232
Gorsuch v. Rutledge 319
Gosling v . Birnie 268
Goss v . Froman 255, 256
v. Lord Nugent 226, 374
Gott v. Dinsmore 73
Goudy v. Werbe 319
Gouge v. Roberts 36
Gough v. St. John 160
Gould v. Conway 94
v. Crawford 272
v. Evansville R. Co 122
v. Lakes 101
v. Norfolk Lead Co 329
GrafTam v. Pierce 222
Gragg v. Learned 185, 198
Graham v. Badger 243
v. Chrystal 261 , 336
v. Davis 319
v. Graham 281
i'. McReynolds 338
V. Pa. Co 141
v. Payne 44
v. Spencer 139
Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Latham 131
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Richardson 40, 50
Granting v. Swenson 327
Grant v. Coal Co ' 206
v. Frost 224
v. M addox 227
v. McPherson 238
v. Mitchell 255,256
Grattan v. Metropolitan Ins. Co 57
Gravely v. Coram 245
v. State 248
Graves v. Battle Creek 177
v. Jacobs 28
v . Merchants' Ins. Co 319
v. Stute 247
v. U.S 314
Graville v. N. Y. C. R. Co 113
Gray v. Coram 75
v, Goodrich 56
v. Gray 174
v. Ktrnahan 194
v. Rollinsf ord 66
v. Shepard 228
Gray's Admr. v. Bk. of Kentucky. . . 244
Gray's Case 90
Graybeal v. Gardner 247
Gt. West. Turnpike Co. v. Loorais. . 321
Greeley v. Passaic 251
Green, Matter of 247
Green v. B. & L. R. Co 70
v. Coram 76
v. Disbrow 31
v. New River Co 118,131
v. Roworth 254
v. State 156, 307
v. Stone 240
Greenabaum v. Elliott 125
Greenawalt v. Kohne 220
v. McEnelley 156
Greenfield v. Camden 102, 104, 261
v . People 7, 23, 31, 149
Greenfield Bk. v. Crafts 57
Greenfield Sav. Bk. v. Sto\vell... 218, 265
Greening v. Steele 222
Greenleaf v. Dubuque, etc. R. Co.. . 107
Greenman v. O'Connor 312
Greenough v. Eccles 386
v. Gaskell 382
Greensvveig v. Sterlinger 139
Greenwood v. Sias 66
Gregg v. Forsy th 206
V. State 79
PAGE
Gregory v. Chambers 161
v. Comm 263
v. Gregory. .. , 139
v. Keny on 129
v. Ohio R. Co 116
Grierson v. Mason 221
Griesheimer v. Tanenbaum 92
Griffin v. Auburn 34
v. Griffin 240
v. State 158, 245
v. Stearns 66
Griffith v. Diffenderffer 30
v. State 335
Griggs v. Day 92
Grimes v. Hilliary 239, 253, 262
v. Kimball 189
Grimm's Estate 156
Griscom v. Evens 230, 231
Griswold v. Pitcairn 168
Grob v. Cushman 165
Grogan v. Chesapeake R. Co 4
v. U. S. Industrial Ins. Co 182
Grommes v. St. Paul Trust Co 132
Grubbs v. McDonald 246
Grube v. Mo. Pac. R. Co 37, 46
Guiterman v. Liverpool, etc. St. Co. 148
Gulerette v, McKinley 23, 336, 339
Gulf, etc. R. Co. v. Shieder 252
Gulick v. Gulick 289
Gumberg v. Treusch 14
Gunn, In re 165
Gunn v. Peakes 207
Gunther v. Bennett 188
Gurley v. Park 293
Gurney v. Howe 113
Guthrie v. Haines 107
Gutterson v. Morse 321
Guy v. West 249
Hacker's Appeal 211
Hackett v. Judge, etc 311
v. King 30
v. McMillan 138
v. People 86
Haddock v. B. & M. R. Co 104,105
Hadley v. Watson 311
Hagan v. Merchants', etc. Ins. Co. . . 217
Hagerty v. White 209
Hahn v. Kelly 136
Haines v. Dennett 271
v . Hayden 48
Ill
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Hale v. Comm 87, 263
v. Huse 282
v. Rich 61
•v. Silloway 61
Haley V. State 327
Halifax Guardians v. Wheelright — 379
Hall v. Bainbridge 211
v. Brown 51, 53, 54, 173
v. Chicago, etc. R. Co 329
v. Costello 146
v. Glidden 93
v. Hall 236
v. Knappenberger 254
v . Lanning 66
v. Matthews 239
v. Mayo 102
v. Naylor 44
v. Rankin 160
v. Ray 344
v. State 9
v. Wolff 238
Hallack v. Loft 137
Halleck v. State 35
Hallenbach v. Schnabel 166
Halliday v. Hess 230
v. Martinet 91
Hallinger v. Davis 76
Halloran v. Halloran 59
Hallowell v. Guntle 161
Ham v. Wisconsin, etc. R. Co 350
Hamer v. McFarliu 161
Hamil v. England 288
Hamilton v. Coffin 97
v. Liverpool Ins. Co 227
v. People 7. 16. 333. 335, 337
Hamilton, etc. Co. v. Railroad Co... 267
Hammann v. Mink 167
Hammon v . Sexton 190, 224
Hammond v. 115
v. Bradstreet 103
v . Varian 152
Hampson v. Taylor 101
Hampton v . Boylan 289
Hamsher v. Kline 185
Hanawalt v. State 32
Hance v. Hair 67
Hanchett v. Kimbark 63
Hancock v. Amer. Life Ins. Co 258
Hancock Ins. Co. v. Moore 61
Hand v. Ryan Co 222
Hankinson v. Trenton 163
PAGE
Hankinson v. Vantine B36
Hanley v. Donoghue 146,164
Hanlon v. Doherty 290
Hannah v. State 116
Hanncrs v. McClelland 161,274
Hannon v. State 24
Hanofi v. State 322
Hanover Bk. v. Amer. Dock Co 269
Hanover R. Co. v. Coyle 10
Hanrick v. Patrick 182
Hanriot v. Sherwood 154
Hanselman v. Dovel 278
v. Doyle 192
Hansen v. Amer. Ins. Co 253
v. Miller 317
Happy v. Mosher 72
Harding v. Bader 120
v. Butler 71
v. Jewell 211
v. Williams 393
Hardman v. Wilcock 268
Hardy v. Merrill 141, 142, 246
v. U.S 84
Harger v. Thomas 133
v. Worrall 244
Harland v. Eastman 107
Harley v. Buffalo Car Co 150
Harman v. Moore 136
Harmon v. Auditor 121
v. Brotherson 135
Harper v . State 245
Harrat v. Wise 48
Harrell v. Albemarle, etc. R. Co 38
Harriman v. Jones 2S9
Harrington v. Gable 58, 185
v. Harrington 139
v. Hickman 54
v. Keteltas 21
v. Lincoln 338
v. Wadsworth 118
Harris v. Barnhart 137
v. Doe . 1 200
v. Harris 100
v. Howard 36
v. Knight 99
v. Odeal 68
v. Panama R. Co 115
v. State 285
v . White 147. 241, 251
Harrisburgh Car Co. v. Sloan 296
Harrison v. Charlton 109
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Harrison v. Clark 132
v . Comm 20
v. Morton 223
v. Rowan 320
Harrison's Appeal 329
Harryman v. Roberts 140, 205
Harshbarger v. Carroll 212
Hart v . Kendall 95
v. Randolph 63
v. Stevenson 72
v. Washington Club 244
Harter v. Crill 47
Hartford v. Palmer 272
Hartley v. Corboy 216
v. Keokuk, etc. R. Co 143
v. Weideman 57
Hartman v. Diller 15
Hartranft, Appeal of 283
Harvey v. Osborn 320
v. Thorpe 191
Harwood v. Mulry. 94
v. Wentworth 165
Haseltine v. Concord R. Co 41
Haskins v. Warren 19
Hassam v. Barrett 221
Hastings v. Brooklyn Ins. Co 54
v. Lovejoy 223
v. Stetson 23, 161
Hatch v. Atkinson 303
v. Brown 61, 312
v. Carpenter 188
v. Douglas 228
v. Elkins 70
v . Fuller 47
v . Sigman 100
Hatcher v. Rocheleau 166
Hatfield v. Lasher 161
Hatton v. Robinson 290
Haughwout v. Garrison 220, 250
Haven v. County Commrs 37
v. M arkstrum 59
Havens v. Sea Shore Co 213
Haver v. Schwy hart 97
Hawes v. Draeger 257
v. State 21, 49, 204, 290
Hawke v. Chicago, etc. R. Co 220
Hawkins v. Fall River 156
v. Garland 231
Hawks v. Charlemont 151
Hawksley v. Bradshaw 311
Haws v. Insurance Co 228
PAGE
Hawthorne v. State 263
Hay v. Kramer 91
Hay's Appeal , 316
Hayden v. Goodnow 217
Hayes, Ex parte 59, 68
Hayes v. Kelley 57
v. People 156
^Haynes v. Brown 114
v. Christian 49
v. Comm 24
v. Haynes 217
v . Ordway 125
Hays v. Morgan 58
Hayward v. Barron 313
v. People 321
Hazleton v. Union Bk 154
Hazlewood v. Heminway 312
Head v. Hargrave 143
Healy v. Visalia R. Co 342
Heath v. Cotton Mills 211
Hebbard v. Haughian 221,291
Hedden v. Roberts 54
Hedge v. Clapp 329
Hedges v. Williams 313
Hedrick v. Hughes 91
Herfernan v. Harvey 173
Heffron v. Gallupe 285
Heidel v. Benedict 122
Heine v. Comm 15
Heinemaun v. Heard 242, 243
Heiser v. Hatch 132
Heiskell v. Rollins 91
Heldt v. State 81,85
Helf rich v. Stein 320
Helwig v. Lascowski 321, 325
Helyear v. Hawke 70
Hemenway v. Smith 291
Hemmens v. Bentley 318
Hemmenway v. Towner 256
Hemminger v. Western Assurance
Co.. 315
Henderson v. Philadelphia, etc. R.
Co 41
Hendrick v. Whittemore 136
Hendrickson v. People 83
Henkleman v. Peterson 211
Hennessy v. Farrelly 146
7'. Wright 282
Henninger v. Heald 121
Henricus v. Englert 221
Henry v. Bishop 1 s 1
liv
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Henry v. Dulle 115
v. Hall 247
Hepler v. Mt. Carmel Bk 109
v. State 251
Hepwortli v. Henshall 336
Herbage v. Utica 294
Hermann v. State 104, 177
Herrick v. Malin 213, 214
Herster v. Herster 49
Hertig v. People 168
Herzog v. Sawyer 223
Hesdra, In re 56, 338
Heslop v. Heslop 23
Hess v. Griggs 183
v. Lowrey 116
v. Wilcox 315
Hester v. Comm 22, 302, 324
Hesterberg v. Clark 217
Hetherington v. Kemp 54
Heuston v. Simpson 293
Hewett v. Chapman 285
Hewitt v. Corey 338
v. Morris 182
v. State 190
Hewlett v. Wood 141, 316
Hey's Case 314
Heyne v. Doerfler 271
Heyward's Case 281
Heywood v. Heywood 62
Hibbs v. Blair 281
Hickman v. Green 317
Hickory v. U.S 154. 33o, 33i
Hicks v. Citizens' R. Co 147
Higbee v. Dresser 287
Higbie v. Life Ins. Co 142
Higgins v. Carlton 246
v. Reed 191
v. Ridgway 222
High v. Bk. of Commerce 262
Higham v. Ridgway 98, 364
Highberger v. Stiffler 281
Hildrcth v. A Id rich 329, 330
Hiler v. People 156, 275
Hill v. Bahrns 48
v. Blake 223
v. Canfield 312
v. City Cab Co 136
v. Crook 233
v. Nelms 216
v. Packard 197
v. State 24,321,342
PAGE
Hill v. Syracuse, etc. R. Co 36
Hilliker v. Coleman 173
Hillis v. Wylie 335
Hillman v. Schwenk 303
Hills v. Home Ins. Co 143
Hilton v. Bender 261
v. Guyot 140
Himmelmann v. Hoadley 168
Himrod v. Gilman 154
Hinchcliffe v. Koontz 322
Hinckley v. Beckwith 170
v. Thatcher 230, 233
Hinkley v. Gilligan 66
Hinton v. Life Ins. Co 169
Hintz v. Graupner 45
Hirsch, In re 187, 193
Hiscocks v. Hiscocks 375
Hitchcock v. Moore 161, 280
Hixson i\ Ogg 121
Hoag v. Lamont 70
Hoar v. Abbott 29
Hobbs v. State 338
Hobensack v. Hallman 95
Hoboken Printing Co. v. Kahn 161
Hodges v. Bates 338
v. Bearse 39
Hodgkins v. Chappell 34
v. State 337
Hodgson, In re 304
Hodnet v. Pace 216
Hoefling v. Hambleton 178
Hoey v. Jarman 216
Hoffman v. Bank of Milwaukee 267
v. Hoffman's Excr 26
v. Kemerer 340
v. N. Y.C. R. Co 94
Hogan v. Cregan 161
v. Manhattan R. Co 250
Hoge v. People 303
Hogg v. Link 137
Hogue v. Corbitt 261
Hoitt v . Hoitt 220
Holbrook v. Gay 93
v. Holbrook 63
Holcomb v. Holcomb 142, 272
v. People 3(o
Holcombe v. Hewson 36
Holder v. U. S 313
Holland v. Tenn. Coal Co 50
v. Zollner 141
Holley v. State 275,337
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
lv
PAGE
Holley v. Young 59
Hollingsworth v. State 329, 335
Hollister v. Cordero 55. 259
Holloway v. Frick 223
Holly v. Boston Gas Co 49
Holly Mf'g Co. z'.Venner. ._ 193
Hollywood v. Reed 336, 337
Holman v. Kimball 290
v. State 275
Holmes v. Anderson 328
v. Goldsmith 154
v. Kring 169
v. Trumper 265
v. Turner's Falls Co 310
Hoist v. State 274
Holston Co. v. Campbell 228
Holt v. Squire 71
v. Walker 72
Holton v. Manteuffel 104
Holtz v. Dick 47
Holtzman v. Hoy 160
Holzworth v. Koch 223
Homan v. Earle 301
Home Ins. Co. v. Baltimore, etc. Co. 74
Homer v. Fish 121
Hood v. Hood 119
v . Pioneer Co 87
Hooper v. Taylor 93
Hoovers. Gehr 91, 93
Hope v. Liddell 295
v. People 35. 49
Hopewell v. De Pinna 257
Hopkins v. Grimshaw 280
v . Lee 130
Hoppaugh v. McGrath 132
Hoppe v. Byers 100
Hopt v. Utah 238
Horn v. Pullman 30
Hornbeck v. State 25
Hornbuckle v. Stafford 350
Horner v. Yance 47
Horrigan v. Wyman 244
Horseman v. Todhunter 312
Horstman v. Kaufman 298
HoSford v. Ballard. 17
Hosmer v . Groat 333
v. McDonald 228
Hotchkiss v. Mosher 194
Hough v. Dickinson 239
Houghton v. Jones 317
v. Watertown Ins. Co 228
PAGE
Houlston v. Smith 210
House v. Beak 91.92
v. Lockwood. . , 130
v. Metcalf 38
v. Walch 220
Houston v. Brush 243
Hovey v . Grant 44
How v. Hall 194
Howard v. Brower 279
?. Conim 338
v. Daly 54
v. Hudson 265
v. McDonough 342
v. Moot 4, 172, 173
v . Patrick 108
v. Sexton 45
v. State 241, 248
v. Stilhvell, etc. Co 312
Howe v. Howe 49
v. Lewis 121
v. Minnesota Milk Co 129
Howe Co. v. Pettibone 311
Howe Machine Co. v. Edwards 310
Howell v. Carden 344
v. Goodrich 125
Howell, Estate of 311
Howland v. Blake Mf'g Co 161
Howley v. Whipple 180
Howser v. Coram 285
v. Cumberland, etc. R. Co 243
Hoxie v. Home Ins. Co 51
Hoy v. Morris 290
Hoy t v. Hoyt 287
v. Jackson 296
i>. Newbold 238
v. People 302
v. Russell 170, 173
Hronek v. People 273
Hubbard v. Briggs 327
v . Gurney 221
v. Hubbard 313
v. Russell 179
v. State 248
Hubbell v. Judd, etc. Oil Co.... 187, 296
v. Meigs 113, 197
Huckins v. People's Ins. Co 319
Hudnutt v. Comstock 341
Hudson v. Hudson 116
v. Roos 108
v. Wabash, etc. Ry. Co 252
Huey v. Gahknbeck 250
lvi
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Huff v. Bennett 179, 281, 342
Huganir v. Cotter 44
Hughes v. Boone 289
v. Detroit, etc. R. Co 272
v. Richter 145
v. U. S 121
Huidekoper v. Cotton 285
Humble v. Shoemaker 330
Humphreys v. N. Y. etc. R. Co 229
Humphries v. Parker 176
Hunnicutt v. Peyton 102
Hunsinger v. Hofer 317
Hunt v. Blackburn 287
v. City of Dubuque 40
v. Gray 214, 215, 228
v. Hunt 119, 139
v. Johnson 107
v. Lowell Gas Co 34, 148
v. Order of Friends 94,107
Hunter v. Atkins 248
v. Gibbs 329
v. Hunter 241, 286
v. Leathley 295
v. N.Y. etc. R. Co 172
v. Pherson ... 57
v. Randall 286
v. State 10, 26
Huntley v. Holt 120
v. Whittier 54
Huntington v. Attrill 36, 139
Huntsman v. Nichols 7, 319
Huntsville, etc. R. Co. v. Corpening 315
Huoncker v. Merkey 321
Hupsch v. Resch 240
Hurlburt v. Bellows 330
Hurlbut v. Hull 317
v. Hurlbut 6o, 289
Hurlbut's Estate 107
Hurley v. Mo. Pac. R. Co 147
v. State 330
Hurst v. Leach 235
Huss, In re 205, 207
Matter of 261
Huston v. Ticknor 180
Huston's Estate 93
Hutchings v. Corgan no
Hutchins v. Hubbard 244
v. Hutchins 62
v. Kimmell 156
Hutchinson v. Bernard 312
v- Consumers' Coal Co 284
PAGE
Hutchinson V. Manhattan Co 165
Hyde Park v. Canton 241
Hynes v. McDermott... 146, 152, 155,207
Idaho, The 268
111. Cent. R. Co. v. People 145
v. Wren 165
Illinois Land Co. v. Bonner 191
Imhoff v . Richards 343
Indianapolis, etc. R. Co. v. Horst.. . 251
Ingalls v. State 302
Inglis v. Schreiner 311
Ingram v. State 168
Inhab. of Woburn v. Henshaw 291
Inland Coasting Co. v. Tolson 150
Inman v. Elberton R. Co 41
Insley v . Shire 141
Insurance Co. v. Brim 216
v. Folsom 252
v. Mosley 10, 47
v. Newton 57
v. Weide 5
Insurance Co. of North America v.
Guardiola 66
International, etc. R. Co. v. Anderson 10
v. McRae 181
Iron Cliffs Co. v. Buhl 117
Irwin v. Thompson 224
Isaacson v. N. Y. C. R. Co 172
Isabelle v. Iron Cliffs Co 68
Iser v. State 286
Isler v. Dewey 337
Jackson v. Allen 268
v. Alsop 230
v. Bailey no
v. Brooks 153
v. Chamberlain 181
v. Christman 213
v . Cole 261
v. Comm 89
v. Crissey 1 10
v. French 290
v. Frier 182
v. Frost 115
v. Gager 181
v. Humphrey 281
v. Jackson 104, 156
v. King 104
v . Kingsley 184
v. Lawsou 111
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Jackson v. Luquere 213
v. McCall 101, 259
v. Moore 261
v. People 44
v, Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co 147
v. Sill 230
v. State 25, 83, 109, no, 158
v. Vail 182, 183
v. Van Dusen 152
v. Waldron 181
v. Witter 115
v. Woolsey 184
Jackson Co. v. Arnold 169
Jacksonville, etc. R. Co. v. Hooper. . 211
Jacob Brandow, The 316
Jacobi v. Order of Germania 113, 207
Jacobs, In re 172
J aggers v. Binning 71
Jameson v. Kent 143
Jamieson v. Ind. Nat. Gas Co 172
Jamison v. People 23, 238
Janes' Estate 256
Janvrin v. Scammon 300
Janzen v. People 35
Jarrett v. Leonard 72
Jarvis v. Brooklyn R. Co 50
Jay v. East Livermore 200
Jaynes, Ex parte 193, 297
Jefferds v. People 85
Jenkins v. State 286
Jenne v. Harrisville 145
Jenner v. Hinch 236
Jennings v. Sturdevant 288
Jensen v. Railroad Co 328
Jessup v. Cook no
Jessups v. Osceola Co 40
Jewell's Lessee v. Jewell 104, 105
Jewett v. Banning 20,25
v. Brooks 147
Joannes v. Bennett 188
Jochumsen v. Suffolk Sav. Bk 119
John v. Hatfield 215
John's Admr. v. Pardee 271
Johnson v. Agr. Ins. Co 239
v. Arnwine 188
v. Brown 169
v. Chicago, etc. R. Co 40
v. Comm 7, 28
v. Cowdrey 91
z>. Culver 116
v. Daverne 152
PAGE
Johnson v. Day 25
v . Donaldson 193, 294
v. Fry 277
v . Glover 220
v. Holliday 26
v. Hudson R. R. Co 172
v. Johnson 241
v. Josephs 243
v. Kershaw 189
v. Leggett 330
v. Merithew 258
v . People 240
v. Powers 130
v. Raylton 224
v. Russell 58
v. Seidel 212
v. Sherwin :. . 26
v. State 87, 88, 276
v. Stivers 246
v. U. S 19
v. Witt 285
Johnson, Estate of 100
Johnson's Will, In re 99
Johnson Co. v. Wharton 121
Johnston, In re 37
Johnston v. Hedden 172
v . Jones 115
Johnston Steel Rail Co. v. North
Branch Co 193, 294
Johnstone v. Lord Spencer 18
Joice v. Branson 277
Joliet v. Blower 117
Jones v. Abraham 305
v. Call 191
v. Comm 12
v. Crowley 218
v. Greaves 239
v. Henry 183
v. Hoey 305
v. Jones 32, 242
v . Keen 311
v. Knauss 59, 188
v. Malvern Co 252
v. Matthews 271
v . McLelTan 49
v. People 134, 274
v. Phelps 209
v. Portland 47
v. Roberts 181
v. Simpson 63
v. State 12, 86, 88, 292, 338, 344
lviii
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Jones v. Tucker 144
v. Underwood 183, 190
v. U. S 168, 169, 173
v. Vert 126
v. Williams 14
Jordan v. Asheville 252
v. Circuit Ct 166
v. Osgood 35
v. Patterson 227
v. State 277
v. Stewart 216, 217
Jorden v. Money 266
Joseph v. Bigelow 220
Judge v. Jordan 303
Judge of Probate v. Stone 242
Kahl v. Memphis, etc. R. Co 147
Kahlenbeck v. State 158
Kain v. Larkin 180
Kaiser v. Alexander 92
Kallenbach v. Dickinson 67, 71
Kallock v. State 238
Kane v. Hibernia Ins. Co 239
v. Torbitt 64
Kansas City v. Vineyard 163
Kansas City, etc. R. Co. v. Burge... 170
v. Ehret 143
v. Murray 293
Karr v. State 152
v. Stivers 93
Keagle v. Pessell 187
Kearney v. Denn 133
v. London, etc. R. Co 250
v. Mayor of N. Y 188
Keating v. People 245
Keeler v. Elston 139
v. Jacobs 4
Keen's Excr. v . Monroe 218
Keener v. Crago 223
. v. State 248
Keep v. Griggs 278, 299
Kehoe v. Comm 87, 276
Keichline v. Keichline 200
Keith Bros. v. Stiles 202
Kelch v. State 247
Kelleher v. Keokuk 142
Keller v. Oilman 47
v. N. Y. C. R.Co 150
Kelley v. Brown 238
v. Kelley 147, 22S
v. People 25, 75
PAGE
Kelley v. Richardson ... 143
Kellogg, In re 97
Kellogg v. Curtis 244
v. Kellogg 197, 199
v. Secord 108
Kelly v. Cohoes Co 328
v. Drew 241
v. State 56,78
v. West 119
Kelsea v. Fletcher 342, 343
Kelsey v. Hanmer 182
v. Layne 329
v. Universal, etc. Ins. Co 48
Kemp v. King 295
Kempland v. Macaulay 72
Kendall v. Hamilton 131
v. May 272
v. Weaver 318
Kendig v. Overhulser 239
Kendrick v. Beard 37
v. Comm 297
Kennedy v. Comm 166
v. Doyle 90
v. Gifford 161
v. Holladay 286
v. Kennedy 284
v. People 7, 353
v. Ryall 30
Kennon v. Gilmer 50
Kent v. Garvin 94
v. Lincoln 38
v. M ason 242, 343
v. Quicksilver Mining Co 261
v. State 325
j'. Tyson 53
Kentner v. Kline 238
Ky. Cent. R. Co. v. Barrow 40
Ky. Mf'g Co. v. Louisville 242
Kenyon v. Ashbridge 30, 105
v. Kenyon 314
v. Knights Templar Ass'n 227
Keran v. Trice's Excrs 341
Kerr v. McGuire 194
v. So. Park Commrs 37
Kerstner v. Vorweg 314
Kessel v. Albetis 164
Keyes v. State 336
Kibler v. Mcllwain 315
Kidd v. Fleek 239
Kidder v. Blaisdell 106
v. Stevens 262
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
lix
PAGE
Kidwell v. Comm 276
Kiel v. Choate 221
Killam v. Peirce 46
Kilpatrick v. Comm 87, 166
Kimball v. Morrill 1S2
Kimberly's Appeal 141
Kincaid v. Archibald 220
Kindel v. Le Bert 167
King v. Atkins 315
v. Donahue 155
v. Faber 342
v. Gallun 172
v. N. Y. Central, etc. R. Co.. 36, 176
v. Richards 268
v. Ruckman 335
v. State — 247
v. Worthington 180
Kingan v. Silvers Co 215
Kingman v. Cowles 200, 204
v. Tirrell 34 5
Kingsbury v. Moses 176, 191, 312
Kingsford v. Hood 24
Kingsland v. Chittenden 115
Kiugsley v. Davis 131
Kingston Bk. v. Bosserman 218
Kingwood v. Bethlehem 183
Kinney v. Farnsvvorth 101
v . Flynn 183
Kip, In re 299
Kip v. Brigham 118
Kirby v. Comm 12
v. Masten » — 63
v. Tallmadge 3M
Kirksey v. Kirksey i54
Kirkstall Brewery v. Furness Ry 70
Kitchen v. Smith 185
Kitson v. Farwell 130
Kitteringham v. Dance 321
Kittredge v. Russell 57
Kitts v . Willson 130
Kleiber v. People's R. Co 14
Knapp v. Roche 131
v. Smith 45
Knarr v. Conaway 167
Knickerbocker v. Wilcox 188
Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. Pendleton 53
Knight v. Clements 216, 217
v. Cunnington 92
v. Epsom 284,287
v. House — 335
v. Morse 34°
PAGE
Knight v. Smythe 20
Knights v. Wiffen 265
Knisely v. Sampson. 209
Knobloch v. Mueller 59
Knoll v . State 116, 145
Knower v. Cadden Clothing Co. . . 14, 15
Knowles v. Crampton 177
Knowlton v . Knowlton 189
Knox v. Eden Musee Co 266
v. Wheelock 352
Knoxville Nat. Bk. v. Clark 218, 266
Koccis v. State 142
Koch v. Roth 221
Koehler v. Black River Co 212
Konitzky v. Meyer 132
Koons v. State 154
Koster v. Reed 249
Kramer v. Goodlander 101
Kreitz v. Behrensmeyer 104
Krekeler v. Ritter 129
Kretschmer v. Hard 229
Kreuzberger v. Wingfield 224
Krise v. Neason 188, 197
Kurtz v. Hibner 230
L. &S. W. Bk. v. Wentworth 267
Labar v . Crane no
La Bau v. Vanderbilt 69
La Beau v. People 22, 324
Laclede Bk. v. Keeler 335
Lady Dartmouth v. Roberts 372
Lady Ivy's Case 29
Lafferty v. Lafferty 218
Lafflin v. Buffalo, etc. R. Co 38
La Fontaine v. Underwriters 297
Lahey v. Ottman & Co 13
Laingf. United N. J. R. Co 37, 143
Laird v. Campbell 91
Lake v. Clark 36
Lake Erie, etc. R. Co. v. Mugg 5°
Lake Ontario Bk. v . Judson 242
Lake Shore, etc. R. Co. v. Stupak... 160
Lamagdelaine v. Tremblay 160
Lamar v. Micou 62, 164
v. Pearre 58, 95,99
Lamb v. Camden, etc. R. Co 243
v. Lamb 322
v. McConkey 122
v. Munster 297
v. State 3°2
Lambert v. People 73
In
TABLE OF CASKS CITED.
PAGE
Lambie, In re 99, 263
Lamoreaux v. Att'y General 106
Lampe v. Kennedy 61
Lamson v. Boyden 297
Lanark v. Dougherty 176
Landaff, Petition of 66
Landell v. Hotchkiss 41
Lander v. Arno 130
v . People 8,i2
Landers v. Bolton 181
Lane v. Boicourt 293
v. B. & A. R. Co 65
v. Brainerd in
v. Bryant 13
v. Cole 193, 294
v. Lane 100
v. Moore 49
v. Wheelwright 147
Lanergan v. People 26
Lanfear v. Mestier 169
Lang v. Sanger 31
v. State 52
Langer v. Tate 309
Langhorn v. Allnutt 71
Langhorne v. Comm 326
Langley v. Wadsworth 321, 324
Langworthy v. Green T'p 3i,39, 176
Lanning v. Chicago, etc. R. Co 41
v. Sisters of St. Francis 229
Lanpher v. Clark 50
Lansing v. Coley 312
Lapham v. Kelly 344
Larkin v. Hapgood 46
Laros v. Comm 80
La Rosae v. State ... 301
Larrabee v. Minn. Tribune Co... 45, 161
Larson v. Dickey 4
■ Lasater v. Van Hook 197
Lassone v. Boston, etc. R. Co 91, 95
Last Chance M ining Co. v. Tyler Co. 122
Latham v. Brown 143
Lathrop v . Adams 161
v. Bramhall 190, 224, 31 1
Lauderdale Peerage Case 105
Laughlin v. Street R. Co 142
Lavin v. Emigrant Sav. Bk 119
Lawler v. McPheeters 327
Lawrence v. Kimball 95
v. Tennant 115
Lawson v. Bachman 194
v. Boyden 294
PACE
Lawson v. Conaway 125
v. Glass 341
v. Vacuum Brake Co 309
Lay Grae V. Peterson 65
Lay man's Will 246, 289
Lazier v. Westcott 140, 168, 171, 198
Lazzaro v. Maugham 191
Leach v. Bancroft 176
v. Linde 205
Leache v. State 313
Leahey v. Cass Ave. etc. R. Co 13
Leahy v. Leahy 277
Leas v. Walls 265
Leather Mfrs. Bk. v. Holley 264
Leavitt v. Baker 312
v. Kennicott 227
Leconfield v. Lonsdale 260
Lee v. Pain 234
v. Springfield Co 143
v. State 24
v. Wheeler 31
Leeds v. Cook 194
Lees v. U. S 299
Lefever v. Johnson 57
Lefevre v. Lefevre 233
v. State 77
Le Franc v. Richmond 211
Leggatt v. Tollervey 118
Legge v. Edmonds 256
Leggett v. Glenn 296
Lehigh R. Co. v. McFarlan 259
Lehman-^. Central R. Co 265
v. Glenn 114
Leidlein v. Meyer 177
Leinkauf v. Brinker 160
Leland v. Cameron 91
v. Knauth 322
Lemmon v. Hartsook 101
v. Moore 303
Lenahan z\ People 174
Lendberg v. Iron Mining Co 116
Lennon v . Rawitzer 243
Lent v. N. Y. & M. R. Co 125
Leonard v. Bolton 301
v. Pope 45
v. Southern Pac. Co 157
Leppla v. Tribune Co 280
Lerch Hardware Co. v. First Nat. Bk. 244
Lerned v. Johns 221
Leroy, etc. R. Co. v. Butts 329
Lessee of Clark v. Courtney 181
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Lester v. McDowell 316
v. People 294
v. State 341
Leverich v. State 20
Levison v. State 76
Levy v. People 134
Lewars v. Weaver 240
Lewis v. Comm 20
v. Douglas 229
v. Eagle Ins. Co 316
v. Eastern R. Co 38
v. Lee Co 70
v. Lewis 301
v. Ocean Nav. Co 134
v. Payn 179
v. Seabury 226
v. Shull 239
v. Springfield Co 144
v. State 337
v. Sumner 68
v. Woodworth 67
Lewis's v. Lewis 69
Ley v. Barlow 295
L'Herbettew. Pittsfield Nat. Bk.... 189
Libby v. Brown 97
Lichtenhein v. Fisher 37
Lichtenwallner v. Laubach 47
Lieb v. Lichtenstein 121
Liggett v. Glenn 296
Lightfoot v. People 333
Lilienthal's Tobacco v. U.S 243
Lilley v. Parkinson 116
Lillibridge v. Barber 238
Lilly v . People 247
Lime Rock Bk. v. Hewett 109
Linck v. Litchfield 263
Lincoln v. Battelle 198, 207
v. Claflin 15, 44
v. French 261
v. Haugan 206
v. Taunton Mf'g Co 151
Lindley v. Lacey 226
v. Lindley 239
v. Sullivan 242
Lingreen v. 111. Cent. R. Co 278
Linn v. Gilman 37
Linnard's Appeal 217
Linsday v. People — 23, 31, 149, 156, 276
Linthicum v. Ray 249
v. Remington 290
Lippincott v. Wikoff 279
PAGE
Litch v. Clinch 125
Little v. Edwards 313
v. Herndon 217
v. McKeon 282
v. People 238
Liverpool St. Co. v. Phenix Co.. 163, 164
Livingston v. Arnoux 96, 209
v. Delafield 252
v. Kriersted 272
Llano ver v. Homfray in
Lloyd v. Matthews 164
Lockard v. Comm 335, 336
Locke v. Express, etc. Co 38
Lockwood v. Doane 44
Loder v. Whelpley 247
Loeb v. Willis 122
Loftus v. Union Ferry Co 38
Logan v. U. S 273
Lombar v. East Tawas 38
Londener v. Lichtenheim 273
Long v. Booe 47
v. Colton 101
v. Drew 344
v. Hartwell 223
v. McDow 213
v. Spencer 210
Loomis v . N. Y. etc. R. Co 68
v. Wadhams 61, 178
Loos v. Wilkinson 62,63
Lorah v. Nissley 211
Lord v. State 277
Lorillard v. Clyde 120
Lorimer v. St. Paul Ry. Co 251
Loring v. Whittemore 179, 186
v. Worcester, etc. R. Co 41
Losee v. Losee 56
Lothian v. Henderson 126
Lotto v. Davenport 161
La. Nat. Bk. v. Laveille 269
Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Buck 13
i'. Lucas 145
v. Pearson 12
v. Spencer 250
z>. Wallace 143
v. Wood 176, 177
v. Wright 74
Lovat Peerage Case 105, 106
Love v. Masoner 340
v. People 276
Lovejoy v. Howe 176
v. Spafford 265
Ixii
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Loveland v. Cooley 285
Lovell v. Quitman 217
v. Wentvvorth 344
Loveridge v. Hill 3'6
Lovcsy v. Smith 303, 304
Low v. Payne 92
Low's Case 286
Lowe v. Dalrymple 14, 16
Lowell Mfg. Co. v. Safeguard Ins.
Co 236
Lowenstein v. Carey 192
Lowery v. Telegraph Co 266
Lowney v. Perham 299
Lowry v. State 88
Luby v. Hudson River R. Co 13
Lucas v. Brooks 279
v. De La Cour 71
v. State 347
Luce v. Dorchester Ins. Co 150
Lucier v. Pierce 225
Lucy v. Tenn. etc. R. Co 61
Ludeke v. Sutherland 226
Ludlow v. Warshing 149
Luetgert v . Volker 36, no
Luft v. Lingane 287
Lund v. Tyngsborough io
Lundberg v. Northwestern Elev. Co. 328
Lurssen v. Lloyd 319
Lurton v. Gilliam 206
Lush v. Druse 182
Lyell v. Kennedy 113,292
Lyman v. Bechtel 92
v. Boston 143
v. Philadelphia 335
Lynch v. McHenry 223
Lynn v. Lyerle 289
Lyon v. Manning 72
v. Perin Mfg. Co 121
v. Prouty 280
v. Ricker 95. 99
Lyons v. Lawrence 23
v. People 84
Mabie, Matter of 247
Macdonald v. Dana 222
Macdougal v. Purrier 261
MacDougall v. Central R. Co 251
Machine Co. v. Batchelder 294
' Macey v. Stark 136
M ack v. State 84
Mackay v. Easton 117
PAGE
Mackie v. Story 220
Mackinnon v. Barnes 167
M aclean v. Scripps 180
Macomb v. Wilkinson 91
Madden v. Mo. Pac. R. Co 150
Madge v. Madge 301
Magee v. People 337
v. Raiguel 63
v. Troy 38
Maggi v. Cutts 50
Magie v. Herman 180, 191
Mahankew. Cleland 297
M ahoney v. Belford 161
Maine v. People 13, 86, 97
Making. Attorney General 52
Malachi v. State 302
Malcolm v. Fuller 160
Malcolmson v. O'Dea 355
M alloney v. Horan 121
Mallory v. Benjamin 296
Malone v. Dougherty 223
M ande ville v . Reynolds . 68, 137, 178, 188, 191
Manhattan Ins. Co. v. \2& St. etc.
R. Co 65
Manistee Nat. Bk. v. Seymour 74
Manke v. People 150
Mann v. Langton 3S4
v. Mann 232
Mansfield v. Edwards 221
Mansfield Coal Co. v. McEnery 7
Mf'rs& Traders' Bk. v . Koch 176
Marble z.'. McMinn 115
Marcy v. Barnes 155
Marine Investment Co. v. Haviside. 210
Marine Nat. Bk. v. Nat. City Bk.... 267
M arks v. Beyfus 283, 404
v. Orth 206
Marlow v. Marlow 189
Marsh v. McNair 221
v. Smith 120
Marshall v. Brown 116
v. Chicago, etc. R. Co 87
v. Davies 3X9
' v. Hancock 111,154
v. Holmes 137
Marshfield, In re 394
Marsteller v. Marsteller 120
Marston v. Bigelow • 54
v. Dingley 147,261
v. Downes 187
Martin v. Capital Ins. Co 26,317
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Martin v. Cope no
v . Good 342, 344
v. Gray 136
v. McCray 180
v . N. Y. etc. R. Co 9
v. Rector 213
v. Shannon 32
v. State 30
v. Stoddard 263
v. Towle 328
Martin, Will of 247
Martineau v. May 326
Marx v. McGlynn 48, 254
Maryland v. Baldwin 156
Mason v. Libbey igi
v. Phelps 341
v. Vestal 338
Masserz*. Strickland 118
Massey v. Allen 364
v. Farmers' Nat. Bk 190
Mather v. Eureka Co 345
v. Parsons 176
Mathews v. Munster 69
Mathias v. O'Neil 342
Matteson v. N. Y. Cent. R. Co 47
Matthews, In re 19, 166
Matter of 256
Matthews v. Hoagland 288
v. Matthews 316
Mattox v. United States
86, 109, 284, 285, 327
Maullt*. State 81
Mauri v. Heffernan 188
Maus v. Borne 61
Maxey v. Strong 67
Maxted v. Seymour 219
Maxwell v. Chapman 94
v. Hofheimer 190
v. Kennedy 162
v. State 248
v. Wilkinson 344
May v. Bradlee 30, 142
Maybee v. Avery 123
v. Sniffen 216
Mayer v. Appel 327
v. Dean 220
v. People 42, 44
Maynard v. Buck 50
Mayo v. B. &. M. R. Co < 252
v. Mayo 298
Mayor v . Brady 132, 137
PAGE
Mayor of Baltimore v. Smith Co. 37, 143
v. War 187, 192
Mayor of Bradford v. Pickels 260
Mayor of Bristol v. Cox 291
Mayor of Doncaster v. Day 108
Mayor of N. Y. v. Fay 58
v. Sands 172
v. Second Avenue R. Co 94
Mayor of Swansea v. Quirk 290
McBee v. Fulton 239
McBride v. Grand Rapids 31
v. Wallace 319
McCaffrey v. Carter 124
McCahill v . Equitable Assur. Soc 136
M cCartee v. Camel 258
McCarthys. McCarthy 301
v. Marsh 120
McCarty v. Terry 104
McCausland v. Fleming 103, 115
McClafferty v. Philp 252
McClanahan v. West 136
McClaskey v. Barr 107
McCleery v. Thompson 66
McClellan v. St. Paul, etc. R. Co. . . . 262
M cClerkin v. State 206
McClurgw. Howard 66
v. Terry 127
McCollister v. Yard 188
McCombs v. State 339
McConkey v. Cockey 254
v. Coram 35
McConnell v. Hannah 61
v. Osage 40, 293
v. Wildes 188
McConologue's Case 123
McCorker v. Banks 244
McCormick v. Herndon . 166
v. Pa. Cent. R. Co 343
McCormick Co. v. Wilson 222
McCormicks v. Williams 63
McCown v. Quigley 249
McCoy v. Cassidy 211
v. McCoy 243
McCreery v. Day 223
McCue v. Coram 21
McCulloch v. Campbell 246
v . Dobson 40, 327
McCutchen v. Loggins 335
McDonald v. Carnes 91
v. McDonald 99, 154, 288
v. Montgomery R. Co 252
lxiv
TABLE OF CASES CI'I 1 . 1 >.
PAGE
McDonald v. Savoy 51, 160
v. State 165
McDonough v . Jolly 232
McDowell v. TEtna Ins. Co 180, 192
McElheny v. Bridge Co 143
v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co 318
McEwan v. Zimmer 140
M'Fadden v. Kingsbury 190
v. Santa Anna, etc. R. Co 320
McFadin v. Catron 328
McFarlan v. Triton Ins. Co 113
McFarland v. Accident Ass'n 54
v. Sikes 222
McGarvey v. Darnall 130
McGean v. M anhattan R. Co 350
McGillw. McGill 50
McGoldrick v. Traphagen 92, 93
McGowan v. Chicago, etc. R. Co 319
v. McDonald 174
McGrail v. McGrail 301
McGrath v. Clark 218, 26$
v. Seagrave 281
McGregor v. Wait 65, 184, 194
McGrell W.Buffalo Office Bld'g Co... 38
McGuff v. State 177, 272
McGuiness v. School District.. . 187, 345
McGuire v. McDonald 325
v. Ogdensburgh, etc. R. Co. . . . 40
v. People 272
Mcintosh v. Mcintosh 314
Mclntyre v. B. & M. R. Co 146
v. Levering 161
v. N. Y. C.R. Co 110
McKay v. Lasher 157. 182
McKeanw. R. Co 148
McKee v. Nelson 144
McKeen v. Gammon 68
McKelton v. State 274
McKennap. Paper Co 32
McKillop v. Duluth R. Co 142
McKinney v. Collins 127
v. Grand St. etc. R. Co 293
v. People 307
v. Salem 59
McKinnon v. Bliss 101, 112, 114, 172
McKivitt v. Cone 343
McLain v. Comm m, 149. 348
McLaughlin v. Cowley 161
v. McLaughlin 62
v. Mencke 323
v . Menotti 205
PAGE
McLean v. Fleming 269
v. Jephson 135
v . State 277
McLellan v. Cox 71
v. Longfellow 287
McLeod v. Ginther 10
McLoghlin v. Mohawk, etc. Bk 6, 31
McMahon v. Harrison 51
v. McElroy 257
McMakin v. Weston 191
McManus v. Comm 22
McMaster v. Schriven 287
McMechen v. McMechen 246, 247
McMeed v. Comm 29
McMicken v. Comm 132
McMillan v. Bissell 221
v. McDill 69
McMillen v. Andrews 281
McMullen v. Rafferty 67
McMurray's Heirs v. Erie 261
McMurrin v. Rigby 25, 328
McNair v. Comm 152
McNamara v. Gargett 219
v. State 109
McNeilan's Estate 66
McNerney v. Reading 330
McPherson v. Rathbone 192
McQueen v. State 78, 159
McRae v. State 29
McReynolds v. Burlington, etc. R. Co. 242
v . Longenberger 213
McRoberts v. Bergman 259
McShane v. McShane 301
McSweeney v. McMillen 60
McVey v. Cantrell 312
McVicker v. Conkle 181, 184
Mead v. Husted 41, 239
v. Parker 223
Meade v. Smith 284
Meadowcroft v. People 4
Meakings v. Cromwell 294
Mears v. Cornwall 322
Mechanics' Bank v. Gibson 171
Medary v. Cathers 186
Meeker v. Meeker 147
Meiss v. Gill 129
Mclcher v. Flanders 181
Melia v. Simmons 119
Mellor v. Mo. Pac. R. Co 293
Meltzger v. Doll 28
Melvin v. Melvin 355
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Memmer v. Carey 124
Memphis, etc. R. Co. v. Hembree. .. 188
Menominee Co. v. Milwaukee, etc.
R. Co 172
Mercein v. People 123
M ercer v. Vose 148
Merchants' Nat. Bk. v. Hall 165
Meriden Bk. v. Wellington 49
Merk v. Gelzhaeuser 239
Merkel's Appeal 24
Merkle v. Bennington 13
Merluzzi v. Gleason 322
Merriam v . Swensen 62
Merrick v. Parkman 63
Merrill v. Merrill 344
Merriman v. State 335
Merritt v. Cornell 212
v. Day 66
Mersman v. Werges 218
Metcalf v. Gilmore 121
Metheny v. Bohn 106
Metropolitan Ins. Co. v. Bender ... 212
Metr. R. Co. v. Collins 9, 10
Meyer v. Huneke 214
v. Sefton 189
Meyer Drug Co. v. McMahan 329
Miami Nat. Bk. v. Barkalow 122
Michels v. Olmstead 221
Michigan Central R. Co. v. Gilbert. . 37
Michigan Land, etc. Co. v. Republic
T'p 191. 193
Milbank v. Jones 319
Miles v. Andrew 175
v. Lefi 264
v. State 156, 248
v. U. S 237
Milford v. Greenbush 206
M ill's Case 301
Mill Dam Foundery v. Hovey 212
Miller v. Amsterdam 135
v. Binder 212
v. Cook 62
v. Curtis 161,339
v. Dayton 15
v. Gambie 226
v. Irish 30
v. Lathrop 73
v. L. 1. R. Co 17
v. Miller 67, 125
v. Miller's Admr 317
v. People 79
PAGE
Miller v. Rowan 59
v. Shay 92
v. Stark 214
v. State '. 79, 248
v. Stevens 232
v. Travers ' 233
v. Western, etc. R. Co 338
Miller's Estate 247
Milliken v. Barr 194
Mills v. Barber 244
v. Davis 97
v. Green 169
v . Hallock 19
v. Oddy 187
Milwaukee R. Co. v. Kellogg 145, 148
Mimnaugh v. Partlin 121
Minchin v. Minchin 221
Minet v. Morgan 291
Mink v. State 256
Minneapolis Mills Co. v. Minn. etc.
R. Co 108
Minters v. People 299
Mission of the I. V. v. Cronin 259
Missionary Soc. v. Mead 233
Mississippi Co. v. Vowels 61
Missouri v. Kentucky 115
Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Baier 13
Mitchell v . Jacobs 189
v. Pitts 311
v. Sawyer 330
v. So. Pac. R. Co.. 14
v. State 88
v. Work 161, 339
Mitchell's Case 294, 296
Mix v. Royal Ins. Co 215
Mixter v. Imperial Coal Co 244
Moats v. Rymer 282, 294, 296
Mobile, etc. R. Co. v. Jurey 190
v. Ladd 318
v. Williams 338
Mockabee v. Comm 88
Mode v. Beasley 172
Moeck v. People 86
Moeckel v. Heim 280
Moett v. People 7, 303
Moffatt v. Tenney 251
Mohr v. Miesen 147
Moller v. Moller 301
M olson's Bk. v. Boardman 146
Monaghan v. Agr. Ins. Co 239
Munahan v. Worcester 160
l*vi
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Monfort v. Rowland 316
Monroe v. Douglas 163
v. Lattin 148
Montag v. People 9
Montague v. Dougan 92
M ontana R. Co. v. Warren 143
Montgomery v. Allen 74
v. Be vans 262
v. Brush 72
v. Montgomery 256
v. Pickering 287
v. State 89, 90
Montgomery, etc. R. Co. v. Mallett.. 250
Moody v. Davis 176
v. Tenney 46
Mooers v. Bunker 104
Moog v. Randolph 165
Mooney v. Hinds 140
Moore v. Coram 248
v. Gaus Mfg. Co 197
v. Hamilton 61
v. Livingston 182
v. McDonald 49
v. Meacham 10
v. Moore no
v. People 324
v. Richmond 6, 38
v. Shields 15
v. State 156
v. Williams 137
Moots v. State 91, 342, 344
Moran v. Prather 228
Morehead v. State 75
Morehouse v. Morehouse 10S
v. Mathews 143
Morelock v. State 341
Morey v. Hoy t 178
Morford v. Peck 333
Morgan v. Burrows 231
v. Griffiths 226
v. Railroad Co 264
v. Roberts 282
v. State 238
Morgan's Assignees v . Shinn 221
Moriartyz>. London, etc. R.Co. 23,64,361
Morley v. Green 295
Morrill z;. B.&M.R. Co 194
v. Foster io4
v. Morrill 137
v. Robinson 178
v. Titcomb 61
PAGE
Morris v. Davies 105, 113, 257
v. East Haven 51
v. French 21
v. Harmer 114
v. Lachman 344
v. Miller 155
v. Morris 293
v. N. Y.etc. R.Co 293
v. Patchin 202
v. Spofford 28
v. White 305
Morrison v. Chapin 341
v. Emsley 104
v. Porter 154
v. Smith 254
Morrow v. Comm 194
Morse v. Hewett 171
v. Minn. etc. R. Co 31, 34
v. Stearns 230
M orss v. Morss 281
v. Palmer 337
v. Salisbury 61
Mortimers. McCallan 188
Mortlock v. Williams 192
M orton v. Heidorn 247
v. State 9
Moseley v. Mastin 171
Moses v. Central Pk. etc. R. Co 287
v. Cromwell 286
v. U. S 132
Mosley v. Ins. Co 160
Mott v . Consumers' Ice Co 57
v . Mott 254
v. Richtmeyer 209, 220
Mowatt v. Carow 233
Mowell v. Van Buren 288
Mowry v. Chase 145
v. Smith 318
Moxie Co. v. Beach 294
Moye v. Herndon 218
Muggleton v. Barnett 18
Muldoon v. Deline 231
Muldowney v. 111. Cent. R. Co 145
Mulford v. Mullei 289
Mullan v. State 165
Mullany v. Duffy 101, 102
Mullanphy Bk. v. Schott 188
M ullen v. St. John 250
Muller v. McKesson 44
v. St. Louis Hospital Ass'n 320
Mullin, In re 287,293
TABLE OF CASES CITED,
lxvii
PAGE
Mumford v. Bowne 169
Munday v. Vail 130
Munn v. Godbold 186, 191
Munoz v. Wilson 212
Munshower v. State 56, 117
M unson v. Atwood 239
Murch v . Swensen 62
Murdock v. Waterman ^ 71
Murphy v. Chase 261
v. Gates 58
v. Hanscome 240
v. People . 19, 80
v. Purdy 311
v. State 75, 79, 248, 325
v. Waterhouse 289
Murray v. Chase 22
v. Deyo 118
v. Elston 193
v. Klinzing 218
V. Murray 241
v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co 242
Musselman v. Wise 174
Musser v. Stauffer 146
Mutchaf. Pierce 13
Mutual Ben. Co.'s Petition 258
Mutual Ins. Co. v. Corey 282
v. Tisdale 119, 120, 133
Mutual Life Ins. Co. v . Anthony 108
v. Hillmon 27, 47, 99
v. Norris 264
v. Pinner 138
Myers v. Hudson Iron Co 50
v. Munson 219
v. State 76, 298
N. & W. Branch R. Co. v. Swank 225
N. & W. R. Co. v. Harman's Admr. . 116
Nalley v. Hartford Carpet Co 31
Nance v. Lary 264
Napton v. Leaton 139
Nash v. Classen 165
Nashville, etc. R. Co. v. Johnson 39
National Bank v. Bangs 267
v. Peabody -. 140
v. Wallis 140
v. Zeims 264
Nat. Bk. of Commerce v. Chicago,
etc. R. Co 269
v. Meader 67
Nat. Bk. of Delavan v . Cotton 69
PAGE
Nat. Bk. of Dubois v. Nat. Bk. of
Williamsport 341
Nat. Syrup Co. v. Carlson 331
Nat. Ulster Co. Bk. v. Madden 215
Naumberg v. Young 220, 222, 226
Nay v. Curley 318
Neal v . Flint 222
Neall v. Hart 27
Nealley v. Greenough 189
Needham v. Bremner 119
v. Thayer 140
Needles v. Hanif an 236
Neelz>. Potter 48
Neeley v. State .... 79
Neely v . Neely 56, 182
Neese v. Farmers' Ins. Co 147
Negley v. Jeffers 223
Neil v. Case 217
v. Jakle 25
Neill v. Duke of Devonshire 18, 100
Neilson v. Hartford St. R. Co 313
Nellis v. Cramer 161
Nelson v. Flint 72
v. Mayor of New York 91
v. Pierce 239
Nepean v. Doe 257
v. Knight 257
Nesbitt v. Nesbitt 241
v. Riverside Dist 121
Nevitt v. Woodburn 132
Nevling v. Coram 7, 237
Newbould v. Smith 96
Newcomb v. Griswold 325
v. Newcomb 141
Newell v. Carpenter 129
v. Nichols 258
Newhall v. Appleton 37
N. H. Ins. Co. v. Healey 286
New Haven v. Chidsey 132
New Haven, etc. R. Co. v. Goodwin. 91
N. J. Exp. Co. v. Nichols 251
N. J. Traction Co. v. Brabban 145
New Jersey Zinc Co. v. Lehigh Zinc
Co 60, 116, 147, 1S2, 190
Newman v. Baker 222
v. King 214
v. McComas 68
v . Newman 307
New Orleans, The 71
Newport v. State 263
New Portland v. Kingfield 326
lxviii
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Nevvsom v. State 238
Newton v. Chaplin 193
v. Porter 312
v. State 84
N. Y. etc. Ferry Co. v. Moore 30
N. Y. etc. R. Co. v. Kellam 327
v. Luebeck 141
N. Y. Guaranty Co. v. Gleason 15
N. Y. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Arm-
strong 42
N. Y. Traction Co. v. Brabban 145
Nicholas1 Case 35
Nicholls v. Webb 91
Nichols v. Allen 1S6
v. Haynes 92
v. Jones 68
v. Kingdom Iron Co 188
v . Nichols 140
v. Vinson 93
v. White 67
Nicholson v. State 77
v. Waf ul 7
Nickerson v. Gould 5.7
v. Spindall 180
v . Swett 215
Nicolay v. Unger 176
Nicoll v. Burke 179,223
Niendorff v. Manhattan R. Co 148
Nix v. Hedden . 171, 173
Nixon v. Palmer 261
Noble v. Fagnant 250
v. Union River R. Co 135, 137
v. Ward 374
Noble, Matter of 273
Noden v, Murtay 1S0
Nofire v. U. S 261
Noonan v. State 145
Norris v. Mersereau 132
North v. People 87
North Brookfieldc'. Warren.. 105, 107, 188
Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Urlin 47, 319
Northrop v. Hale 105, 106
Northumberland Co. v. Zimmerman. 199
Norton v. Huxley 130
v . Paxton 246
Norwegian Plow Co. v. Hanthorn... 318
Norwich Co. v. Flint 8
N01 w 1 v. Andrews 270, 336
Nouvion V. Freeman 139
Nowlin V. Burwell 213, 214
Noyes v. State 276
PAGE
Nudd v. Burrows 15
Nunes v. Perry 152
Oakland Ice Co. v. Maxcy 318
Oaksmith's Lessee v. Johnston 259
O'Berg v. Breen 92
O'Blenis v. State 339
O'Brien v. Barry 252
v. Comm 28
v. Frasier 161
v. State 298
O'Bryan v. Allen 280
Ocean Bk. v. Carll 91
Ocean Beach Ass'n v. Brinley 19
Oceanic Nav. Co. v. Compania 131
Och v. Mo. etc. R. Co 243
Ochs v. People 15, 16
Ochsenbein v. Papelier 137
Ockershausen v. Durant 7
O'Connell v. People 243
Odiorne v. Marine Ins. Co 228
Oelberman v. Merritt 282
O'Gara v. Eisenlohr 258
Ogle v. Baker 137
Ohio v. Hinchman 164
Ohio Coal Co. v. Davenport 62
Ohio, etc. R. Co. v. Rooker 68
v . Stein 10, 65
Ohio Valley R. Co. v. Watson 39
Ohlquest v. Farwell 68
Olcott v. Tioga R. Co 53
Oldtown v. Shapleigh 102
Oliver, Information against 251
Oliver v. Bennett 68
v. Palmer 167
v. Pate 291
Olmstead v. Bach 133
v. Webb 289
Olmsted v. Gere 151
Olson v. Peterson 301
Omaha R. Co. v. Martin 251
Omichund v. Barker 307
O'Mulcahy v. Holley 264
( ')' Neil v. Dry Dock, etc. R. Co 150
Opinion of Justices 165, 170, 173
Oppenheim v. Wolf 172
Ordway v. Haynes 116
v. Sanders 9
Oregon Steamship Co. v. Otis. 54,58, 179
O'Reilly w. N.Y. etc. R. Co 147
O'Riley v. Clampt 333
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
lxix
PAGE
Orlando v. Gooding 215, 217
Orman v. State 288
Ormsby v. People 15
Orr v. Hadley m
v. Miller 280
v. State 245
Orthwein v . Thomas 120
Osborn v. Blackburn 164
v. Kistler 211
v. Pell in
Osborne v. O'Reilly 315
Oscanyan v. Arms Co 68
Osgood v. Coates 18
v. Eaton 63
v. Nichols 268
Oskamp v. Gadsden 175
Ossipee v. Grant 52
O'Sullivan v. Overton 181
Otis v . The Rio Grande 135
O'Toole, In re 294
Otterson v. Hofford 56
Otto v. Trump 188, 204
Overlook v. Hall 194
Owen v. Cawley 59
v. State 278
Owens v. Owens 286
v. State 109, 344
Pacific Gas Co. v. Wheelock 146
Packard v. Bergen R. Co 7
v. Reynolds 281
Packer v. Steward 223
Packet Co. v. Sickles 284
Paddock v. Forester 74
Paden v. Briscoe 258
Page, In re 99
Page v. Cole 224
Paige v. Cagwin 63
v. Carter 342
v. Willett 174
Paine v. Ins. Co 164
v. Jones 215
v. Tilden 337
v. Upton 220
Painter v. People 35
Palmer v. Albee 228
v. Crook 47
v. Culbertson 221
v. People 286
v. Sanger 120
v. State 77
PAGE
Palmer v. Trower 324
Pape v . Wright 330
Papendick v. Bridgewater 99"
Paramore v. Lindsey 210
Park v. N. Y. C. R. Co 160
Park Bros. v. Blodgett Co 225
Parke v. Neely 209
Parker v. Butterworth 67,68
v. Dudley 340
v . Foote 260
v. Snyder 221
v. State 12,24,249,313
Parkhurst v. Berdell 137, 280
Parkinson v. Nashua, etc. R. Co 50
Parks v. Mosher 131
Parr v. Grecnbush 200
Parsons v. Mfrs. Ins. Co 342
Passmore v. Passmore's Estate 287
Patch v. White 231
Pate v. State 21
Paterson v. State 327
Patrick v. Shaffer 121
Patten v. Glover 288
v. Moor 291
Patteson, Matter of 133
Patterson v. Crowther 224
v. Gaines , 131, 255
v. Tucker 185
v. Wabash, etc. R. Co..-. 70
v. Winn 198
Pattillo v. Alexander 147
Patton v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co 41
Paul v. Rider 221
Paulk v. State 32
Pawashick, The 146
Payne v. Hodge 94
v. O'Shea 139
v. State 32S
Payson v. Lamson 222
Peak v. State 89
Pearce v. Foster 296
v. Hooper 184
v. Kyzer 104
v. Langfit 170, 172
Pearse v. Pearse 291
Pearson v. Hardin 155
v. Pearson 107
Pease v. Burrows 272
v. Cole 243
v. Shippen 161
Peckf. Brewer ..•• 384
Ixx
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Peck v. Lake 343
v. Ryan 26
v. State 335.336
v. Valentine 343
Pecker v. Sawyer 271
Peckham Iron Co. v. Harper 59
Peebles v. Foote 311
Peet v. Peet 156
Pufferling v. State 339
Pelletreau v. Jackson 182
Pells v. Webquish 113
Pellum v. State 286
Pence v. Waugh 287, 312, 328
Pendleton v. Empire, etc. Co 327
Pennell v. Transportation Co 224
Pennoyer v. Neff 127, 140
Pennsylvania Co. v. McCann 4
v. Newmeyer 177
v. Versten 270
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Kelly 157
Pa. Co. for Insurance v. Phila. etc.
R. Co 35
Penn. Ins. Co. v. Wiler 293
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Fortney 329
v. Lyons 13
Penny v. Corwithe 214
Penny wit v. Foote 139
Pensacola, etc. R. Co. v. Brayton. . . 193
Pentecost v. State 188
People v . Abbott 245, 335, 339
v. Ah Fat 337
v. Ah Fook 21
v. Ah Lee 12
v. Aleck 15
v. Amanacus 337
v. Anderson 116
^.Anthony 4
v. Armstrong 302
v. Arnold 15, 16
v. Augsbury 148
v. Azoff 286
v. Baird 43
v. Baker 119, 127
v. Bank of N. America 266
v. Barber 148
v. Barker 77, 8o, 238, 287
v. Beach 318
v. Beckwith 3,31
v. Bemmerly 88
v . Benson 339
v . Bentley 16
PAGE
People v. Blakeley 288
v. Board of Health 135
v. Bolanger 302
v. Boling 248
v. Borda 232
v. Boscovitch 313
v. Brady 123
v. Briggs 239
v. Brooks 170, 326
v. Buchanan 29, 290, 318
v. Buckland 131
v. Burns 274, 313
v. Calder 205
v. Campbell 20
v. Cannon 4, 251
v. Carney 32
v. Case 330
v. Chapleau 84, 85
v. Chin Hane 175
v. Chin MookSow 88, 341
v. Clark 303
v. Cole 316
v . Collins 135
v. Conkling 157
v. Conroy 23
v. Cook 308
v. Copsey 273
v. Corey 62, 154
v. Cotta 341
v. Coughlin 248
v. Court of Sessions 256
v . Cox 78, 79, 319
v. Craig 21
v. Crapo 321
v . Crowley 276, 325
v. Davis 9, 13. 14. 87, 90
v . Dawell 139
v. Deacons 79
v. De Kroy ft 155
:•. Denison 115, 130
v. Dibble 43
v. Dimick 42, 51
v. Dixon 29
v. Dohring 281, 285
v. Dow 113
v. Dowdigan 109, 347
v. Dowling 276
v. Downs 237
v. Driscoll 26
v. Druse 20
v. Duncan 25
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
lxxi
PAGE
People v. Durrant 324
v. Eaton 20
v. Eckman 78
v. Elliott 302
v. Evans 89,158
v. Everhardt 43
v. Ezzo 238
v. Fair 158,159
v. Fairchild 238
v . Fehrenbach 16
v. Fish 109, in, 263, 347
v. Flaherty 339
v. Foley 52
v. Fong Ah Sing 86,248
v. Foote 321
v. Forbes 297, 299, 300
v. Fox 76, 77, 85
v. Freshour 297
v. Fulda 251
v. Fulton Fire Ins. Co 105, 106
v. Gage 24, 25
v. Gallagher 292, 302
v. Gardner 109, 177, 298
v. Gastro 171
v. Gates 292
v. Gay 338
v. Germaine 314
v. Glover 339
v. Goldenson 177
v. Gonzalez 176
v. Gordon 109, 277
v. Gray 87
v. Greenwall 326, 335
v. Grunzig 89
v. Hall 90
v. Harris 4, 20, 35, 293
v. Harrison 158
v. Hayes 276, 280
v. Hendrickson 7
v. Hennessy 75
v. Henssler 44
v. Hickman 75, 336
v. Hillhouse 324
v. Hodgdon 89
v. Hope 22
v. House of Mercy 135
v. Hovey 314
v. Hoy Yen 80
v. Hulbut : 285
v. Hunt 284
v. Irving , 322
PAGE
People v. Jackson 307
v. Jassino 158
v . Johnson • 19, 31, 177, 339
v. Jones 20, 190
v. Kaminsky 340
v. Kearney 301
v. Kelley 83, 297
v. Kemp 43
v . Kenyon 133
v. Kloss 284
v. Knapp 86, 88, 324
v. Koerner 26
z/.Kraft 88
v. Laird 283
v. Lanagan 86
v . Lane 19, 75, 262, 293
v. Langtree 299
v. Larubia 26
v. Lawrence 341
v. Lee .' 200, 201
v. Lennox 76
v. Linzey 272
v. Lyon 301
v. Marshall 350
v. Martinez 84
v. Mather 319, 320, 335, 336
v. Matteson 272
v. Maxwell 251
v. Mayer 171
v. Mayhew 302
v. McCallan 79
v. McClure 43
v. McConnell 166
v. McCormick 322
v. McElvaine 148
v . McGowan 120
v. McKane 170, 175
v. McLaughlin 35, 53. 343
v. McLean 339
v. McQuade 15
v. McQuaid 205
v. McWhorter 243
v. Mead 35
v. Miller 281, 303
v. Mitchell 83
v. Mondon 83, 84
v. Monella 328
v. Montgomery 143
v. Morrigan 156
V. M idlings 280
z>. Murphy 13.35,49.292,324
lxxii
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
People v. Murray 128, 325
v. Nedrow 251
v . Newman 109
v. N. Y. Hospital 272
v. N. Y. Protectory 135
v. Niles 7
v. Nino 148, 247
v. Noelke 322, 325
v. Northey 285
v. Northrup 276
v. Ogle 23
v . Olmstead 337
v. O'Neil 273
v . O'Sullivan 24, 35
v. Overseers 256
v. Oyer & Term. Ct. 53,317,320,321
v. Pacific Mail Co 114
v. Palmer 344
v. Parish 320
v. Parker 14, 15, 154
v. Patterson 45
v. Paulsell 238, 303
v. Peckens 16
v. Petmecky 303
z/.Phillips 78,81
v. Plath 301
v. Powers 173
v. Quanstrom 277
v. Ramirez 85
v. Rathbun 23
v. Ratz 104
v. Ribolski 243
v. Rickert 122
v. Riley 263
v . Riordan 248
v. Robinson 85
v. Rolfe 142
v. Ross . . . .' 23
v. Ruloff 76
v. Ryan 76, 335
v. Ryland 263
v. Sanders 31
v. Sansome 276
v. Schenick 325
v. Schildwachter 340
v.Schuyler 292,331
v. Scott 20, 21
v. Seelye 136
v. Sessions 49
v. Severance 316
v. Sharp, 35. 159. 3U
PAGE
People v. Shattuck 286
v. Shaw 86
v . Sheriff 296
v . Shulman 44, 49
v. Simonsen 75
v. Simpson 12, 85, 87
v. Skutt 45
v. Slack 157
v. Sligh 109
v. Smith 35, 87, 202
v. Snyder 170, 209
v. Soto 77
v. Spiegel 294
v. Stephens 68
v. Stevens 76
v. Stewart 24
v . Stimer 284
v. Stone 305
v. Stout 169
v. Strait 142, 350
v. Strassman 241
v. Superior Court 4
v. Supervisors 240
v. Suppiger 170
v. Sweeney 158
v. Swetland 194
v. Terwilliger 25
v. Thayer 83
v. Theobald 148
v. Thompson 81
v. Thomson 20,322
v. Tice 298
v. Tuczkewitz 149
w.Tyler 335
v. Van Alstine 276,288
v. VanEwan 317
v. Velarde 101
v. Walker 192
v. Waller 170
V. Walsh 312
v. Ward 80, 248, 347
v . Warden 136
v. Ware 324
v. Webster 321, 323
v. Weldon 245, 327
v. Wells 305
v. Welsh 23
v. Wentz 78,84,85
V. West 293
v. Wheeler 116, 342
v. White 159
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
lxxiii
PAGE
People v. VVhitson 28
v. Willett 26
v. Williams 321
v. Wolcott 79
v. Wolf 263
v. Wong Ah Leong 298, 317
v . Wong Ark 10
v. Wood 170, 245
v. Youngs 148
v. Zeyst 113
Peoples v. Evening News 239
People's Saw Bk. v. Wilcox 135, 136
Peoria, etc. R. Co. v. Rice 177
Percey v. Powers 273
Pergason v. Etcherson 313
Perkins v. Brazos . 120
' v. Concord R. Co 74
v. Hayward 319
v. Stevens 273
v. Stickney 147
Perley v. Perley 250
Perrine v. Cooley's Excrs 224
Perry v. Bowman 229
v. Dickerson 133
v. Lo vejoy 47
v . Moore 318
v. Mulligan 315
v . Simpson, etc. Co 59
Perryman v. Lister 27
Petch v. Lyon 71
Peter v. Thickstun 116
Peters v. Canfield 238
v. Fogarty 285
Petersine v . Thomas 120
Petrie v. Nuttall 134
Peugh v. Davis 221
Pfeferle v. State 279
Pfeifer v. Nat. Ins. Co 231, 236
Phelps v. George's, etc. R. Co 176
v. Hunt 196
v. James 65
v. Nowlen 260
v. Prew 295
v. Winona, etc. R. Co 38
Phene's Trust, In re 258, 262
Phenix v. Castner 325
Phenix Ins. Co. v. Clark 58
v. Pickell 238, 242, 250
Phil. R. Co. v. Henrice 28
Phil. etc. R. Co. v. Hickman 152
v. Lehman 171
PAGE
Philbrook v. Eaton 221
Philips v. Bury 119
Phillips v. Allen 255
v. Jamieson 131
v. McCombs 232
v. Thorn 336
v. Willow 38
Phillipps v. Middlesex 62
Philpot v. Gruninger 209
Phinney v. Holt 190
Phipps v. M ahon 243
Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Comm 114
v. Moog 15
v . Ryland 240
Pick v. Strong 133
Pickard v. Bailey 146
v. Sears 264, 379
Pickens v. Davis 99
Pickens' Estate 104, 107
Pickering v. Noy es 293
v. Reynolds 60
Pickert v. Hair 68
Picton's Case 145
Pier v. Duff 62, 69
Pierce v. Indseth 146, 169
v. U.S 78
Pierce's Admr. v. Pierce 26
Piercy v. Sabine 129
Piers v. Piers 155
Pierson v. People 21, 35, 293
Pigot's Case 215
Pigott v. O'Halloran 220
Pike v. Chicago 143
v. Fay 36
Pirn v. Currell 103
Pinkham v. Benton 343
v. Cockell 152
Pinney v. Andrus 342
v. Cahill 116
v. Jones 9
Piollet v. Simmers 38
Pipe v. Fulcher 103
Piper v. Chappell 166
Pironi v. Corrigan 254
Pitcher v. Clark 312
Pitner v. State 273
Pittman v. State 109, 347
Pitts v. Lewis 170
v. State 352
v. Wilder 61
Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co. v. McGrath. . m
lxxiv
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Pittsf ord v . Chittenden 255
Place v. Gould 24
v. Minster 16
Plainrield v. Watson 251
Plank v. Grimm 176
Plate v. N. Y. C. R. Co 129
Platner v. Platner 57, 3'5
Piatt v. .(Etna Ins. Co 222
v. Grover 261
Plaxton v. Dare 103
Playf ord v. Hutchinson 37
Pleasants v. Fant 66
Plumb v. Curtis 5
Plume v. Howard Saw Bk 119
Plumer v. Briscoe 184
Plummer v. State 247, 248
Plunkett v. Cobbett 283
Plyer v. German Amer. Ins. Co 328
Pocock v. Billing 64
Poertner v. Poertner 239
Poignand v. Smith 191
Pollard v. Vinton 269
Pollock v. Hoag 281
v. Pollock 329
Pomeroy v. Benton 263
Pontius v. People 19, 28
Poole v. Warren 184
Pope v. Ellis 58
Poppleton v. Nelson 240
Porter v. Bergen 254
v. Judson 91
v. Leache 129
v. Waring 163, 170
v. Wilson 182
Porter/field v. Comm 238, 245
Portland v. Richardson 132
Portland, etc. R. Co. v. Deering 143
Post v. State 292
v. Supervisors 206, 207
Post Pub'g Co. v. Hallam 45, 162
Postlethwaite, In re 288
Potter v. Adams 188, 214
v. Baldwin 49
v. Deyo 252
v. Nat. Bk 271
v. Waite 60
v. Ware 282
Powell, Ex parte 19, 166
Powell v. Pearlstine 345
v. State 116
Powers v. Chelsea Sav. Bk 122
PAGE
Powers v. McKenzie 154
v. Savin 94
v. Silsby 101
Pratt v. Andrews 160
v. White.. 92, 93
Pray v. Hegeman 120
Prelford's Appeal 296
Prentis v. Bates 33, 141 , 246, 247
Pressley v. State 80
Preston v. Evans 200
Preston's Case 46
Prevot v. Lawrence 266
Prices. McGoldrick 54
v. Schaeffler 139
v. State 84
v. Torrington 92,93,364
Priest v. Groton 148
Primmer v. Primmer 16
Prince v. Skillin 165
v. State 248
Prindle v. Glover 29
Prine v. State 20
Pringle v. Leverich 67
v. Pringle 209, 316
v. Woodworth 140
Pritt v. Fairclough 94
Probate Court v. May 211
Proctor v. Old Colony R. Co 25, 73
Providence Tool Co.f. U.S. Mf'gCo. 176
Prudden z^Nestor 218
Prudential Assur. Co. v. Edmonds. . 258
Pugh v. McRae 72
Pulaski Iron Co. v. Palmer 240
Pullen v. Hutchinson 186
v. Pullen 324
Pulliam v. Pensoneau 281
v. State 21
Pulsifer v. Berry 150
Puryear v. Comm 87
Putnam v. Bond 231
v. Clark 123,216
v. Fisher 86
v. Sullivan 264
w.Tyler 264
v. U.S 330,344
Pylez>. Pyle 148
Pym v. Campbell 226
Pynchon v. Day 193, 294
Queen v. Halbert 272
Queen's Case 333, 355
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
lxxv
PAGE
Queen Caroline's Case 387
Queen's Proctor v. Fry 113
Quertermous v. Taylor 305
Quick v. Glass 228
v. Quick 101
Quidort v. Pergeaux 119
Quigley v . De Haas 223
^.Turner 273
Quin v. Lloyd 316
Quincey v. White . 28
Quincy Horse R. Co. v. Gnuse 332
Quinlanz1. Utica 38
Quinley v. Atkins 193
Quinnz>. Halbert no
v. N. Y. etc. R. Co.. 145
v. Quinn 123
Quinsigamond Bk. v. Hobbs 335
Radcliff v. United Ins. Co 112
Radcliffe v. Fursman 291
Rae v. Beach 70
Rahm v. Deeg 242
Railing v. Comm 90
Railroad Co. v. Bank of Ashland 163
v. Cunnington 114
v. Nat. Bk 126, 132
Railroad Equipment Co. v. Blair 118
Railway Co. v. Cronin 194
v. Dobbins 177
v. Gardner 143
v. Manchester Mills 50
Rainwater v. Hummel 58
Ralphs v. Hensler 166
Rand v. Dodge 185
Randall v. Lynch 183
Randegger v. Ehrhardt 63
Randlett v. Rice 1 241
Randolph v. Bloomfield 34
Rangley v. Wadsworth 318
Rankin v. Blackwell 52
Ransom v. Wheeler 202
Raridan v. Cent. Iowa R. Co 58
Rawley v. Brown 262
v . Doe 184
Rawson v. Haigh 26
Rayburn v. Mason Lumber Co 183
Raynes v. Bennett 30
Razor v. Razor 58
Rea v. Harrington 175
v . Tucker 278
v. Wood 315
PAGE
Read v . Bishop of Lincoln 114
Readman v, Conway 58
Reagan v. U. S 276
Real v. People 323
Rearden v. M inter 184
Rector v. Comm 80
Redd v. State 341
Reddington v. Gilman 191
Redlich v. Bauerlee 93
Reed v. Haskins 24
v. Ins. Co 229
v. Spaulding 338
v. Wilson 163
Reedy v. Nullizen 258
Reese v. Hershey 50
v. Reese 152
Reeve v. Wood 277
Reffell v. Reffell 220
Reformed Dutch Church v. Brown. . 125
Regan v. Dickinson 46
Reich v. Cochran 121
Reichenbach v. Ruddach 33
Reinhart v. Lugo 174
Reiss v . Hanchett 264
Reitz v. State 32
Remington Co. v. O'Dougherty 209
Remsen v. People 7, 158
Rendall v. School Dist 126
Renihan v. Dennin 293
Reno v. Kingsbury 279
Rensens v. Lawson 211
v. Staples 211
Ressequie v. Byers 125
Revoir v. State 247
R.f. 354
v. Adamson 236
v . All Saints, Worcester 298
v. Baker 364
v. Baldry 77. 363
v. Barnard 29
v. Bathwick 298
v. Baylis 274
v. Bedingfield 12
v. Bembridge xxii
v. Blake 16
v. Bliss 103
v . Boswell 81
v . Boyes 297
v. Brittleton 401
v. Brown 336
v. Butler 245
l.xxvi
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
I'AGE
R. v . Canning 53
v. Carter 43
v. Castleton 191
V. Cheadle 236, 378
v. Chidley & Cummins 83
v. Clapham 94
v. Clarke 338
v. Clewes 21, 82
v. Cliviger 298
v. Cockcroft 339
v. Cole 35
v. Cooper 44
v. Cox & Railton 288,382
v. Cresswell 261
v. Davis 43
v. Donellan 29
v. Doolin 316
v. Dove 149
v. Drage 43
v. Drummond 340
v. Dunn 43
v. Edmunds 25
v. Eriswell 108
v. Exeter 95, 99
v. Fennell 78
v. Flannagan 52
v. Forster 43
v. Foster 13
v. Fowkes 11,12
v. Francis 44
v. Francklin 112
V. Garbett 83,298
v. Garner 52
v . Gazard 281
v . Geering 52
v. Gibson 350
v. Gilham 81
v. Gordon 217
v. Gould 82
v. Gray 51, 358
v. Griffin 384
v. Halliday 298
v. Harborne 257
v. Hardy 16, 283
v. Harringworth 183, 371
v. Hartington Middle Quarter. 123
v. Haworth 187, 188
v. Hey ford 98, 99
v. Hill 275
v. Hind 90
v. Hogg 108
PAGE
R. v. Holmes 338, 339
v. Holt 44
v. Home Tooke 153
v. Hull 227
v. Hunt 190
v. Hutchins 123
v . Hutchinson 90
v. Jarvis 77, 252
v. Jenkins 89
v. Lillyman 24,25, 27
v. Llanfaethly 193
v. Lloyd 82
v. Lord George Gordon 29
v. Lord Thanet 381
v. Luffe 256
v. Lumley 257
v. Mainwaring 155
v. Mallory 73
v. Mansfield 257
v. Martin 339
v. Mead 90
v. Moore 82
v. Mosley 89
v. Neill (or Cream) 52
v. Oddy. . 43
v. Orton 115, 322
v. Owen 83, 404
v. Palmer 22, 47, 148, 151
V. Parbhudas 353
v. Patch 22
v. Paul 83, 404, 405, 406
v. Payne 275
v. Pike 340
v. Reeve 77
v. Richardson 52, 283
v. Riley 339
v. Robinson 83
v. Rowton 159, 369
v. Scaife 108,346
v. Scott 83, 299
v. Shurmer 347
v. Sparkes 383
v. Stanley 51
v. Stephenson 346
v. Stone 252
v. Sutton 112
z'.Tait 347
v. Thompson 77, 275
v. Thornhill 174
v. Turberfield 159
v. Turner 134
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
lxxvii
PAGE
R. v . Twyning 241
v. Walker 27, 356
v. Warwickshall 82
v. Watson 179, 187
v. Wealand 405, 406
v. Webb 271
v. Weeks 43
v. Whitehead 316
v. Widdop 83
v. Willshire 249
v. Woodcock 90
Reynolds, Ex parte 297
Reynolds v. Fleming 138
v. Hussey 44
v. Manning 74, 91
v. Robinson 143, 222, 232
v. Schaffer 279
v. State 240
v. Sumner 91
v. U. S 109
Rhine v. Robinson no
Rhoades, Lessee of, v. Selin 296
Rice v. Comm 301, 314
v. Howard 330
v. Rankans 147
v. Rice 177. 327. 328
v. State 339
Rich v. Flanders 66
Richard's Appeal 187, 196
Richards v. State. 75, 285, 314, 317, 329, 341
Richardson v. Eveland 232
v. Kelly , 327
v. See vers 136
Richie v. State 339
Richmond's Appeal 116, 247
Richmond, etc. R. Co. v. Jones 183
Rickerson v. Hartford Ins. Co 176
Ridden v. Thrall 49
Rief. Rie 301
Rigbyz>. Logan 91
Rigdon v. Conley 317
Riggs v. Powell 152
v . Pursell 122
v. Tayloe 191
Riley v. Boehm 93
v. Morton 239
v. Suydam 70
Rindge v. Walker 113
Rindskopf v. Kuder 330
Ringer v. Holtzclaw 222
Ripley v. Burgess.! 167
PAGE
Ripon v. Bittel 116
Risley v. Phenix Bk 127, 226
Ritchie v. McMullen 140
v. Widdemer 225
Rizzolo v. Comm 80
Roach v. Caldbeck 28
Roath v. Driscoll 260
Robb v. Hackley 338
Robb's Appeal 278
Robb's Estate 104
Robbins v. Chicago 132
v. Robbins 252, 301
v. Spencer 62, 324, 335, 336
v. State 87
Robergef. Burnham 239
Robert v. Good 184
Roberts v. Bonaparte 227
v. Buckley 263
v. Chittenden 242
v. Doxen 189
v. Farmers', etc. Bk 171
v. Johnson 147
v. Medbery 62
v. N. Y. El. R. Co 143,144
v. Noyes 268
v. Spencer 192
v. State 20
Roberts' Will 26, 145
Robertson v. Bullions 233
v. Hay 218
v. People 165
v . Pickrell 266
Robins v. Warden 66
Robinson v. Adams 246
v. Brown 166
v. Dewhurst 101
v. Exempt Fire Co 142
v. F. &W. R. Co 51
v. Gilman 169
v. Mulder 342
v. Myers 215
v. Phila. R. Co 294
v. Phoenix Ins. Co 218
v. Robinson 251
v. Shanks 282
v. State 27, 78, 263
v. U. S 19, 224, 305
v. Yarrow 267
Robison v. State 3°2
Robnett v. People 32
Roby v, Colehour 254
] xxviii
TABLE OF CASES CITE IX
PAGE
Roche v. Brooklyn, etc. R.Co 48
Rockey's Estate 154
Rockford Gas Light Co. v. Ernst 34
Rockland v. Farnsworth 58
Rockwell v. Taylor 10, 68
Rode v. Phelps 165
Roderigasz\ East River Sav.Bk. 119,135
Rodgers v. Crook 190
v. State 166
v. Stophel 5
Rodman v. Mich. Cent. R. Co 122
Rodriguez v. Haynes 213
Roe v. Strong 114, 259
Roe d. West v. Davis 179
Roebke v. Andrews 61
Rogero v. Zippel 205
Rogers v. Allen 17
v. Anderson 67, 97
v. Cady 170
v. Greenwood 68
v. Gwinn 139
v. Ritter 153
v. Rogers 270
v. State 281
v. Wallace 238
Roland v. Pinckney 179
Romertze v. East River Bk 333
Ronan v. Dugan 340
Roodhouse v. Christian 131
Rooks v. State 313
Roosa v. Boston Loan Co 48
Roosevelt v. Eckard 190
Root v. King 112, 162, 206
v. Wright 287, 289
Roper v. State 289
Ropes v. Kemps 198
Roraback v. Pennsylvania Co 56
Rose v. Chapman 65
v. First Nat.Bk 155
v. Hawley 122
v. Himely 118
Rosenbury v. Angell 73
Rosenkrans v. Barker 161
Rosenstein v. Fox 240, 250
Rosenthal v. Walker 54
Ross v. Ackerman 51
v. Boswell 171
v. Doland 264
v. Loomis 105
v. State 78, 176
Rosseau v . Bleau 289
PAGE
Roth v Roth... 140
Rothrock v. Gallaher 329
Rothschild v. Amer. Ins. Co 239
Rounsavell v. Pease 327
Rouse v. Whited 64
Rousillon v. Rousillon 139
Ro we v. Canney 284
Rowell v. Fuller 154
Rowland v. McCowu 115
v. Phila. etc. R. Co 271
Rowland's v. Elgin 38
Rowley v. L. & N. W. Railway 147
Royal v. Chandler 57, 101
Royal Arcanum v. Carley 139
Royal Ins. Co. v. Noble 299
Ruch v. Rock Island 109
Rucker v. Reid 313
v. State 328
Ruckman v. Cory 62
v. Decker 66
Rudd t>. Robinson 114
v. Rounds 27
Ruddell v. Fhalor 264
Rudolph v. Landwerlen 131
Rudy v . Comm 248
Rufer v. State 77
Ruloff's Case 23
Rumsey v. Lovell 344
v. N. Y. etc. R. Co 165
v. N. Y. etc. Telephone Co 93
Runner's Appeal 97
Runyan v. Price 327
Russell v. Cedar Ins. Co 150
v. Hallett 258
v. Hudson River R. Co 56, 341
v. McCall 131
v. Place 130
v. Reed 214
v. Walker 183
Ryall v . Hannam 234
Ryan v. Bristol 142, 252
v. First Nat.Bk 218
v. Merriam 60
v. People 7, 22
v. State 75, 350
v. Ward 222
Ryerss v. Wheeler 229, 232
Sabre v. Smith 54
Sage v. State no
Sailor v. Hertzogg 17
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
St. Clair v. Cox 140
v. U. S 319
St. John v. Amer. Ins. Co 186
St. Joseph v. Union R. Co 132
St. Louis v. Roche 163
v. Weitzel . ." 251
St. Louis Ins. Co. v. Cravens 131
St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Clark 37
v. Weaver 251
St. Luke's Home v. Ass'n for Fe-
males 230, 231
Salas v. State 85
Sammis v. Wightman 164
Samples v. State 15
Samson v. Freedman 58
Samuel v. Borrowscale 198
v. People 297, 298
Sanborn v. Neilson 161
Sanderson v. Coleman 267
v. Nashua 328
v. Peabody 120
Sandilands, Re 211
Sands v. Hammell 91
Sandwich Co. v. Earl 136
Sandy White v. U. S 113
Sanitary District v. Cullerton 284
Sankey v. Cook 154
Sappenfield v. Main St. R. Co 31
Sargeant v. Sargeant 59
Sargent v. Adams 231
v. Hampden 287
v. Wilson 335
Saunders v. McCarthy 71
Sauterz'. N. Y. C. R. Co 117
Savage v. O'Neil 147
v . Stevens 131
Saveland v. Green 180
Sav. Bk. v. Atchison, etc. R. Co 269
Sawyer v. Child 237
v. Hannibal 286
v. White 131
Sayles v. Briggs* 118
Saylor v. Coram 89
Sayres v. Coram 21
Scanlon v. Walshe 255, 256
Schafer v. Schafer 281
Schallz>. Miller 281
Scharff v. Keener 107, 213
Schaser v. State 318
Schaub v. Griffin 258
SchelPs Excrs. v. Fauche 261
PAGE
Schenck v. Mercer Co. Ins. Co 150
v. Spring Lake Co 221
Schettler v. Jones 93
Schindel v. Gates. .• 67
Schisby v. Westenholz 139
Schlemmer v. State 29
Schlicht v. State 172
Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Compton 123
Schmidt v. Durnam 330
v. Glade 281
v. Milwaukee R. Co 303
v. N. Y. etc. Ins. Co 239
v. N. Y. etc. R. Co 285
v. Packard 6
Schmied v. Frank 280
Schmisseur v. Beatrie 241, 252
Schmittler v. Simon 226
Schneider v. Haas 314
Z'. Hill 37
Scholfield, Ex parte 299
Scholfield v. Earl of Londesborough . 266
School Dist. v. Williams 102
Schopen v. Baldwin 125
Schrauth v. Dry Dock Bk 130
Schroeder v. Railroad Co 177
Schubkagel v. Dierstein 290
Schuler v. Isreal 166
Schultz v. Astley . 268
v. Chicago, etc. R. Co 317
v. Pacific Ins. Co 239
v. Third Ave. R. Co 323, 325
Schuster v. State 325
Schutz v. Jordan 54, 242
Schuyler Nat. Bk. v. Bullong 344
Schuylkill Co. v. Copley 273
Schwan v. Kelly 130
Schwass v. Hershey 240
Schwerdtle v. Placer Co 164
Scobey v. Walker 209
Scotia, The 168
Scott v. Donovan 32
v. Harris 289
v. Hillenberg 255
v. Indianapolis Wagon Works. 313
v. London, etc. Docks Co 250
v. McCann 316
v. McNeal 119, 135
v . Pentz 194
v. People 19, 35, 87, 318
v. Sampson 160
v. Waithman 184
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Scott v. Williams 311
v. Wood 243
Scott Co. v. Fluke 95
Scovill v. Baldwin 314
Scoville v. Hannibal, etc. R. Co 108
Seabury, In re 106
Seal, In re 230
Searcy v. Miller 273
Sears v. Terry 136
v. Wingate 269
Sebree v . Smith 282
Seckinger v. M fg. Co 147
Secor v. Sturgis 121, 124
Seeley v. Engell 316
Seibold v. Rogers 186
Seither v. Phila. Traction Co 131
Seitz v. Brewers' Co 220, 222
v. Seitz 280
Selden v. Canal Co 201
v. State 280
Seliger v. Bastian 148
Seligman v. Real Est. Trust Co 294
v. Rogers 116
Selkirk v. Cobb 317
Selma, etc. R. Co. v. U. S 251
Selover v. Bryant 330
Selz v. Presburger 122
Semon v. People 240
Senger v. Senger 229
Servis v. Nelson 181
Sessions v. Trevitt 280
Seurer v. Horst 37
Sewall v. Robbins 56
v. Slingluff 223
Sewell v. Gardner 329
Sewing Machine Co. v. Dakin 215
Sexton v. Carley 266
v. N. Bridgewater 144
v. State 321
Seybolt v. N. Y. etc. R. Co 238
Seymour v. Cowing 226
v. Fellows 145, 148
Shaber^. St. Paul, etc. R. Co 51
Shackelford v. Brown 305
Shaeffer v. State 33
Shafer v. Lacock 243
v. Senseman 227
Shaffnerz>. Comm 3;
Shailer v. Bumstead 49,61,69
Sharp v. Blankenship 61
Shartzer v. State 339
PAGE
Shattuck v. Stoneham R. Co 143
Shaw v. Broadbent 120
V. Emery 335
v. Mason 189
v. Sun Prairie . .'. 40
v. Tobias 163
Shawneetown v. Mason 142
Shea v. Glendale Co 41
v. Hudson 143
Sheaffer v. Eakman 61
Sheen v. Bumpstead 46
Shelburne Falls Bk. v. Tovvnsley 54
Shelby v. Clagett 142, 321
Shelbyville v. Brant 40
Sheldon v. Benham 91
v. Patterson 129
Shell v. State 341
Shelp v. Morrison 193, 194
Shelton v. Tiffin 139
Shepard v. Giddiugs 192
z/. Hill 34
v. Potter 315
v. Wright 140
Shephard, In re 193
Shepherd v. Camden 284
v. Moodhe 122
Shepley v. Waterhouse 67
Sheppard v. Yocum 337
Sheridan v. Foley 250
v. New Quay 268
Sherman v. Dilley 137
v. People 178
v. Sherman 49
v. Wilder 49, 221
Sherwood v. Pratt 180
v. Sherwood 225
Shields v. Boucher 367
v. State 6
Shifflet v. Comm 79
Shinkle v. Crock 152
Shinners v. Proprietors 31
Shirts v. Overjohn 264
Shirwin v. People 339
Shoe & Leather Ass'n v. Bailey 294
Shoemaker v. Benedict 67
Shoenberger v. Hickman 224
Shore v. Wilson 233
Shores v. Hooper 127
Shorey v. Hussey 330
Short v. Lee 365
v. Symmes 225
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
lxxxi
PAGE
Shorten v. Judd 32, 104
Showalter v. State 276
Shown v. McMackin 258
Shrewsbury Peerage Case 105
Shriedley v. State 43
Shriver v. State 258, 262
Shroyer v. Miller 161
Shufflin v. People 7
Shuman v. Hurd 257
v. Shuman 256, 257
Shurtleff v. Willard 316
Shuttle v. Thompson 101
Siberry v. State 28, 238
Sibley v. Waffle 290
Sickraz'. Small 161,162
Sidekum v. Washburn, etc. R. Co... 39
Siebert v. People 303
Silvers v. Potter 221
Simanovich v. Wood 221
Simes v. Rockwell 263
Simmons v. Atkinson 218, 266
v. Haas 57
v. Haven 182
v. Holster 179
v. Rudall 217
v. Saul 140
Simmons Creek Coal Co. v. Doran. . 240
Simon Gregory Co. v. McMahon 314
Simons v. People 87, 325
Simpson v. Dall 188
v. Dix 60, 64
v. Smith 175
v. Westenberger 160
Simrell's Estate 217
Sims v. Sims 273
Sinclair v. Baggallay 210
v. Learned 261
v. Murphy 268
Singer Mfg. Co. v. King 268
Sioux City, etc. R. Co. v. First Nat.
Bk 269
Sisson v. Pearson 216
Sitler v. Gehr 94, 105, 107
Sivers v. Sivers 222
Skaggs v. State 272
Skilbeck v. Garbett 54
Skinner v. Harrison T'p 231
Skipworth v. Deyell 90, 93
Slade v. Tucker 290
Slane Peerage Case 197
Slatterie v. Pooley 178
PAGE
Slaughter v. Bernards 146
Sleeper v. Abbott 287
v . Van Middlesworth 336
Slingerland v. Bennett 46
v. Norton : 74
v . Slingerland no
Slingsby v. Grainger 234
Slipp v Hartley 66
Sloan v. Edwards 324, 328, 335, 337
v. N. Y. C. R. Co 328
Slocovich v. Orient Ins. Co 147, 240
Slocumb v. Railroad Co 264
Small v. Coram » 87
v. Mitchell 122
Smalley v. Appleton 142
Smith, In re 312
Smith v. Aldrich 71
v. Blakey . . 94, 95
v. Boyer 63
v. Briscoe 330
v. Burrus 239
v. Carolin 183
v. Chapin 118
v. Clausmeier 136
v. Collins 66
v. Coram 79, 80, 276
v. Easton 180
v. Ehanert 329
v. Ewing 305
v. Floyd 19
v. Forrest 101,103
v. Frankfield 137
v. Grady 140
v. Law 92, 94
v. Livingston 244
v. Long 290
v. Mason 147
v. Mayfield 222
v. McCool 122
v. McGlinchy 271
v. McGowan 215
v. McNeal 121
v . Morgan 64
v. Mussetter 222
v. Nat. Benefit Society 47
v. N. Y. C.R. Co 185
v. Porter 209
v. Profitt 317
v . Putnam 61
v. Rentz 92. 344
v. Sac Co 244
1 x x x i i
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Smith v. Satterlec 74
t. Schreiner 137
v. Smith 92, 234
v. State 321
v. U. S 20, 215
V. Utesch 329
v . Whippingham 71
v. Wildman 136
v. Wilson 232
v. Yaryan 340
Smith, Will of 247
Smyth v. Bangor 66
v. Caswell 154
Snell, In re 123
Snell v. Bray 22
Snelling, Will of 270, 323
Snider v. Burks 154, 181
Snow v. Alley 221
v. B.&M.R.Co 144
v. Gould 289
Snowden v. U. S 25
Snyder v. Coram 159
v. McKeever 152
v. Wise 202, 203
Solomon v. Kirkwood 15
Solomon R. Co. v. Jones no
Somerset Co. Ins. Co. v. Usaw 239
Somerville, etc. R. Co. v. Doughty.. 318
Soper v. Buffalo, etc. R. Co 65
Sopherstein v. Bertels 251
Souder v. Schechterly 63
South Bend v. Hardy 321
South Mo. Co. v. Jeffries 171
Southard v. Curley 240
Southern Development Co. v. Silva. 305
Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Painter.. 333
V. Robbins 50
Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Painter 164
v. U. S 129
Southern Ry. News Co. v. Russell... 297
South waik Bk. v. Coram 207
South worth v. Adams 99
Soutier v. Kellerman 232
Spalding v. Hedges 114,117
v. Lowe 281
Spangler v. Jacoby 112
Sparf v. U.S 15, 75, 76, 78
Spargo v. Brown 362
Sparks v. Sparks 289
Spatz v. Lyons 56
Spaulding v. Hallenbeck 60
PAGE
Spaulding v. Vincent 146, 198
Spears v. State 79
Specht v. Howard 317
Spencer v. Citizens' Ins. Co 250
v. Dearth 11S
v. Metropolitan R. Co 143
Sperry v. Moore's Estate 316
Spiegel v. Hays 325
Spies v. Illinois 298
v. People ' 22, 325
Spitley v. Frost 122
Spitz's Appeal 279
Spohn v. Mo. Pac. R. Co 327
Spratt v. Spratt 30
Spring Co. v. Edgar 144
Spring Garden Ins. Co. v. Evans 344
Spring Run Co. v. Tosier 122
Springer v. Bien 122
v. Shavender 119
Springfield v. Dalby 318
Springfield, etc. R. Co. v. Welsch. . . 8
Squire v . State 241
Stacy v. Graham 332
Stafford v. Morning Journal Ass'n.. . 161
Stahelin v. Lowle 222
Stalker v. State 43
Stallings v. Gottschalk 93
v. Hullum 290
v. State 46
Stamp v. Franklin 131
Stanbro v. Hopkins 273
Stanley v. Montgomery 280
Stanton v. Crosby 139
Stanwood v. McLellau 343
Stape v. People 336, 337
Stapleton v. King 284
Staring v. Bowen 213
Starkey v. People 89
Starks v. People 336,338
Starkweather v. Martin 211
Staser v. Hogan 325
State v. Able 109
v. Adams 328
v. Adamson 28
v. Ahern 2^1
^. Albert 76
v. Alexander 248
v. Alexis 323
v. Anderson 78
v. Archer 337
v. Arnold 15, 165
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
lxxxiii
PAGE
State v . Avery 317
v. Bacon 321,325
v. Baldwin 86, 87, 342
v. Bait. & P. R. Co 251
v. Barber 302
v. Barrett 167
v. Barrows 288
v. Bartlett 247
v. Bartley 327
v. Bayne 44
v. Beasley 248
v. Beaudet 20, 56
v. Bechdel 123
v. Belton 274
v . Benner 285, 319, 324
v. Biggerstaff 12
v. Bogue 276
v. Bohan 364
z>.B.&M.R.Co 51
v. Boyle 26
v. Bradnack 133
v. Branch 130
v. Brent 325
v. Bridgman 298
v. Briggs 45, 298
v. Brock man 80
v. Brooks 85, 174
v. Brown 12, 80, 286, 339
v. Buffington . , 280
v. Burks 329
v. Burroughs 6
v. Byrne 25
z>.Cady 338
v. Callegari 333
v. Campbell .■ 339
v. Carroll 24, 286
v. Chambers 86, 277
v. Cherry 337
v. Chiagk 276, 307
v. Christian 335
v. Clare 174
v. Cleary 327
v . Clements 248
v. Clifford 68,84
v. Clothier 197
v. Coffee 84,286
v. Cole 20
v . Comeau 1 285
v. Connelly 301
v. Conway 248
v. Coek 24
PAGE
State v. Cooper 156, 284
v. Costello 272
v. Crab 15
v. Craine 88
v. Credle 190
v. Cunningham 170
v. Damery 316
v. Dana 302
v. Danforth 32
v. Davis 77, 193, 285, 294
v. Day 20, 336
v . Dayton 308
v. Denny 165
v. Desforges 338
v. Desroches 12
v. Deuble 12
v. Dickerson 326
v. Dickinson 87, 90
v. Dickson 21, 142
v. Donahoe 248
v. Donelly 274,302
v. Douglas 272
v. Downs 20
v. Doyle 272
v. Driscoll 10
v. Duffy 281,320,339
v. Duncan 12
v. Dunwell 169
v. Dusenberry 301
v. Earnest 263
v. Eddings 84
v. Elliott 20, 88, 109, 341, 347
v. Elwood 325
v. Emery 251
v. Evans 20, 87
v. Falk 313
v. Farlee 174
v. Farrington 152
v. Fay 297
v. Feltes 85
v. Findley .. 189
v. Fitzgerald. 47, 109, 116,288,314,347
v. Fitzsimon 339
v. Flanders 16
v. Fletcher 157
v. Flint 34, 46.338
v. Fontenot 338
v. Foot You 86
v. Forshner 339
v . Fortner 78
V. Foster 252
Ixxxiv
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
State v . Fournier 47, 335
V. Fraunburg 88
v. Freeman 248
v. Fry 20
v. Fuller 263
v. Furney 87
v. Gedicke 48
v. Gee 56
v, George 109, 1 10, 347
f.Gesell 313.335
v. Gilman 84,85
v. Glahn 21, 83
v. Glass 83
v. Gleim 134, 321
v. Glynn 329
v. Goodbier 327, 328
v. Good win 327
v. Gorham 78
v. Grady 285,286
v. Graham 20
v. Grant 16, 190, 224
v. Graves 298
v. Gray 280
v. Grear 85, 247
v . Griffin 78
v. Griswold 6, 154, 294, 298
v. Grossheim 301
v. Guest 276
v. Gurnee 187
v. Hack 321
v. Halstead 180
v. Hamlin 285
v. Hansen 248
v. Harper.. 90
v. Harris 10, 171
v. Harrison 84, 284
v. Harrod 20
v. Harvey 152, 248
v. Hastings 154
v. Hatcher 85
v. Hathaway 251
v. Hawkins 305
v. Hayden 148, 149
v. Hays 172
v. Hayward 262
v. Hedgepeth 289
v. Heed 305
v. Heidenreich 75
v. Hendricks 338
v. Henke 258
v. Higgins 166, 251
State v. Hobbs 84
v. Hocker 165
v. Hockett 263
v. Hodge 245
v. Hodgskins 156
v. Hoffman 245
v . Hogan 314
v. Holden 77, 79
v, Hollenbeck 339
v. Hopkirk 79
v. Horan 10
v. Houser 109
v. Howard 75, 272
v. Howell 158
v. Hoxsie 302
v. Hoyt 7. 20, 33, 280
v. Hughes 156
v. Hull 159
v. Humbird 211
v. Hunsaker 327
v. Hutchinson 76
v. Intoxicating Liquors 171
v. Ivins 24
v. Jackson 23, 248
v. Jamison 22, 42
v. Jarvis 302
v. Jean 305
v. Jennings 245
v. Johnson. . 15, 87, 172, 285, 315, 335
v. Jones 25, 78, 248, 276, 327
z'. Juneau 272, 301
v. Kaiser 9
v . Keefe 158, 329
v. Keith 301
v. Kelley 42, 49
v. Kennade 9
v. Kibling 302
v. Kidd 288
v. Kilgore 88
v. Kinder 77
z;. Kindle 88
v. King 109, 158
v. Kinney 24, 167
v. Kirkpatrick 336
v. Kline 35
v. Klinger 148
v. Knapp 339
v. Knight 331
v. Knowles 75
v. Koontz 154
v. Kuhuke 251
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
lxxxv
PAGE
State v. Lamb 76
v. Langf ord 25
v. Lapage 49. 159
v. Larkin 15
v. Larson 335
v. Lavin 255,340
v. Lawlor 336
v. Lawrence 247
v. Lee 35, i59
v. Leeper 90
v. Lemon 70
v. Lentz 19,352
v. Levy . 272
v. Lewis 248
v. Litchfield 297
v. Lockerby 301
v. Lodge 341
v. Loehr 273
v. Loughlin 197
v. Lynde 197
v. Mace 86
v. Ma Foo 263
v. Magoon 238
v. Main 173
v. Me. Cent. R. Co 172
v. Maney , 302
v. Markins 45
v. Marshall 104
v. Martin 12, 303, 323
v. Mathers 6
v. Mathews 218, 334
v. Matthews 83
v. M ay berry 194
v. Mazon 308
v. McAllister 163
v. McCaffrey 350
v. McCaskey 301
v. McClain 104
v. McCord 277
v. McDonald 52, 120
v. McDonnell 75
v. McDowell 256
v. McGee 15
v. McGlothlen 301
v. McGonigle 215
v. McGuire 325
v. McKean 302
v. McLaughlin 327
v. Mewherter 288
v. Meyers 25, 77
v. Michael 274
PAGE
State v. Miller 83, 276, 342
v. Minnick 169
v. Minor 276, 325
v. Minton 15
v. Mitchell 25
v. Mobile, etc. R. Co 136, 137
v. M oran 79, 286
v. Morgan 79. 85,313
v. Morris 117, 171, 174
v. Mortimer 80
v. Mosley 134
v. Mullen 273
v. Mullins 26
v. Murphy 12,49,315,321
v. Musick 238, 263
v. Myers 77, 167, 168
v. Nelson 87, 159, 337
v. Nichols 298, 301
v, Nixon 247
v. Nocton 22, 87
v. Nowell 297
v. Nugent 35
v . Nulty 251
v. Ober 298
v. O'Brien 109, 325
v. Pain 275
v. Palmer 19, 22
v. Parker 336
v. Patterson 79, 88, 89, 263, 302
v. Peck 212
v. Pennington 170, 276
v. Pfeff erle 321 , 325
v. Phair 91
v. Phelps 84
v. Pike . . 284
v. Plym 249, 262
v. Pomeroy 6, 12, 294
v. Porter 261, 338
v . Potter 45, 79, 261
v. Potts 335.336
v. Powers 170
v. Pratt 276,323
v . Probasco 325
v. Railroad Co 37
v. Rainsbarger 142
v. Randolph 273, 335
v. Raymond 51
v. Reader 170
v. Reed 21,25, 88, 329
v. Reid 25
v , Resells 80
lxxxvi
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
State v. Richart 245
v. Robinson 149
v. Rodman 158, 314
v. Rogers 26,85,335
v. Rome 4
v. Roswell 156
V. Rounds 238
v. Row 225, 321
z>.-Rush 284, 335
v. Sauer 274,325
v. Saunders 317
v. Schmitt 12
v. Schweitzer 247, 248
v. Scott 20
v. Seibert 168
v. Senn 84
v. Severson 240
v . Shaffer 341
v. Shee 263
v. Sherwood 156
v. Simmons Co 297
v. Slack 330
v. Smith 32, 238, 276, 301, 317
v. Soper 283
v. Sorter 330
v. Spaulding 197
v. Spurling 335
v. Squires 84
v. Stackhouse 144
v. Stair 152
v. Staley 80, 84
v. Staples 109
v. Steeves 331
v. Stein 333
v. Stephens 76
v. Sterrett 151
v. Stevens 23, 166
v. Stewart 68
v. Stice 49
v. Stone 248
v. Sullivan 88
v. Swift 87
v. Tall 291
- v. Tally 287
v. Tatro 79
v. Taylor 53, 84,321
v. Thaden 300
v. Thomas 286, 298, 313
v. Thompson 41,154,170,211
v. Tipton 301
v. Trout 247
PAGE
State v. Turner 339
v. Ulrich 166
v. Vale Mills 103
v. Van Winkle 281, 297, 302
v. Vari 285
v. Vaughan 302
v . Vickers 330
v. Vollander 299
v. Wagner 114,169,174
v. Walker 75, 81, 276
v. Wallis 222
v. Ward
31, 43, 142, 176, 177, 248, 322, 338
v . Warford 245
v. Waterman 120,281
v. Watson 148, 274
v. Welch 50, 149, 299
v. Weldon 272
v. Wells 298, 322
v. Wentworth 42, 79, 297
v. West 334
:•. Westfall 364
v. Whelehon 281, 338
v. White 291, 339
v. Whitfield 338
v. VVhitmore 116
v. Whitson 89
v. Wilkins 25
v . Williams 45, 167, 261
v. Williamson 142
v. Willis 277
v. Wilson 166, 299
v. Wingo 243, 248
v. Winston 80
v. Wisdom 84
v. Witham 28, 83, 298, 318
v. Wofford 170
v. Wood 86, 284, 285
v. Woodson 20
v. Woolard 302
v. Worthingham 156
v. Wright 166, 248, 317
v. Wylde 156
v. York 81
v. Young 45, 84
v. Zimmerman 154
State's Att'y v. Branford..., 174
Stauffer v. Ins. Ass'n 271
Staup v. Comm . . 276
Stnyner v. Joyce 216, 328
Stead v. Heaton 98
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
Ixxxvii
PAGE
Steam Mill Co. v. Water Power Co.. 156
Steamboat Co. v. Brockett 8, 70
Stearns v. Doe 188
v. Field 147
v. Merchants' Bk 329, 330
Stebbins v. Duncan 181, 188
Steed v. Cruise 296
Steele v. Lord 188
v. Pacific, etc. R. Co 40
v . Souder 67
Steen v. Bennett 119
Steffenson v. Chicago, etc. R. Co 116
Stein v. Bowman 106, 309
v . Swensen 108
Steinbach v. Relief Ins. Co 122
Steinbrunnerf. Pittsb'h, etc. R. Co.. 117
Steiner Bros. v. Tranum 185
Stephens v. People 148
v. Shafer 132
v. Vroman 55
Stepp v. Frampton 254
Stern v. People no
Sternes, Ex parte 135
Stetson v. Wolcott 93
Stevens v. Castel 212
v. Hughes 122
v. Lockwood 124
v. Ludlum 264
v. McNamara 262
v. Miles 188
v. Minneapolis 147
v. People 24
v. State 297
v. Taylor 223
Stevenson v. Gunning 337.338
v. Hoy 191
v. Kaiser 104
v. Superior Ct 119
Stewart v. Everts 40
v. First Nat. Bk no
v. Keteltas 223
v. Nashville 252
v. Smith 340
v. Stone 245
v. Wells 60
Stewart, Matter of 258
Stichter v. Tillinghast 294
Stier v. Oskaloosa 163
Stiles v. Allen 315
Stillwell V. Patton 216
Stillwell, etc. Co. v. Phelps 147
PAGE
Stilwell v . Carpenter 305
Stimpsonz'. Brooks 312
Stirling v. Buckingham 195
Stitt v. Huidekopers 344
Stoate v. Stoate 124
Stobart v. Dryden 55
Stockbridge's Case 258
Stockbridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Co. 240
Stockfleth v. De Tastet 74
Stoddard v. Winchester 148
Stoher v. Mo. Pac. R. Co 40
v . St. Louis, etc. R. Co 8
Stokes v. Johnson 317
v. Macken 163
v. People 20, 326
f.U.S 154
Stokoe v. St. Paul, etc. R. Co. 187, 289, 296
Stolpw. Blair 338
Stone v. Hawkeye Ins. Co 160
v. Ins. Co 36
v. Montgomery 282
v. Northwestern Sleigh Co 327
v. St. Louis Stamping Co 120
v. Segur 29
v. State 79, 84
Stoner v. Devilbiss . 318
Stoops v. Smith 229
Storm v. U. S 321
Storror, In re 297
Stott v. Rutherford 266
Stout v. Cook 108
v. State 116
Stovall v. Banks 132
Stover v. People 7, 23, 245
Stowe v. Bishop 59
Stowell v. Chamberlain 122
v. Eldred 137
v. Moore 312
Strand v. Chicago, etc. R. Co 238
Strauch v. Hathaway 240
Strauss v. Meertief 126
Streeter v. Ilsley 266
Stringer v. Gardiner 235,377
Stringham v. St. Nicholas Ins. Co.. . 65
Strohmw. N. Y. etc. R. Co 145
Strong v. State 44
Strong's Excrs. v. Brewer 152
Stroud v. Tilton 92, 93
Strough v. Wilder 212
Strout v. Packard 16
Sti uthers v. Phila. etc. R. Co 147
lxxxviii
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Stumore v. Shaw 145
Stumph v. Muller 141
Sturdy v. Jackaway 123
Sturgis v. Work 225, 234
Sturla v. Freccia 56, 113
Sturm v. Atlantic Ins. Co 316
Suburban Elec. Co. v. Elizabeth 224
Succession of Justus 113
Sudlow v. Warshing 185
Sugden v. St. Leonards 100, 101
Sullivan v. Baxter 124
v. Coram 156
v. Eddy 68
v. O'Leary 321
v. Oregon R. Co 10
v. Railroad Co 317
v. State 86
v. Syracuse 40
Summerbell v. Summerbell 301
Summers v. Hibbard 228
v. McKim 344
Summons v. State 109
Supples v. Cannon 281
Susman v. Whyard 221
Susq. etc. R. Co. v. Quick 61
Sussex Peerage Case 99, 342
Sutton v. Bowker 233
v. Dameron 122
v. Fox 273
Swadley v. Mo. Pac. R. Co 40
Swails v. Cissna 285
Swaim v. Humphreys 291
Swain v. Cheney 93
v. Frazier 222
v. Seamans 223
Swampscott Co. v. Rice 54
Swan v. Comm 49
v. Housman 278
v. N. B. Australasian Co... 266,379
Swank v. St. Paul R. Co 129
Swanson v. French 324
Swanstrom v. Improvement Co 65
Swarthout v. Ranier 261
Swartz v. Chickering 344
Sweet v. Owens 287
v. Sherman 337
v. Tuttle 130
Swenk v. People 291
Swift v. Life Ins. Co 24,48
S wink v. French 104
Swinnerton v. Columbia Ins. Co. . 170, 172
PAGE
Swisher v. Comm 88
v. M alone 340
Switzer v. Knapps 211
Sydleman v. Beckwith 142
Sykes, In re 193
Sykes v. Bonner 125
Sylvester v. State 273
Sylvis v. Sylvis 301
Taddiken v. Cantrell 214
Taitz>.Hall 176
Talbot v. Hodson 185
Tallmadge v. Press Pub'g Co 243
Tarns v. Hitner 181
Tancrez'. Reynolds 254
Tanner v. Parshall 64
Tappan v. Kimball 67
Tarbox v. Eastern Steamboat Co 243
v. State 42
Tarsney v. Turner 330
Taussig v. Schields 246
Taylor, In re 234, 258
Taylor v. Adams 196
v. Brown 57
v. Chicago, etc. R. Co 91, 343
v. Felsing 238
v. Foster 289
v. Garnett 284
v. Gilman 23
v. Glaser 211
v. Gould 95
v. Grand Trunk R. Co 60, 61
v. Hess 63
v. Larkin 281
v. M aris 229
v. Morris 240
v. Peck 178
v . Pegram 262
v. State 75, 274
v. Wit ham 98
v. Wright 311
Taylor Will Case 100
Teachout v. People 84
Teal v. Bilby 223
Tedens v. Schumers 338
Teerpenningf . Corn Ex. Ins. Co. 141, 175
Teese v. Huntington 335
Temple v. Comm 297
Tenant v. Tenant 205
Ten Eyck v. Railroad Co 113
Tennant v. Dudley 74
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
lxxxix
PAGE
Terre Haute, etc. R. Co. v. Clem 31
Territory v. Big Knot 73
v. Hart 286
Tessmannz'. United Friends 113, 207
Texas, etc. R. Co. v. Raney 337, 338
Texas Mex. Ry. Co. v. Uribe 259
Thatchers. Me. Cent. R. Co 41
Thayer v. Boston 234
v. Lombard 87
v. Providence Ins. Co 150
^.Thayer 45
Thebaud v. Hume 294
Theisen v. Dayton 288
Thiede w. Utah 315
Thielmann v. Burg 168
Thill's Sons v. Perkins Lamp Co 36
Thoen v. Roche 101
Thomas v. Coram 172, 173
v . Gage 58
v. Hoosier Co 252
v. Hubbell 132
v. Le Baron 185
v. Miller 271
v. Nelson 190
v. Paul 238
v. People 119, 263
v. Price 94
v. Scutt 222
v. State 152, 298, 305
v. Stigers 172
Thompson v. Blanchard 264
v. Bowie 28, 51
v. Coram 77, 80
v. Engle 293
v. German, etc. R. Co 283
v. Haskell 168
v. Higginbotham 311
v. Ish 49, 289, 293
v. Massie 215
v. Phenix Ins. Co 225
v. Simpson 264
v. State 109
v. Stewart 169
v. Wertz 327
v . Whitman 139
v. Woolf 106
Thompson, Matter of 37
Thomson v. Poor 223
Thomson -Houston Electric Co. v.
Palmer 189
Thon v. Rochester R. Co 282
PAGE
Thoreson v. Northwestern Ins. Co.. 239
Thorn v. Weatherly 147
Thornell v. Broctori 231
Thornton v. Britton 108
Thornton's Excrs. v. Thornton's
Heirs 33c
Thorpe v. Keokuk Coal Co 184
Thorson v. Peterson 171
Thresher v. Stonington Bk 282
Thurber v . Anderson 53
Thurman v. Cameron 200
Thurtell v. Beaumont 241
Tierney v. Spiva 319
Tiffany v. Coram 243, 248, 263
Tilden v. Streeter 240
Tillou v. Clinton, etc. Ins. Co 216
Tilson v. Terwilliger 62
Tilton v. Amer. Bible Soc 231
v. Miller 151
Tilyou v. Reynolds /. . 266
Timlow v. P. & R. R. Co 163
Tioga Co. v. South Creek T'p 256
Tisdale v. Pres. of D. & H. Co 59
Titfordz/. Knott 152
Title Co. v. Shallcross 120
Titus v. Ash 335
Tobin w.Jones 281
Todd v, Munson 290
v. Union Dime Inst 211
v. Wich Bros 244
Toebbe v. Williams 217
Tolbert v. Burke 57. 325
Toledo, etc. R. Co. v. Bailey 51
v. Williams 324
Tome v. Parkersburgh, etc. R. Co... 155
Tomlinson v. Derby 329
Tompkins v. Gardner Co 227
Tompson v. Fisher 185
Toof v. Fooley 139
Toohey v. Plummer 328
Tooker v . Gonner 74
Too vey v. Baxter 278
Topeka v. Sherwood 38
Topliff v. Jackson 58
Toplitz v. Hedden 171
Totten v. Bucy 179, 194
v. U.S 283
Towle v. Wadsworth 240
Town v. Smith 122
Townsend v. Masterson Co 68
v. Pepperell 95
xc
TABLE- OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Tovvnsend v. Rackham 212
Townshend v. Howard 217
Traction Co. v. Bd. of Works. 198, 199, 201
Tracy v. Goodwin 132
Trambly v. Ricard 220
Trammell v. Hudmon 95
Transportation Co. v. Downer 246
Transportation Line v. Hope 145
Trasher v. Everhart 212
Trask v. People 6
Travis v. Brown , 155
Trayhern v. Colburn 129
Treadway v . S. C. etc. R. Co 68
Treadwell v. Whittier 250
Trelawney v. Coleman 47
Trelevert>. Northern Pac. R. Co 192
Tremblay v. Harnden 38
Trevor v. Wood 180
Trevorrow v. Trevorrow 262
Triplett v. Goff's Admr 51
Troeder v. Hyams 182
Trotters. Maclean 54
Truesdell v. Chumar 65
Trustees v. Bledsoe 343
v. Blount 296
v. Colegrove 231
Trustees of Canandarqua Academy
v. McKechnie 200, 212
Trustees of Charities v. Connolly ... 182
Tucker v. Linger 19
v. Seamen's Aid Society.. . 231, 233
v. Shaw 272
v. Woolsey 188
Tudor Iron W^rks v. Weber 320
Tufts v. Charlestown 26
Tunstall v. Cobb 154
Turnbull v. Payson 114. 169, 202
v. Richardson 3'8
Turner, In re 105, 113
Turner v. Green 181
z>. Hardin 62,239
v. Newburgh 145
V. Roby 136
v. Shaw 240
v. State 89
Turner's Admr. v. Patton 169, 172
Turner's Estate 289
Turnpike Co. v. Baily 177
v. M'Kean 113
Turpin v. State 20
Turquand v. Knight 290
PAGE
Turton v. N. Y. Recorder Co 45
Tuska v. O'Brien 126
Tute». James 132
Tuttle v. Burgett 220
Twogood v. Mayor 53
Twomley v . C. P. N. R. Co 14
Tyler v. Fickett 231
v. Flanders 104
v. Hall 290
Udderzook's Case i"7
Udderzook v. Comm 28
Ufford v. Spaulding 146
Uggla v. West End R. Co 250
Uhl v. M oorhous 190, 224
Ulinew. N. Y. Cent. R. Co 123
Ulmer v. Farnsworth 19
Ulrich v . People 79
v. Ulrich 5
Uniacke v. Chicago, etc. R. Co 320
Union v. Plainfield 104
Union Bk. v. Knapp 91
Union Dime Saw Inst. v. Wilmot.. . 264
Union Nat. Bk. v. Underhill 66
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford 177
v. 0"Brien 319
U. S. v . Amedy 206
v. Angell 109
v . Babcock 54, 193
v . Bay aud 76
v. Boyd 56
v. Budd 240
v. Corwin 113
v. Dickinson 320
v. Duff 192
v. Duffy 83
v. 18 Barrels, etc 318
v. Farrington 286
v. Griswold 63
v. Guiteau 149, 278, 280
v. Hall 305
v. Hinz 79
v. Howell 302
v. Hunter 193
v. Jackson 171
v Johnson 15
v. Macomb 109
v. Mayer 305
v . Moses 283
v. Mulholland 97
v. Mullaney 155
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
xci
PAGE
U. S. v. Negro Charles 2S6
v. Nelson 251
v. Noelke 54
v. Parker 122
v. Percheman 201
v. Perot 163
v. Pocklington 80
v. Rauscher 169
v. Stone 79, 80
v. Thompson 303
v. Tilden 193, 294
». Trumbull 283
v . Van Sickle 335
v. Williams 53
v. Wood 305
U. S. Express Co. v. Jenkins 239
U. S. Life Ins. Co. v. Vocke in
Unity v. Burrage 163
University v. Harrison 258
Upham v. Salem 34
Upthegrove v. State 20
Upton v. Bernstein 100, 182
Utica Ins. Co. v. Cadwell 192
Vadala v. Lawes 138
Vahle v. Brackenseik 166, 173
Vaise v. Delaval 284
Valentine's Will 99, 100
Van Aernam v. Van Aernam 255
Van Bokkelen v. Berdelle 321
v. Taylor 210
Van Brunt v. Day 222
Vance v. State 313
Vander Donct v. Thellusson 146
Vanderpool v. Richardson 144
Vandervoort v. Dewey 233
v . Smith 169
Vanderwerken v. Glenn 114
Van Duyne v. Thayre 60
Vane v. Evanston 177
Van Gelder v. Van Gelder 59
Van Houten v. Post 232
Van Keuren v. Parmelee 66
Vann v. State 20
Vanneter v. Crossman 57
Van Nostrand v. Moore 230
Vannoy v. Klein 66
Van Rensselaer v, Jones 181
v. Vickery 210
Van Sickle v. Gibson 104
Van Storch v. Griffin 161, 202
PAGE
Van Tassel v. State 240
Van Wie v. Loomis 93
Van Wycklen v. Brooklyn 145
Yauterz'. Hultz 160
Veazie v. Forsaith 229
Veginan v. Morse 50
Veiths v. Hagge 242
Verdelli v. Gray's Harbor Co 291
Vicksburg, etc. R. Co. v. O'Brien. .
9, 10, 56, 343
v. Putnam 39, 117
Vilas v. Plattsburgh, etc. R. Co 138
Viles v. Waltham 26
Village of Pt. Jervis v. First Nat. Bk. 132
Vilmar v. Schall 93
Vinton v. Peck 154
Violet v. Rose 152
Vogel v. Gruaz 283
v. Osborne 58
Vogt v. Cope 117
Volant v. Soyer 295
Volkmar v. Manhattan R. Co 243
Von Pollnitz v. State 12
Von Sachs v. Kretz 63, 72, 189
Vooght v. Winch 129
Voorhees, In re 217
Vosburgh v. Thayer 92
Vose v. Dolan 218
Vrooman v. Griffiths . . 319
Wadez'. Ridley 287
v. State 238
Wadsworth v. Sharpsteen 118
v. Williams 61
Wagenseller v. Simmers 28
Wait v. Borne 70
Waite v. Coaracy 258
Wakeman v. Bailey 296
Walbridge v. Knipper 108, no, m
Waldele v. N. Y. C. R. Co.. . 8, 10, 12, 87
Walden v. Davison 192
Waldron v. Waldron 174
Walker v. People 247
v. Phcenix Ins. Co ... 337,338
v. Robinson 263
v. Walker 213
v. Wilsher 74
Wall v. Wall 136
Wallace v. Central Vt. R. Co 49
v . Harmstad 214
v. People 350
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Wallace v. Schaub M.3
v. Story 55
v. Taunton St. Ry 322
v. U.S 176
v. Wallace 320
Wallace's Case 156
Wallach v. Wylie 329, 341
Waller v. Graves 4
v. Stewart 344
WallisD Littell 226
v . Luhring 262
v. Randall 67
v. White 335
Wallize v. Wallize 233
Walls v. Bailey 224
Walrath v. Whittekind 228
Walsh v. Chesapeake, etc. R. Co 126
v. People 19. 33
v. Porterfield 318
Walter v. Gernant 9
Walters v. State 248
Walton v. Stafford 173
v. State 335
Wandell v. Edwards 340
Ward v. Boyce 140
v. Dick 45
v. Henry 168
v. Kilpatrick 176
v, Oxford 102
v. People 80
v. State 299
Warder v. Willyard 214
Ware v. Allen 226
v. State 248
Waring v. Smyth 215
Warner v. B. & O. R. Co 183
v. Lockerby 162, 335
v. Press Co 280
Warren v. Carey 69
v. Gregg 220
v. Spencer Co 284
V. Warren 54
Washburn v. Cuddihy 116
v. Milwaukee R. Co 37
Washington & Lee Univ., Appeal of. . 230
Water Commrs. v. Lansing 200
Waterman v. Chic. etc. R. Co. . . 116, 328
v. Whitney 26, 49
Waters v. Bishop 220
Watkins :•. Holman 206
v. Pintard 194
PAGE
Watkins v. Rist 319
Z'-State 335.336
Watry v. Ferber 339
Watson, In re 136
Watson v. Brewster 104
v. Riskamire 317
v. Rodwell 174
v. Walker 198, 207
Watt v. People 25, 276
Watts v. Owens 255
Wausau Boom Co. v. Dunbar 243
Way land v. Ware 200
Weaver v. Bromley 56
v. Leiman 94. 104
v. State 248
Webb v . Bird 260
v. Buckelew 121 , 122
v. Dye 185
v. East 299
v. Richardson 107
v. State 337
Webber v. Sullivan 247
Webster v. Le Compte 62, 271
v. Mann 341
Weed v. People 35
Weeks v. Lowerre 108
v. Need ham 66
v. Smith 165
v . Sparke 100, 366
Wegg Prosser v. Evans 131
Wehle v. Spelman 73
Weigand v. Sichel 183
Weir v. Marley 123
Weiss v. Guerineau 137
Welch v. Abbott 327
v. Jugenheimer 241
Welcome v. Batchelder 281 , 341
Weldon v. Harlem R. Co 41
Wellford v. Eakin 181
Wellington v. Jackson 72
Wells v. Company 167
v . Jackson Iron Co 182
v. Kavanagh 70
v . Mo. Pac. R. Co 169
v. Stevens 135
Wells' Admr. v. Ayres 93
Wendlinger v. Smith 222
Werners State 273
Wertheim v. Continental R. Co. 294, 296
Werts v. Spearman 160
\Vertzz>. May 337
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Wesner v. Stein 57
West v. Druff 34°
v. Rassman 233
v. St. Paul Nat. Bk 46
v. Smith 74
v. State 90
v. Van Tuyl 92
Westbrook v. Fulton 194
v . People 87
Westcott v. Atlantic Co 296
v. Edmunds 122, 129
Western Assurance Co. v . Towle 66
Western Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Boughton.. 334
Western Stone Co. v. Whalen 37, 46
Western Trans. Co. v. Barber 268
Western Union Tel. Co. v. Hines... 344
v . Hopkins 179
West Haven Co. v. Redneld 223
Weston v. Eames. . . : 225
West Virginia v. Cain 104
Wetherbee v. Baker 113
v. Fitch 68
v. Norris 335
v. Winchester 294
Wetmore v. Carryl 217
Weyerhauser v. Dun 218, 268
Weyman v. People 52
Whalen v. Citizens' Gas Co 252
Wharam v. Routledge 344
Wheatly v. Baugh 260
Wheeler v. Ruckman 121
v. Sweet 132
v. Thomas 329
v. U. S 272
v. Walker 90
Whelan v. Lynch 116
Whipple v. Barton 254
v. Whitman 68
Whitaker v. Hawley 125
v. Izod 294
v. Jackson 129
v. Marsh 108
v. Salisbury 330
Whitcher v. McLaughlin 94
v. Morey... no
v. Shattuck 46
Whitcomb v. Rodman 231
v. Whiting 69, 71
White v . Beaman 97
v. Beatty 142
v. Chouteau 95
PAGE
White v. Comm 272
v. Continental Nat. Bk 267
v. Graves 7
v. Merritt 121
v. Miller 65
v. Milwaukee R. Co 177
v. Murtland 161,340
v. Old Dominion St'p Co 74
v. Ross 254
v. State 85,285, 330
v. Tolliver 152
v. Weatherbee 123
v. White 156, 329
W.Whitney 93
v. Wood 181
White Co. v. Gordon 180
Whitehead v. Kennedy 249
Whitehouse v. Bickford 115
Whiteley v. Equitable Assur.Soc. 258, 262
Whitford v. Clark Co 313
v. Laidler 226
Whiting v. Burger 129
Whitlatch v. Fidelity, etc. Co 238
Whitlock, In re 296
Whitman v. Henneberry 213
v. Morey 176, 319, 33°. 333
v. Shaw 115. 214
v. State 173
Whitmore v. Supr. Lodge Knights. . . 51
Whitney v. Leominster 5°
v . Marshall 130
v. Thacher 116
Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow 240
Whitney Works v. Moore 54
Whitonz>. Albany, etc. Ins. Co. 112,117,206
v. Snyder 58, 62, 143
Whitsett v. Chicago, etc. R. Co 50
Whittaker v. Delaware, etc. R. Co. . 37
Whittlesey v. Frantz 119
Whittuck v. Walters 107
Whitworth v. Erie R. Co 246
Whyman v. Garth 183, 371
Wickersham v. Johnston 208
Widdifield v. Widdifield 224
Wiedemann v. Walpole 58, 300
Wiggin v . B. & A. R. Co 61
v. Goodrich 226
Wiggins v. Burkham 58, 172
v . People 20
Wiggins Co. v. Ohio, etc. R. Co 122
Wigginton v. Comm 84
iABLE OF CASES CITED.
PACK
Wigglesworth v. Dnllison 224, 374
W'ikoff s Case 217
Wilber v. Selden . . no
Wilberforce v. Hearfield 115
Wilder v. Cowles 242
Wiley v. West Jersey R. Co 40
Wilkerson v. Eilers 333
Wilkie v. Collins 241
Wilkins v. Babbershall 328
Wilkinson v. State 115
Willard v. Goodenough 335
Willett v. People 77
v. Rich 237, 246
Willey v. Portsmouth 103
Williams v. Bass 211
v. Bridges 72
v. Brooklyn Elev. R. Co 116
v. Comm 84, 304, 3S3
v. Conger 154
v. Dickenson 239
v. East India Co 241
v. Edmunds .• 160
v. Edwards 271
v . Flood 223
v. Floyd 183
v. Freeman 220
v. Graves 98
v. Lewis 71
v. Montgomery 284
v. Robinson 246
v. Sergeant 61, 315
v. Spencer 141
v . State 80, 85, 154, 177, 298, 317
v. Walbridge 271
v. Wilkes 169
v. Williams 62, 63, 128, 249
Williamsburgh Bk. v. Solon 216
Williamson v. Cambridge R. Co 10
Willis z>. Hulbert 226
Willoughby v. Irish 67
Willson v. Betts 181, 213
v. Manhattan R. Co 133
Wilson, Matter of 271
Wilson v. Anderton 268
v. Babb 255
v. Beauchamp '. 154
v. Boerem 87
v. Bowden 72
v. Deen 223
v. Doran 58
v. Granby 41, 47
TAGE
Wilson v. Hayes 217
v. Hotchkiss' Estate 216
v. Kings Co . . 317
v. New Bedford 260
v. Noonan no
v. O'Day 69
v. Parshall 240
v. Phenix Mf'gCo 164
v. Powers 222
v. Randall 219
v. Rastall 289
f.State 84,335
v. Sullivan 236
v . U. S 77, 83, 85, 177, 245, 276
v. Van Leer 153, 173
v. Waugh 67
z\ Webber 294
Wilson's Excr. v. Deen 120, 126
Wimer v. Smith 335
Winchell v. Edwards 263
v. Winchell 329
Winchester, etc. R. Co. v. Creary... 62
Windmill Co. v. Piercy 219
Wing v. Angrave 258
v. Bishop 59, 126
v. Chesterfield 350
Winkley v. Kaime 234
Winn v. Patterson 186
Winnipiseogee Lake Co. v. Young.. 170
Winooski v. Gokey 163
Winship v. Conner 258
Winslow v. State 191, 194
Winsor v. R 275
Wisdom v. Reeves 213
Wise v. Ackerman 34
v. Phoenix Ins. Co 342
v. Wynn 104
Wisemans. N. P. R. Co 189
Withee v. Rowe 155
Withington v. Warren z8i
Witmarkw. N. Y. Elev. R. Co 37
Wixson v. Devine 129
Wodock v. Robinson 220
Wohlford v. People 116, 176
Wolf v. Comm 80
Wolfe v. Mo. Pac. R. Co 175
Wolford v. Farnham 189, 279
Womack v. Tankersley 156
Wood v. Chetwood 280
v. Cullen 189
v. Fiske 61
TABLE OF CASES CITED.
PAGE
Wood v. Fowler 170
v. Hammond 233
v. Ins. Co 171
v. Matthews 336
v. Morehouse 261
i'. State g, 20, 84
v. Steele 218
Woodcock v. Houldsworth 54
v. Worcester 40
Woodman v. Segar 182
Woodruff v. Woodruff 124
Woods v. Burke 180
v. Hilderbrand 214
v. Keyes 109
v. Montevallo.etc. Co 46
v. People 339
v. State 276,299
Woodstock Iron Co. v. Reed 184
Woodward v. Goulstone 101
v. Leavitt 284
Woodworth v. Mills 161
Woolfolk v. State 85
Woolsey v. Bohn 93
Woolverton v. Van Syckel 271
Woonsocket Inst. v. Ballou 67
Wooster v. Broadway, etc. R. Co 51
v. Butler 101
Wootters v. Kauff man 305
Wootton v . Redd's Excrs 228
Worcester v. Northborough 112
Worcester Nat. Bk. v. Cheney 170
Worden v. Humeston, etc. R. Co 117
Worthington v. Mencer 272
v. Scribner 283
Wottrich v. Freeman 278
Wren, Ex parte 165
Wright v. Abbott 287
v. Anderson 120
v. Boston 102
v . Crawfordsville 50
v. Doe d. Tatham 27, 143
v . Griffey , 121
v. Maseras 26, 73
v. McCampbell 281
v. Nostrand , 19
PAGE
Wright v. Paige 335
v. Towle 65
v. U. S 204
v. Wright 7, 262
Wroe v. State 341
Wrye v. State 77
Wynne v, Newman 4
Xenia Bk. v. Stewart 32, 65
Yale v. Comstock no, in
Yarbrough v. State 116, 276, 336, 338
Yates v. Fassett 121
v. People 36
Yocum v. Smith 265
Yoho v. McGovern 131
York v. Pease 320
York Co. v. Central R. Co 312
York, etc. R. Co. v. Winans 168
Yost v. Conroy 144
Young v. Clare Hall 365
v. Comm 79
v. Duvall 240
v. Edwards 319
v. Grote 265, 379
v. Highland 243
v. Johnson 160, 339
v. Kansas City, etc. R. Co 101
v. Makepeace 32
v. Newark Ins. Co 176
v. Perkins 97
v. Sage 108
v. State 80, 89
Youngs v. Youngs 297, 298
Yount v. Howell 167
Zabriskie v. State 301
Zell's Appeal 266
Zellerbach v. Allenberg 188
Zimmerman v. Barber 221
v. Bitner 2^4
v. Bloom 95
v. Camp 216
Zitskef. Goldberg 281
Zoldoske v. State , 52
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
(ENGLISH AND IRISH REPORTS, ETC.)
A. & E Adolphus & Ellis's Reports.
A C )
'" [ Appeal Cases.
App. Cas )
Atk , Atkyn's Reports.
" „ ■' " {-Barnewall & Alderson's Reports.
B. & Aid >
B. & Ad Barnewall & Adolphus's Reports.
B. & B Broderip & Bingham's Reports.
B.&C Barnewall & Cresswell's Reports.
B.&S Best & Smith's Reports.
Beav Beavan's Reports.
Bell Bell's Crown Cases.
Best Best on Evidence, 6th ed.
Bing Bingham's Reports.
Bing. N. C Bingham's New Cases.
Bligh, N. S Bligh's House of Lords' Reports, New Series.
B. & P Bosanquct & Puller's Reports.
Br. P. C Brown's Parliamentary Cases.
™' n ' F'x't t, r Buller's Nisi Prius.
Buller, N. P I
Burr Burrows' Reports.
C. A Court of Appeal.
Camp Campbell's Reports.
C. & F Clark & Finnelly's Reports.
C.&J Crompton & Jervis's Reports.
C. & K Carrington & Kirwan's Reports.
C. & M Carrington & Marshman's Reports.
C. & P Carrington & Paine's Reports.
C. B Common Bench Reports.
C. B. (N. S.) Common Bench Reports, New Series.
Ch. App Chancery Appeals.
Ch.D ) „, p.. . .
_,, _. J- Chancery Division.
Ch. Div )
C. C. R Crown Cases Reserved.
C. M. & R Crompton, Meeson, & Roscoe's Reports.
Cowp Cowper's Reports.
Cox, Cox's Crown Cases.
C. P Common Pleas ; Common Pleas Reports.
C.P.D > „ „, TV • ■
_ _ _, [•Common Picas Division.
C. P. Div )
xcviii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
D. & B Dearsley & Bell's Crown Cases.
Dears Dearsley 's Crown Cases.
De G. & J De Gex & Jones's Reports.
De G. M & G De Gex, Macnaghten, & Gordon's Reports.
DeG. & S De Gex & Smale's Reports.
Den. C. C Denison's Crown Cases.
Doug Douglas's Reports.
Dru. & War Drury & Warren's Reports.
Ea East's Reports
East, P. C East's Pleas of the Crown.
E. & B Ellis & Blackburn's Reports.
E. & E Ellis & Ellis's Reports.
E. & I. App English & Irish Appeals.
Esp Espinasse's Reports.
Ex Exchequer Reports.
Ex' D I Exchequer Division.
Ex. Div )
F. & F Foster & Finlason's Reports.
Godb Godbolt's Reports.
Hale, P. C Hale's Pleas of the Crown.
Hare Hare's Reports.
H. Bl H. Biackstone's Reports.
H. L House of Lords Reports.
H. & C Hurlstone & Coltman's Reports.
H. & N Hurlstone & Norman's Reports.
H. L. C House of Lords Cases.
Ir. Cir. Rep Irish Circuit Reports.
Ir. Eq. Rep Irish Equity Reports.
Jac. & Wal Jacob & Walker's Reports.
Jebb, C. C Jebb's Criminal Cases (Ireland).
L. & C Leigh & Cave's Crown Cases.
Leach Leach's Crown Cases.
L.J.Ch Law Journal, Chancery.
L. J. Eq Law Journal, Equity.
L. J. M. C Law Journal, Magistrates' Cases.
L. J. N.S Law Journal, New Series.
L J Q B Law Journal, Queen's Bench.
L. R Law Reports. (See Q. B., Q. B. D., C. P.. C. P. D.. Ex.
Ex. D , etc.)
Madd Maddock's Reports.
Man. & R Manning & Ryland's Reports.
McNally, Ev McNally's Rules of Evidence.
M. & G Manning & Granger's Reports.
M. &M Moodj & Malkin's Reports.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
M. & S Maule & Selwyn's Reports.
M. & W Meeson & Welsby's Reports.
Moody
Moo. C. C
M.&R
Mo. &Ro
Moo. P. C Moore's Privy Council Reports.
> Moody's Crown Cases.
> Moody & Robinson's Reports.
P Probate Court.
P. D Probate Division.
P. & D Probate & Divorce.
Pea Peake's Reports.
Ph. Ev Phillips on Evidence, ioth ed.
Phill Phillips' Reports.
Q. B Queen's Bench; Queen's Bench Reports.
Q. B. D Queen's Bench Division.
Rep Coke"s Reports.
R. N P Roscoe's Nisi Prius, 13th ed.
R. & R Russell & Ryan's Crown Cases.
Roscoe, Cr. Ev Roscoe's Criminal Evidence.
Russ. Cri )„ ., „ . ., ,
^ _ . > Russell on Crimes, 4th ed.
Russ. on Crimes )
R. & M Russell & Mylne's Reports.
Ry. & Mo Ryan & Moody's Nisi Prius Reports.
Sc. App Scotch Appeals.
Selw. N P Selwyn's Nisi Prius.
Sim Simon's Reports.
Sim. (N. S.) Simon's Reports, New Series.
Sim. & Stu Simon & Stuart's Reports.
S L C I
_" ..', 'J "A" [-Smith's Leading Cases, 7th ed.
Smith, L. C )
Stark Starkie's Reports.
Stark. Ev -Starkie on Evidence, 4th ed.
S.&T
Sw. &Tr
S. T, or St. Tri State Trials.
Story's Eq. Juris Story on Equity Jurisprudence.
[Swabey & Tristram's Reports.
T. E Taylor on Evidence, 6th ed.
T. R Term Reports.
Tau Taunton's Reports.
Ves Vesey's Reports.
Vin. Abr Viner's Abridgment.
Wig. Ext. Ev Wigram on Extrinsic Evidence.
Wills' Circ. Ev Wills on Circumstantial Evidence.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
[AMERICAN REPORTS, ETC.]
(The abbreviations of the names of the several States, being well understood, are
omitted.)
Abb. Dec Abbott's Decisions, Court of Appeals, N. Y.
Abb. N. C Abbott's New Cases, N. Y.
Abb. Pr Abbott's Practice Reports, N. Y.
Abb. Pr. (N. S.) " " " " New Series.
Alb. L. J Albany Law Journal, N. Y.
Allen Allen's Reports, Mass.
Am. Dec American Decisions (cases from all States).
Am. Law Reg. N. S American Law Register, New Series.
Am. Law Rev American Law Review.
Anth. N. P Anthon's Nisi Prius Reports, N. Y.
App. D. C Appeal Cases, Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.
App. Div. (N. Y.) Appellate Division Reports, Supreme Court, N. Y.
Atl. R Atlantic Reporter.
Barb Barbour's Reports, Supreme Court, N. Y.
Barb. Ch Barbour's Chancery Reports, N. Y.
Baxt Baxters Reports, Tenn.
Ben Benedict's Reports, U. S. District Court.
Binn Binney's Reports, Pa.
Bishop, Cr. L Bishop on Criminal Law.
Bishop, Cr. Pro Bishop on Criminal Procedure.
Bishop, M. D. & S Bishop on Marriage, Divorce, and Separation.
Biss Bissell's Reports, U. S. Circuit Court.
Black, Black's Reports, U. S. Supreme Court.
Blackf .Blackford's Reports, Ind.
Blatch Blatchford's Reports, U. S. Circuit Court.
B. Mon Ben Monroe's Reports, Ky.
Bos Bosworth's Reports, Superior Court, N. Y.
Br. Purd. Dig Brightly's Purdon's Digest of Statutes, Pa.
Bump's Fed. Pro Bump on Federal Procedure.
Bush, Bush's Reports, Ky.
Cai Caine's Reports, N. Y.
Cf Confer, compare.
Cine Cincinnati Reports, Oh in.
Connol Connoly's Reports, Surrogate Courts, N. Y.
Cow Cowen's Reports. N. Y.
Cr Cranch's Reports, U. S. Supreme Court.
Cr.C.C Cranch's U. S. Circuit Court Reports.
Ct. of CI Court of Claims Reports, U. S.
Cush Cushing's Reports, Mass.
Daly Daly's Reports, Court of Common Pleas. N. Y.
Daniel, Neg. Inst Daniel on Negotiable Instruments.
Deady Deady's Reports, U. S. Circuit Court.
Del. Ch Delaware Chancery Reports.
Dem Demarest's Reports, Surrogate Courts, N. Y.
Den Denio's Reports, N Y.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
Dill Dillon's Reports, U. S. Circuit Court.
Disney Disney's Reports, Superior Court, Ohio.
Duer, Duer's Reports, Superior Court, N. Y.
E. D. Sm E. D. Smith's Reports, Court of Common Pleas, N. Y.
Edm. Sel. Cas Edmond's Select Cases, N. Y.
Edw. Ch Edwards' Chancery Reports, N. Y.
F. R Federal Reporter, U. S. Circuit and District Courts.
G. & J Gill & Johnson's Reports, Md.
Gilm Oilman's Reports, 111.
Gr. Ev Greenleaf on Evidence.
Gratt Grattan's Reports, Va.
Gray, Gray's Reports, Mass.
Hill Hill's Reports, N. Y.
Hilt Hilton's Reports, Court of Common Pleas, N. Y.
Houst Houston's Criminal Cases, Del.
How. Pr Howard's Practice Reports, N. Y.
How. St Howell's General Statutes of M ichigan.
How. (U. S.) Howard's Reports, U.S. Supreme Court.
Humph Humphrey's Reports, Tenn.
Hun, Hun's Reports, Supreme Court, N. Y.
111. App Illinois Appeals Reports.
Ind. App Indiana Appeals Reports.
J. & Sp Jones & Spencer's Reports, Superior Court, N. Y.
Johns Johnson's Reports, N. Y.
Johns. Cas Johnson's Cases, N. Y.
Johns. Ch Johnson's Chancery Reports, N. Y.
Kent's Co mm Kent's Commentaries on American Law.
Keyes Keyes' Reports, Court of Appeals, N. Y.
La. Ann Louisiana Annual Reports.
Lans Lansing's Reports, Supreme Court, N. Y.
Lea Lea's Reports, Tenn.
Lowell, Lowell's Reports, U. S. District Court.
McArth McArthur's Reports, Supreme Court, D. C.
McCrary McCrary's Reports, U S. Circuit Court.
McL McLean's Reports, U. S. Circuit Court.
Mackey, Mackey's Reports, District of Columbia.
Md. Ch Maryland Chancery Reports.
Met. . Metcalf's Reports, Mass.
Mill, (S Car) Mill's Reports, S. Car.
Mills, Em. Dom Mills on Eminent Domain.
Misc Miscellaneous Reports, N. Y.
Mo. App Missouri Appeals Reports.
Munf. Munford's Reports, Va.
N , ....Note.
N.J. Eq New Jersey Equity Reports.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
N. J. L New Jersey Law Reports.
N. J. Rev New Jersey Revision of Statutes.
N. S New Series.
N. Y. Civ. Fro. R N. Y. Civil Procedure Reports.
N. Y. Code Civ. Pro New York Code of Civil Procedure.
N. Y. Code Cr. Pro New York Code of Criminal Procedure.
N. Y. Pen. Code New York Penal Code.
N. V. S New York Supplement.
N. Y. St. R New York State Reporter.
O. C. C Ohio Circuit Courts Reports.
O. St Ohio State Reports.
Pai Paige's Chancery Reports, N. Y.
Park. Cr Parker's Criminal Reports, N. Y.
Pet Peters' Reports, U. S. Supreme Court.
Pet. C. C Peters' U. S. Circuit Court Reports.
Phila , Philadelphia Reports, Pa.
Pub. St Public Statutes.
Pick Pickering's Reports, Mass.
R. S Revised Statutes.
Redf Redfield's Reports, Surrogate Courts, N. Y.
Rev. St Revised Statutes.
Rob Robertson's Reports , Superior Court, N. Y.
S Section.
S. C Same Case.
S P Same Principle.
S. & R Sergeant & Rawle's Reports, Pa.
Sandf Sandford's Reports, Superior Court, N. Y.
Sandf. Ch Sandford's Chancery Reports, N. Y.
Sawy Sawyer's Reports, U. S. Circuit Court.
Scam .Scammon's Reports, 111.
Sumn Sumner's Reports, U. S. Circuit Court.
Tenn. (Ch.) Tennessee Chancery Reports.
Tex. App Texas Criminal Appeals Reports.
T. & C Thompson & Cook's Reports, Supreme Court. N Y
Tucker, Tucker's Reports, Surrogate Courts, N. Y.
W. I) Weekly Digest, X. Y.
W. & S Watts and Sergeant's Reports, Pa.
Wall Wallace'.- Reports, U.S. Supreme Court.
Wash. C. C Washington's U. S. Circuit Court Reports.
Washb. R P Washburn on Real Property.
Watts Watts' Repi .rts, Pa.
Wend Wendell's Reports, N. Y.
Wh. Cr. Ev Wharton on Criminal Evidence, 9th ed.
Wh. Ev Wharton on F.\ idence.
Whaft Wharton's Reports, Pa.
Wheat Wheaton's Reports, U. S. Supreme Court.
Woods, Woods' Reports, U. S. Circuit Court.
A DIGEST
OF
THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.
PART I.
RELEVANCY.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY.
Article i.*
definition of terms.
In this book the following words and expressions are
used in the following senses, unless a different intention
appears from the context :
"Judge" includes all persons authorized to take evi-
dence, either by law or by the consent of the parties.
" Fact " includes the fact that any mental condition of
which any person is conscious exists.1
" Document " means any substance having any matter
expressed or described upon it by marks capable of being
read.
" Evidence "2 means — ■
* See Note I. [Appendix].
1 [But, besides "including" what is here stated as to "mental con-
ditions," the word "fact" is used, throughout this book in its ordinary
signification, as denoting acts, events, occurrences, etc.]
* [Evidence is the means or medium of proof, while proof 'is the
effect or result of evidence {People v. Beckwith, 108 N. Y. 67, 73).
Demonstrative evidence is such as establishes a fact conclusively,
A DIGEST OF [Part I.
( i ) Statements made by witnesses in eourt under a legal
sanction, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry ;
such statements are called oral evidence : '
(2) Documents produced for the inspection of the court
or judge ;
such documents are called documentary evidence.
" Conclusive proof " means evidence upon the produc-
tion of which, or a fact upon the proof of which, the judge
beyond doubt ; moral evidence is evidence by which the truth of a
matter may be established to a confident belief or conviction, though
not excluding possible doubt (Babcock v. Fitchburg R. Co., 140 N. Y.
308, 311). Competent evidence is that which is fit and appropriate in
its nature as a means of proof; satisfactory or sufficient evidence,
that amount or weight of evidence which is adapted to convince a
reasonable mind. The judge or court decides whether evidence is com-
petent or admissible, and, therefore, primarily, whether such facts are
sufficiently proved as must exist to render it admissible ; the jury, in
jury trials, decide as to the weight or sufficiency of the evidence bear-
ing on the point in issue (Comm. v. Robinson, 146 Mass. 571 ; Deal v.
State, 140 Ind. 354). Cumulative evidence is, strictly speaking, evi-
dence of the same general character to the same point ; but it is
sometimes used with the same meaning as corroborative evidence,
which is additional evidence, of whatever kind, tending to the same
conclusion (Boggess v. Read, 83 la. 548 ; Grogan v. Chesapeake, etc.
R. Co., 39 W. Va. 415; Wynne v. Newman, 75 \'a. 811 ; A'eeter v.
Jacobs, 87 Wis. 545 ; Waller v. Graves, 20 Ct. 305 ; People v. Superior
Ct., 10 Wend. 285). Direct evidence is that given by witnesses who
testify their actual knowledge of the fact to be proved (see Art. 62,
infra) ; circumstantial evidence is evidence of facts and circumstances
from which the existence of the particular fact to be established may
be legitimately deduced or inferred (Com/n. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295 ;
People v. Anthony, 56 Cal. 397; Gannon v. People, 127 111. 507; People
v. Harris, 136 N. Y. 423; State v. Rome, 64 Ct. 329). Rules of evidence
may be changed by the legislature, if vested rights are not thereby
destroyed. Howard v. Moot, 64 X. Y. 262; People v. Cannon, 139-
N. Y. 32; Meadoivcroft v. People, 163 111. 56; Pennsylvania Co. v.
McCann, 54 O. St. 10 ; Larson v. Dickey, 39 Neb. 463.]
1 [They are also called " testimony." Dibble v. Dimmick, 143 X. Y.
549. 554-]
Chap. I.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 5
is bound by law to regard some fact as proved, and to
exclude evidence intended to disprove it."
"A presumption" means a rule of law that courts and
judges shall draw a particular inference from a particular
fact, or from particular evidence, unless and until the
truth of such inference is disproved.1
The expression " facts in issue" means —
( 1 ) All facts which, by the form of the pleadings in any
action, are affirmed on one side and denied on the other :
(2) In actions in which there are no pleadings, or in
which the form of the pleadings is such that distinct
issues are not joined between the parties, all facts from
the establishment of which the existence, non-existence,
nature, or extent of any right, liability, or disability
asserted or denied in any such case would by law follow.
The word " relevant " means that any two facts to which
it is applied are so related to each other that according to
the common course of events one either taken by itself
or in connection with other facts proves or renders prob-
able the past, present, or future existence or non-existence
of the other.2
1 [What is here called " conclusive proof " is termed by Mr. Green-
leaf and some other writers a " conclusive presumption of law," while
what is here called a " presumption " is termed by them a " disputable
presumption of law." (Gr. Ev. i. §§ 14-46). For illustrations of " con-
clusive proof," see post, Articles 40-44, 98; of "presumptions," see
Articles 85-89, 94,95,99-101 ; see also Ulrich v. Ulrich, 136 N. Y. 120.]
li[See Note I, Appendix ; Plumb v. Curtis, 66 Ct. 154 ; Insurance
Co. v. Weide, 11 Wall. 438, 440; Conun. M.Abbott, 130 Mass. 472;
Comm. v. Jeffries, 7 Allen, 548, 563 ; Rodgers v. Stophcl, 32 Pa. 11 1 ;
Nickerson v. Gould, 82 Me. 512 ; Darling v. Westmoreland, 52 N. H.
401.. It is to be observed that the author uses the expression,
" deemed to be relevant," in many of the following Articles to apply-
not only to evidence which has true logical relevancy as here denned,
but also to evidence which, not being logically relevant, is neverthe-
less declared admissible by law as a means of proof. , And so the ex-
pression "deemed to be irrelevant," is applied to evidence, which;
though it may be logically relevant, is yet deemed in law inadmissible.]
A DIGEST OF IPart 1
CHAPTER II.
OF FACTS IN ISSUE AND RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE.
Article 2.*
facts in issue and facts relevant to the issue may be
PROVED.
Evidence may be given in any proceeding of any fact in
issue,
and of any fact relevant ' to any fact in issue unless it
is hereinafter declared to be deemed to be irrelevant,
and of any fact hereinafter declared to be deemed to
be relevant to the issue, whether it is or is not relevant
thereto.2
Provided that the judge may exclude evidence of facts
which, though relevant or deemed to be relevant to the
issue, appear to him too remote to be material under
all the circumstances of the case.3
* See Note II. [Appendix].
1 [Schmidt v. Packard, 132 Ind. 398. Evidence which is pertinent
to the issue is admissible, though it may have been improperly,
or even unlawfully, obtained ; as e. g., documents or articles of
property which have been wrongfully taken from a man's room
or house (Comm. v. Tibbctts, 157 Mass. 519 ; State v. Mathers, 64- Vt.
101 ; State v. Burroughs, 72 Me. 479; Trash v. People, 151 111. 523;
State v. Pomcroy, 130 Mo. 489; State v. Griswold, 67 Ct. 290;
Shields v. State, 104 Ala. 35); so if evidence is obtained by writing
decoy letters. Andrews v. U. S., 162 U. S. 420.]
'-[Facts which are not relevant are often called " collateral facts,"
and it is a commonly stated rule that evidence of collateral facts is
not admissible. McLoghlin v. Mohawk, etc. Ph., 139 N. Y. 514 ;
Eaton v. Telegraph Co., 68 Me. 63 ; Moore v. Richmond, 85 \'a. 538.]
[As to the exclusion of evidence for remoteness, see Illustrations (b)
Chap. II.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 7
Illustrations.
(a) A is indicted for the murder of B, and pleads not guilty.
The following facts may be in issue ; — The fact that A killed B ;
the fact that at the time when A killed B he was prevented by disease
from knowing right from wrong :' the fact that A had received from
B such provocation as would reduce his offense to manslaughter.2
The fact that A was at a distant place at the time of the murder
would be relevant to the issue ;3 the fact that A had a good character
would be deemed to be relevant;4 the fact that C on his deathbed
declared that C and not A murdered B would be deemed not to be
relevant.5
(b) [The question is, whether A had sufficient mental capacity to
execute a deed at the time when it was executed.
Evidence of A's mental condition a year afterwards may be ex-
cluded, in the discretion of the trial judge, as too remote.]6
(c) [The question is, whether the death of A, a fireman upon a
locomotive, was due to the negligence of the railroad company in
allowing a culvert to become obstructed whereby the water overflowed
and washed away the soil under the track.
(c) (d) ; also Nicholson v. Waful, 70 N. Y. 604 ; Kenfiedy v. People, 39
N. Y. 245, 254 ; Ockershausen v. Durant, 141 Mass. 338 ; People v. Niles,
44 Mich. 606 ; People v. Hendrickson, 53 Mich. 525 ; Packard v.
Bergen R. Co., 54 N. J. L. 553 ; Mansfield Coal Co. v. McEnery, 91
Pa. 185 ; Amoskeag Co. v. Head, 59 N. H. 332. But evidence which
has a legitimate tendency, though slight, to prove a fact in issue, is
admissible, unless it be deemed too slight and therefore remote.
Nickerson v. Gould, 82 Me. 512; Hunts?nan v. Nichols, 116 Mass.
521 ; Comm. v. Abbott, 130 Mass. 472 ; Johnson v. Comm., 115 Pa. 369 ;
Ryan v. People, 79 N. Y. 593 ; see Articles 9 and 10.]
1 [Moelt v. People, 85 N. Y. 373 ; State v. Hoyt, 47 Ct. 5 18 ; Nevling
v. Comm., 98 Pa. 322 ; see Art. 95, Illustration {ce).]
^[Bishop Cr. L. ii. §§ 701-719 ; see Shufflin v. People, 62 N. Y. 229.]
3 [See Art. 95, Illustration {ce), and note.]
4[Slover v. People, 56 N. Y. 315 ; Remsen v. People, 43 N. Y. 6;
Comm. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295 ; Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 195;
see Art. 56.]
5 [So a letter of C, stating that he committed the murder, would be
deemed not to be relevant. Greenfield v. Pvople, 85 N. Y. 75 ; see
Art. 14, Illustration (f),post.]
6[ While v. Graves, 107 Mass. 325 ; Wright v. Wright, 139 Mass.
I77-]
A DIGEST OF [Part I.
Evidence that the same culvert was obstructed by logs and an
accumulation of mud and brush at a date three years after the injury
to A, was deemed inadmissible.]1
(d) [The question is, whether an injury to A, a railway passenger,
was caused by the negligence of the railroad company in having its
bridge too narrow for the safe passage of the car in which A was
riding.
Evidence that this bridge (a wooden one) was replaced by a new
iron bridge a few months afterwards, which afforded a wider space
for the passage of cars, was deemed too remote.]4
Article 3.
relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction
as the facts in issue.
A transaction is a group of facts so connected together
as to be referred to by a single legal name, as a crime, a
contract, a wrong, or any other subject of inquiry which
may be in issue.
Every fact which is part of the same transaction as
the facts in issue is deemed to be relevant to the facts
in issue, although it may not be actually in issue, and
although if it were not part of the same transaction it
might be excluded as hearsay.8
1 [Stoker v. St. Lotus, etc. R. Co., 91 Mo. 509.]
''[Dale v. Delaware, etc. R. Co., 73 N. Y. 468.]
3[This rule is embraced in the doctrine which is commonly called
in the law of evidence the doctrine of res gesta>. (See Gr. Ev. i. § 108).
This, briefly stated, is that evidence of acts or declarations forming
part of the res gestce (z. e., " transaction," or " act to be proved") so as
to explain or qualify it, is admissible when such "transaction" or
"act" forms the fact in issue or is deemed relevant thereto ( Waldele
\.N. Y. C. R. Co., 95 N. Y. 274; Lander v. People, 104 111. 248;
Norwich Co. v. Flint, 13 Wall. 3 ; Steamboat Co. v. Brocket!, 121 U.
S. 637; Springfield, etc. R. Co. v. Welsch, 155 111. 511 ; Comm. v.
Densmore, 12 Allen, 535 ; Elkins v. McKean, 79 Pa. 493). These acts
or declarations so connected with the res gestce are deemed relevant,
Chap. II.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 9
Whether any particular fact is or is not part of the same
transaction as the facts in issue is a question of law upon
which no principle has been stated by authority and on
which single judges have given different decisions.1
because they serve to show its nature, purpose, occasion, or object,
to explain its origin or significance, to exhibit the relations of the
parties concerned therein, etc. (Id. ; People v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 95,
102 ; EigJuny v. People, 79 N. Y. 546 ; Devetiey v. Baxter, 157 Mass.
9). But declarations which are subsequent to the transaction, being a
narrative of it as a past event, or otherwise forming no constituent
part of it, are not admissible ; and the same is true of declarations
which are antecedent to the transaction and so form no part thereof
(IVoodv. Slate, 92 Ind. 269 ; Martin v. N. Y., etc. R. Co., 103 N. Y.
626 ; Vicksburg, etc. R. Co. v. O'Brien, 1 19 U. S. 99 ; Estell v. State,
51 N. J. L. 182 ; Durkee v. Cent. Pac. R. Co., 69 Cal. 533 ; Montag v.
People, 141 111. 75 ; Hall v. State, 132 Ind. 317 ; State v. Kennade, 121
Mo. 405 ; see Comm. v. Crowley, 165 Mass. 569 ; Bigley v. Williams ,
80 Pa. 107). But declarations may form part of the res gesta,
though made, not by parties to the action, but by bystanders
(Illustration (a); Castner v. Sliker, 33 N. J. L. 95 & 507; Walter
v. Gemant, 13 Pa. 515 ; Ordivay v. Sanders, 58 N. H. 132 ; Morton v.
State, 91 Tenn. 437; State v. Kaiser, 124 Mo. 651; Metr. R. Co. v.
Collins, 1 App. D. C. 383; Baker v. Gansin, 76 Ind. 317). Declara-
tions made by a party in his own favor are admissible, if they form
part of the res gestce {Chase v. Chase, 66 N. H. 588 ; Pinney v. yones,
64 Ct. 545).
This general doctrine also includes the rule stated post at the begin-
ning of Article 8, and is usually deemed to embrace the cases consid-
ered under Article 4 ("Acts of Conspirators"), Article 17 (so far as
the declarations of agents and partners are concerned), Article 27
(" Declarations made in course of business," etc.), and also certain
cases included under Article 9 (see Illustration c) and Article 11 (see
Illustrations k, I, and m). Sometimes also other cases are included
under this general principle. Gr. Ev. i. §§108-123 ; see post, Note V.
Appendix.]
1 [The author has added this paragraph to the text since the decision
in England in Bedingfield's case (see Illustration b). In some Ameri-
can decisions an attempt has been made to express a definite rule
upon the subject, but it is stated in so vague and general a form as to
be difficult of application. Thus it is said, "The general rule is that
declarations, to become a part of the res gestcz, must accompany the
io A DIGEST OF [Part I.
When a question as to the ownership of land depends on
the application to it of a particular presumption capable
•of being rebutted, the fact that it does not apply to other
act which they are supposed to characterize and must so harmonize
with it as to be obviously one transaction" {Moore v. Meacham, io
N. Y. 207, 210; Enos v. Tuttle, 3 Ct. 250). It is often stated that acts
or declarations, to form part of the res gestce, must be "contemporane-
ous" or "concomitant" with it (Gr. Ev. i. §110), and Bedingfield's
case shows that this rule is applied in England very strictly. In this
country also numerous decisions are found applying the rule strictly,
and holding that declarations made "immediately after" an act or
occurrence to which they relate are not admissible in evidence
(Illustration (ca); People v. Wong Ark, 96 Cal. 125; Williamson v.
Ca?nb ridge R. Co., 144 Mass. 148; Sullivan v. Oregon R. Co., 12 Or.
392 ; Cleveland, etc. R. Co. v. Mara, 26 O. St. 185 ; Rockwell v. Taylor,
41 Ct. 55) ; while, on the other hand, many cases hold it to be sufficient
if the acts or declarations occur at or ?iear the time of the main trans-
action, if they are so closely near, and are of such a character, that
they may properly be regarded as directly occasioned or evoked by
such transaction, and not by any supervening cause or motive
(Illustration (cb) and cases cited ; Insurance Co. v. Mosley, 8 Wall.
397 ; Hunter v. State, 40 N. J. L. 495 ; Hanover R. Co. v. Coyle, 55
Pa. 396; International, etc. R. Co. v. Anderson, 82 Tex. 516; State v.
Horan, 32 Minn. 394 ; State v. Driscoll, 72 la. 583 ; State v. Harris,
45 La. Ann. 842 ; Ohio, etc. R. Co. v. Stein, 133 Ind. 243 ; Christian-
son v. Pioneer Co., 92 Wis. 649 ; Cleveland v. Newsom, 45 Mich. 62 ;
McLeod v. Ginther, 80 Ky. 399; and see Lund v. Tyngsborough, 9
Cush. 36. The subject is fully discussed in Waldele v. N. Y. C. R. Co.,
95 N. Y. 274).
This disagreement among the authorities is, however, to a consider-
able extent, more seeming than real, because in some kinds of cases
an interested or designing or otherwise improper motive is apt to
spring into activity more speedily than in other cases, and, therefore,
declarations, attributable to it, may require, in principle, to be excluded,
though made immediately after the transaction (Illustration (ca) ;
Metr. R. Co. v. Collins, 1 App. D. C. 383). And again, immediately
ensuing statements may be in the nature of narrative or explanation,
and so be deemed no part of the transaction (see p. 12, n. 1, post).
But, nevertheless, there is still a noteworthy conflict of opinion in
applying the doctrine of res gesto?. See the diverse opinions in
Vicksburg, etc. R. Co. v. O'Brien, 119 U. S. 99, and in Barber v. St.
Louis, etc. R. Co., 126 Mo. 143.]
Chap. II.J THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. n
neighboring pieces of land similarly situated is deemed
to be relevant.1
Illustrations.
(a) The question was, whether A murdered B by shooting him.
The fact that a witness in the room with B, when he was shot, saw
a man with a gun in his hand pass a window opening into the room
in which B was shot, and thereupon exclaimed, " There's butcher ! "
(a name by which A was known), was allowed to be proved by Lord
Campbell, L. C. J.'2
1 [Gr. Ev. i. §53 a.]
* R.\.Fowkes, Leicester Spring Assizes, 1856. Ex relatione O'Brien,
Serjt.
In the report of this case in the Times for March 8, 1856, the evidence
of the witnesses on this point is thus given : —
'* William Fowkes : My father got up (?went to) the window, and
opened it and shoved the shutter back. He waited there about three
minutes. It was moonlight, the moon about the full. He closed the
window but not the shutter. My father was returning to the sofa
when I heard a crash at the window. I turned to look and hooted
' There's butcher.' I saw his face at the window, but did not see him
plain. He was standing still outside. I aren't able to tell who it was,
not certainly. I could not tell his size. While I was hooting the gun
went off. I hooted very loud. He was close to the shutter or there-
abouts. It was only open about eight inches. Lord Campbell : Did
you see the face of the man ? Witness : Yes, it was moonlight at the
time. I have a belief that it was the butcher. I believe it was. I
now believe it from what I then saw. I heard the gun go off when he
went away. We heard him run by the window through the garden
towards the park."
Upon cross-examination the witness said that he saw the face when
he hooted and heard the report at the same moment. The report
adds, " The statement of this witness was confirmed by Cooper, the
policeman (who was in the room at the time), except that Cooper saw
nothing when William Fowkes hooted 'there's butcher at the win-
dow!'" He stated he had not time to look before the gun went off.
In this case the evidence as to W. Fowkes' statement could not be
admissible on the ground that what he said was in the prisoner's
presence, as the window was shut when he spoke. It is also, obvious
that the fact that he said at the time " there's butcher" was far more
likely to impress the jury than the fact that he was at the trial uncer-
tain whether the person he saw was the butcher, though he was dis-
A DIGEST OF [Part I.
(b) The question was, whether A cut B's throat, or whether B cut it
herself.
A statement made by B when running out of the room in which her
throat was cut immediately after it had been cut was not allowed to
be proved by Cockburn, L. C. J.1
(c) The question was, whether A committed manslaughter on B by
carelessly driving over him.
A statement made by B as to the cause of his accident as soon
as he was picked up was allowed to be proved by Park, J., Gurney,
posed to think so. [Cases closely resembling R. v. Fowkes are :
Dismukes v. State, 83 Ala. 287 ; State v. Schmidt, 73 la. 469 ; Lander
v. People, 104 111. 248 ; State v. Duncan, 1 16 Mo. 288 ; State v. Des-
roches, 48 La. Ann. 428 ; State v. Biggerstaff, 17 Mont. 510.]
1 R.v. Bedingfield, Suffolk Assizes, 1879, [14 Cox, 341]. The pro-
priety of this decision was the subject of two pamphlets, one by W.
Pitt Taylor, who denied, the other by the Lord Chief Justice, who
maintained it. [In a similar American case the declarations were
held admissible (J'ou Pollnitz v. State, 92 Ga. 16; cf. People v. Ah
Lee, 60 Cal. 85). In Massachusetts it has been held that where a per-
son was stabbed and said to a person who reached him within about
twenty seconds after the injury, " I'm stabbed ; I'm gone ; Dan Hackett
stabbed me," these words were admissible on the trial of his assailant
for murder, as part of the res gesta> {Comm. v. Hackett, 2 Allen, 136 ;
see Comm. v. HP Pike, 3 Cush. 181 ; People v. Simpson, 48 Mich. 474 ;
Waldele v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 95 N. Y. 278). But declarations by the
wounded man, made a few minutes after the fatal injury, so as to be a
narrative or explanation of what had happened, are not admissible
{Parker v. State, 136 Ind. 284 ; see State v. Deuble, 74 la. 509 ; State
v. Po7iieroy, 25 Kan. 349). In Kirby v. Comm., yj Va. 681, however, the
wounded man ran eighty feet, and then exclaimed, about two minutes
after the injury, " I am shot ; William Kirby has shot me," and these
statements were held to be part of the res gesta and admissible. In
State v. Murphy, 16 R. I. 528, statements made by the injured man
ten or fifteen minutes after the injury were held admissible; few
cases, however, have gone to this length. (Cf. State v. Martin, 124 Mo.
514; Comm. v. IVerntz, 161 Pa. 591 ; Jones v. Comm., 86 Ya. 740;
Jones v. State, 71 Ind. 66; Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Pearson, 97
Ala. 211 ; State v. Brown, 28 Or. 147).
For a valuable discussion of Bedingfield's case and of the general
doctrine of res gesta,t see American Law Review, xiv. 817, xv. 1 and
71. The writer thinks the evidence should have been admitted in
this case. Id. xv. 89.]
I
Chap. II.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 13
B., and Patteson, J., though it was not a dying declaration within
Article 26.1
(ca) [The question is, whether A was injured through the negligent
driving by B's servant of a car drawn by horses. The driver, as he
was getting off the car and out of the crowd which had gathered,
directly after the accident, was asked why he did not stop the car
and replied that the brake was out of order. This statement of his
was not allowed to be proved. " The alleged wrong was complete
and the driver was only endeavoring to account for what he had done.
He was manifestly excusing himself and throwing the blame on his
principals."] '2
{cb) [A sues B (a railroad company) to recover damages for injuries
suffered by him, through B's alleged negligence, in falling upon the
platform at a station, while he was alighting from a train.
Declarations by A as to the cause of his injuries, made by him
immediately after the train left the station and while he lay upon
the platform where he fell, were allowed to be proved.] 3
(cc) [The question was, whether A, a physician, committed the crime
of killing B (a woman) by the use of means to procure an abortion
upon B's person.
A statement made by B after returning home from A's office of
what A had done and said to her there was not allowed to be proved.] 4
(cd) [The question was, whether A was negligent in jumping from
the vehicle of B (a carrier of passengers) when the vehicle was ap-
parently in a position of imminent danger.
1 R. v. Foster, 6 C. & P. 325 ; [cf. Lahey v. Ottman &° Co., 73
Hun, 61.]
'2[Ludy v. Hudson River R. Co., 17 N. Y. 131 ; Latie v. Bryant, 9
Gray, 245.]
3 [Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Lyons, 129 Pa. 113. But statements by an
injured person as to the cause of injury, which were not made until he
had been removed a short distance from the place of the injury and a
doctor obtained, were deemed not admissible {Merkle v. Bennington,
58 Mich. 156 ; see Chicago, etc. R. Co., v. Becker, 128 111. 545 ; Eastman
v. Boston, etc. R. Co., 165 Mass. 342). In Indiana, similar statements
made before removal from the place of injury and within two minutes
of its occurrence were held admissible. Louisville, etc. R. Co. v.
Buck, 1 16 Ind. 566 ; see Lea/icy v. Cass Ave., etc. R. Co., 97 Mo. 165 ;
Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. Baier, 37 Neb. 235.]
4 [People v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 95 ; Maine v. People, 9 Hun, 113 ; cf.
People v. Murphy, 101 N. Y. 126 ; Mutcha v. Pierce, 49 Wis. 231.J
«*
14 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
The acts of other passengers in jumping from the vehicle at the
same time were allowed to be proved.]'
(d) The question is, whether A, the owner of one side of a river,
owns the entire bed of it or only half the bed at a particular spot.
The fact that he owns the entire bed a little lower down than the spot
in question is deemed to be relevant.'-'
(<?) The question is, whether a piece of land by the roadside belongs
to the lord of the manor or to the owner of the adjacent land. The
fact that the lord of the manor owned other parts of the slip of land
by the side of the same road is deemed to be relevant.3
Article 4.*
acts of conspirators.
When two or more persons conspire together to commit
any offence or actionable wrong,4 everything said, done,
or written by any one of them in the execution or further-
ance of their common purpose, is deemed to be so said,
done, or written by every one, and is deemed to be a
relevant fact as against each of them ;5 but statements
* See Note III. [Appendix].
1 [ Twomley v. C. P. N. R. Co., 69 N. Y. 158 ; Kleiber v. People s R.
Co., 107 Mo. 240 ; Mitchell 'v. So. Pac. R. Co., 87 Cal. 62.]
2 Jones v. Williams, 2 M. & W. 326.
3 Doe v. Kemp, 7 Bing. 332 ; 2 Bing. N. C. 102.
■•[Evidence admissible under this Article is not limited to in-
dictments for the crime of conspiracy, distinctively so-called {Clune
v. U. S., 159 U. S. 590), but is competent in all cases, civil and
criminal, where two or more persons have combined to do an unlaw-
ful act ; as^.^., where the trial is for murder, forgery, larceny, or
other crime {Coins v. State, 46 O. St. 457 ; People v. Parker, 67 Mich.
222 ; People v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 95), or where the proceeding is of a
civil nature, as for wrongful acts done with intent to defraud creditors,
etc. Knowerx. Cad den Clothing Co., 57 Ct. 202 ; Lowe v. Dalrymple,
1 17 Pa. 564; Gumbergv. Treusch, 103 Mich. 543; Peeler v. Webb,
1 13 111. 436 ; Cuylcr v. McCartney, 40 N. Y. 221.]
6 [The reason for the admission of this evidence is that such acts
Chap. II.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 15
made by individual conspirators as to measures taken in
the execution or furtherance of any such common purpose
are not deemed to be relevant as such as against any con-
spirators, except those by whom or in whose presence
such statements are made.1 Evidence of acts or state-
ments deemed to be relevant under this Article may not
be given until the judge is satisfied that, apart from them,
there are prima facie grounds for believing in the exist-
ence of the conspiracy to which they relate.2
and declarations form part of the res gestce {Dewey v. Moyer, 72
N. Y. 70 ; Comm. v. Scott, 123 Mass. 222 ; Niidd v. Burrows, 91 U. S.
426 ; Hartman v. Diller, 62 Pa. 37 ; Lincoln v. Claflin, 7 Wall. 132 ;
see Art. 3, and notes). Acts or declarations not done or made in
furtherance of the common design are not admissible {Gamsey v.
Rhodes, 138 N. Y. 461 ; State v. McGee, 81 la. 17). It is immaterial
at what time any one entered into the conspiracy ; he is deemed a
party to all acts done by any of the other conspirators before or
afterwards, in furtherance of the common design. Gr. Ev. i. § m ;
State v. Crab, 121 Mo. 554; Ochs v. People, 124 111. 399; U. S. v.
Johnson, 26 F. R. 682 ; Bonner v. State, 107 Ala. 97.]
1 [Thus statements made by a co-conspirator, after the conspiracy
has ended, as a narrative of past acts or measures taken, are not
deemed to be relevant, not forming part of the res gestae {People v.
McQuade, no N. Y. 284; N. Y. Guaranty Co. v. Gleason, 78 N. Y.
503 ; Heine v. Comm., 91 Pa. 145; Moore v. Shields, 121 Ind. 267;
Samples v. State, 121 111. 547; State v. Larkin, 49 N. H. 39). Con-
fessions or declarations made by one after the conspiracy is ended
can only be received as evidence against himself and not against his
associates {Comm. v. Ingraham, 7 Gray, 46 ; State v. Johnson, 40
Kan. 266 ; State v. Mmton, 1 16 Mo. 605 ; Sparfv. U. S., 156 U. S. 51,
56 ; State v. Arnold, 48 la. 566 ; People v. Arnold, 46 Mich. 268 ;
People v. Aleck, 61 Cal. 137 ; see Art. 21, post), unless they are made
in the presence of any of the other conspirators, when they may be
provable under the rule stated on p. 25, post, n. 1.]
■[Ormsby v. People, 53 N. Y. 472 ; Miller v. Dayton, 57 la. 423 ;
Knower v. Cadden Clothing Co., 57 Ct. 202 ; People v. Parker, 67
Mich. 222 ; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Moog, 78 Ala. 284. But the declarations
of an alleged conspirator are not admissible to prove the existence of
the conspiracy {Solomon v. A'irkwood, 55 Mich. 256). The judge may,
however, in his discretion admit evidence of the acts and declarations
16 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A and B conspired together to cause
certain imported goods to be passed through the custom-house on
payment of too small an amount of duty.
The fact that A made in a book a false entry, necessary to be made
in that book in order to carry out the fraud, is deemed to be a
relevant fact as against B.
The fact that A made an entry on the counterfoil of his cheque-
book showing that he had shared the proceeds of -the fraud with B,
is deemed not to be a relevant fact as against B.1
(b) The question is, whether A committed high treason by imagining
the king's death ; the overt act charged is that he presided over'an
organized political agitation calculated to produce a rebellion, and
directed by a central committee through local committees.
The facts that meetings were held, speeches delivered, and papers
circulated in different parts of the country, in a manner likely to pro-
duce rebellion by, and by the direction of, persons shown to have
acted in concert with A, are deemed to be relevant facts as against A,
though he was not present at those transactions, and took no part in
them personally.
An account given by one of the conspirators in a letter to a friend,
of his own proceedings in the matter, not intended to further the
common object, and not brought to A's notice, is deemed not to be
relevant as against A.2
of one alleged conspirator, which are alleged to have been done or
made in furtherance of the conspiracy, upon condition that proof of
the conspiracy be supplied during the trial ; but this should, in gen-
eral, only be allowed in urgent cases {Place v. Minster, 65 X. Y. 89 ;
People v. Fehrenbach, 102 Cal. 394 ; State v. Flanders, 1 18 Mo. 227 ;
State v. Grant, 86 la. 216 ; Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 195). The
existence of the conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence
as well as by showing by direct evidence an actual preconcerted
agreement ; as by proving acts and declarations indicating that the
parties were all acting with a common design. People v. Peel-ens,
153 N. Y. 576; Cotton, v. Smith, [63 Mass. 411 ; People v. Arnold, |\>
Mich. 268 ; Lowe v. Dalrymple, 117 Pa. 564 ; Ochs v. People, 124 III.
399 ; People v. Bentley, 75 Cal. 407 ; Primmer v. Primmer, 75 la. 415 ;
see Stront v. Packard, 76 Me. 148.]
1 R. v. Blake, 6 Q. B. 137-140.
2 R. v. Hardy, 24 S. T. passim, but see particularly 451-453.
Chap. II.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 17
Article 5.*
When the existence of any right of property, or of any
right over property is in question, every fact which con-
stitutes the title of the person claiming the right, or which
shows that he, or any person through whom he claims, was
in possession of the property, and every fact which con-
stitutes an exercise of the right, or which shows that its
exercise was disputed, or which is inconsistent with its
existence or renders its existence improbable, is deemed
to be relevant^
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A has a right of fishery in a river.
An ancient inquisitio post mortem finding the existence of a right of
fishery in A's ancestors, licenses to fish granted by his ancestors, and
the fact that the licensees fished under them, are deemed to be rele-
vant.2
(o) The question is, whether A owns land.
The fact that A's ancestors granted leases of it is deemed to be
relevant.3
(c) The question is, whether there is a public right of way over A's
land.
The facts that persons were in the habit of using the way, that they
* See Note IV. [Appendix] ; see also Art. 88 as to proof of ancient
deeds.
1 [Hosford v. Ballard, 39 N. Y. 147 ; Cagger v. Lansing, 64 N. Y.
417 ; Miller v. L. I. R. Co., 71 N. Y. 380 ; Fletcher v. Fuller, 120 U. S.
534 ; Anderson v. McCormick, 129 111. 308 ; Boston v. Richardson, 105
Mass. 351 ; Gloucester v. Gaffney, 8 Allen, 11 ; Berry v. Raddin, 11
Allen, 577 ; Sailor v. Hertzogg, 10 Pa. 296. In proving facts of ancient
date to establish title, evidence may be received which would be in-
admissible as to facts within the memory of living witnesses. Bogardus
v. Trinity Church, 4 Sandf. Ch. 633 ; Goodwin v. Jack, 62 Me. 414.]
2 Rogers v. Allen, 1 Camp. 309.
3 Doe v. Pulman, 3 Q. B. 622, 623, 626 (citing Duke of Bedford v.
Lopes). The document produced to show the lease was a counterpart
iS A DIGEST OF [Part I.
were turned back, that the road was stopped up, that the road was
repaired at the public expense, and A's title-deeds showing that for a
length of time, reaching beyond the time when the road was said to
have been used, no one had power to dedicate it to the public, are all
deemed to be relevant.'
(d) The question is, whether A has a several fishery in a river.
The proceedings in a possessory suit in the Irish Court of Chancery
by the plaintiff's predecessor in title, and a decree in that suit quieting
the plaintiff's predecessor in his title, is relevant, as showing posses-
sion and enjoyment of the fishery at the time of the suit.'2
Article 6.
CUSTOMS.
"When the existence of any custom is in question, every
fact is deemed to be relevant which shows how, in par-
ticular instances, the custom was understood and acted
upon by the parties then interested.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether, by the custom of borough-English as
prevailing in the manor of C, A is heir to B.
The fact that other persons, being tenants of the manor, inherited
from ancestors standing in the same or similar relations to them as
that in which A stood to B, is deemed to be relevant.3
signed by the lessee. See post, Art. 64. [See Osgood v. Coates, 1
Allen, 77.]
1 Common practice. As to the title-deeds, Brough v. Lord Scars-
dale, Derby Summer Assizes, 1865. In this case it was shown by a
series of family settlements that for more than a century no one had
had a legal right to dedicate a certain footpath to the public.
- Neill v. Duke of Devonshire, L. R. 8 App. Cas. 135 ; see especially
p. 147-
" Muggleton v. Burnt it, 1 H. l\: X. 282 ; and see Johnstone v. Lord
Spencer, 30 Ch. D. 581. It was held in this case that a custom
might be shown by uniform practice which was not mentioned in any
customal court roll or other record. For a late case of evidence of a
Chap. II.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 19
(b) The question was, whether, by the custom of the country, a
tenant-farmer, not prohibited by his lease from doing so, might pick
and sell surface flints, minerals being reserved by his lease. The
fact that, under similar provisions in leases of neighboring farms
flints were taken and sold, is deemed to be relevant.1
Article 7.
motive, preparation, subsequent conduct,
explanatory statements.
When there is a question whether any act was done by
any person, the following facts are deemed to be relevant,
that is to say —
any fact which supplies a motive for such an act,3 or
which constitutes preparation for it ; 3
custom of trade, see Ex parte Powell, in re Matthews, 1 Ch. D. 501.
[As to proof of a usage of trade or business, see Dickinso7i v. Pough-
keepsie, 75 N. Y. 65 ; Mills v. Hallock, 2 Edw. Ch. 652 ; Haskins v.
Warren, 115 Mass. 514 ; Chateangay Iron Co. v, Blake, 144 U. S. 476;
Ada/ns v. Pittsburgh Ins. Co., 95 Pa. 348. Such a custom may be
proved by one witness {Robinson v. U. S., 13 Wall. 363; Bissell v.
Campbell, 54 N. Y. 353). As to other customs, see Smith v. Floyd,
18 Barb. 522 ; Ocean Beach Ass'n v. Brinley, 34 N. J. Eq. 438 ; Ulmer
v. Famsworth, 80 Me. 500.]
1 Tucker v. Linger, 21 Ch. D. 18 ; and see p. 37.
2 [Illustrations (a) and {ab). Murphy v. People, 63 N. Y. 590 ; Wright
v. Nostrand, 94 N. Y. 31 ; Comm. v. Bradford, 126 Mass. 42 ; Comm.
v. Hudson, 97 Mass. 565 ; Ettinger v. Comm., 98 Pa. 338 ; Scott v.
People, 141 111. 195 ; State v. Lentz, 45 Minn. 177 ; Benson v. State, 119
Ind. 488. But the evidence to show motive must not be too remote
(Comm. v. Abbott, 130 Mass. 472). Evidence of motive is admissible,
though it tends also to prove the commission of another crime than
the one charged (Illustration (ac); Pontius v. People, 82 N. Y. 339;
State v. Palmer, 65 N. H. 216 ; People v. Lane, 101 Cal. 513 ; see p. 35,
post, note 1). A person may, however, be convicted of crime, though
the evidence discloses no motive for his act. People v. Johnson, 139
N. Y. 358 ; Johnson v. U. S., 157 U. S. 320; Comm. v. Buccieri, 153
Pa. 535.]
3 Illustrations (b) and (be). [See Walsh v. People, 88 N. Y. 458;
A DIGEST OF [I'art I.
any subsequent conduct of such person apparently
influenced by the doing of the act, and any act done
People v. Scott, 153 N. Y. 40; Comm. v. Choate, 105 Mass. 451. In
trials for homicide, or for assaults with homicidal intent, evidence of
antecedent threats or of expressions of ill-will, made by the defendant
against the person killed or injured, is admissible (Comm. v. Good:.'/-,
14 Gray, 55 ; State v. Hoyt, 46 Ct. 330 ; State v. Cole, 63 la. 695 ; People
v.fones, 99 N. Y. 667 ; Comm. v. Holmes, 157 Mass. 233); and so in
other cases of forcible injury {fewett v. Banning, 21 N. Y. 27 ; Caverno
v.fones, 61 N. H. 623 ; State v. Fry, 67 la. 475) ; but threats made by
a person other than the defendant against the person injured are not
provable, being res inter alios acta [State v. Beandet, 53 Ct. 536) ; in
trials for arson, the defendant's prior threats to burn the property may
be proved (State v. Day, 79 Me. 120; People v. Eaton, 59 Mich. 559;
Comm. v. Crowe, 165 Mass. 140).
In cases of homicide, where it appears that the deceased was or may
have been the aggressor, so as to cause the defendant to act in self-
defence, evidence is received in many States of threats made by the
deceased against the defendant, even though the defendant had not
heard of such threats [Wiggins v. People, 93 U. S. 465; Stokes v.
People, 53 N. Y. 164 ; Roberts v. State, 68 Ala. 156 ; Turpin v. State,
55 Md. 462 ; State v. Harrod, 102 Mo. 590 ; Prine v. State, 73 Miss.
838 ; State v. Evans, 33 W. Va. 417 ; People v. Thomson, 92 Cal. 506);
so a fortiori, if such threats had been made known to the defendant
(State v. IVoodson, 41 la. 425 ; Wood v. State, 92 Ind. 269; Lewis v.
Comm., 78 Ya. 732 ; cf. Vann v. State, 83 Ga. 44) ; so in trials for
assault with intent to murder, a similar rule applies (Leverich v. State,
105 Ind. 277 ; State v. Scott, 24 Kan. 68) ; but generally in other cases
than those of self-defence, such evidence of threats is not admitted
(State v. Elliott, 45 la. 486 ; People v. Campbell, 59 Cal. 243).
So in like trials, evidence of the violent and quarrelsome character
of the deceased or person injured is received when the circum-
stances indicate that the defendant was acting in self-defence (Abbott
v. People, 86 N. Y. 460 ; Uplhcgrove v. State, 37 O. St. 662 ; Stair v.
Graham, 61 la. 608; Comm. v. Straesser, 153 Pa. 451 ; Smith v. U. S.,
161 U. S. 85 ; Cannon v. People, 141 111. 270; Knight v. Sntythe, 57
\"t. 529 ; Galbraith v. Fleming, 60 Mich. 403 ; State v. Downs, 91 Mo.
19; see Comm. v . Barnacle, 134 Mass. 215). The evidence in such
cases must be of general reputation for violence, etc., and not of
specific acts of violence. People v. Druse, 103 N. Y. 655 ; Alexander
v. Comm., 105 Pa. 1 ; Harrison v. Comm., 79 Va. 374 ; but see People
v. Harris, 97 Mich. 87.]
Chap. II.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 21
in consequence of it by or by the authority of that
person.1
Ilhcstrations. -
(a) The question is, whether A murdered B.
The facts that, at the instigation of A, B murdered C twenty-five
years before B's murder, and that A at or before that time used
expressions showing malice against C, are deemed to be relevant, as
showing a motive on A's part to murder B.2
(ab) [The question is, whether A murdered B.
The fact that A had been living in adultery with B's wife is deemed
to be relevant, as showing motive.3
The fact that B had been personally pressing A for payment of a
debt which A had no means to pay is deemed to be relevant, for a
like reason.] 4
(ac) [A is indicted and tried for the murder of his eldest daughter
by drowning her.
Evidence tending to prove that A caused the deaths of his wife and
youngest daughter by drowning at about the same time, and also
showing that he married another woman immediately afterwards, is
deemed to be relevant, as tending to prove that his motive was, by
putting his wife and children out of existence, to enable him to enter
into this second marriage.] 5
1 Illustrations (c), (d) and (e). [See Harrington v. Keteltas, 92 N. Y.
40; Morris v. French, 106 Mass. 326; Banfield \. Whipple, 10 Allen,
27 ; People v. Ah Fook, 64 Cal. 380.]
2 R. v. Clewes, 4 C. & P. 221. [See Say res v. Comm., 88 Pa. 291;
McCne v. Comm., 78 id. 185 ; State v. Dickson, 78 Mo. 438. In Good-
win v. State, 96 Ind. 550 (a trial for murder) threats made by the de-
fendant thirty years before against the deceased were allowed to be
proved ; and so as to threats made thirteen years before and repeated
in later years (State v. Glahn, 97 Mo. 679 ; see Pulliam v. State, 88
Ala. 1). But the jury may consider the remoteness of such evidence
in determining its weight.]
z\Comm. v.Ferrigan, 44 Pa. 386; see Comm. v. Choate, 105 Mass.
458 ; People v. Scott, 153 N. Y. 40 ; Pierson v. People, 79 N. Y. 424 ;
State v. Reed, 53 Kan. 767 ; Pate v. State, 94 Ala. 14.]
4 [Comm. v. Webster, 5 Cush. 295 ; see 97 Mass. 566.]
h[Hawcs v. State, 88 Ala. 37 ; cf. People v. Craig, in Cal. 460.]
A DIGEST OF [Part I.
(/;) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
The fact that A procured the instruments with which the crime was
committed is deemed to be relevant.1
(be) [A,B, and C are tried for the murder of D.
The facts that at the time of the alleged crime these persons were
members of a secret society, organized for the commission of crimes
i if violence against person and property, and for the protection of one
another from detection and punishment, and that on the night before
the murder they met together and planned its commission, are deemed
to be relevant.] -
(c) A is accused of a crime.
The facts that, either before or at the time of, or after the alleged
crime, A caused circumstances to exist tending to give to the facts of
the case an appearance favorable to himself, or that he destroyed or
concealed things or papers, or prevented the presence or procured
the absence of persons who might have been witnesses, or suborned
persons to give false evidence, are deemed to be relevant.3
(d) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
The facts that, after the commission of the alleged crime, he ab-
sconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property
acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or
might have been used in committing it, and the manner in which he
conducted himself when statements on the subject were made in his
presence and hearing, are deemed to be relevant.4
1 R. v. Palmer (passim) ; reported in Stephen's General View of the
Crim. Law of England. [Comm. v. Blair, 126 Mass. 40; People v.
Hope, 62 Cal. 291 ; Colt v. People, 1 Park. Cr. 611 ; see La Beau v.
People, 6 id. 371, 34 N. Y. 223.]
'2 [Hester v. Comm., 85 Pa. 139 ; McManus v. Comm., 91 id. 57 ; Spies
v. People, 122 111. 1, the noted dynamite bomb case in Chicago.]
3 R. v. Patch, Wills' Circ. Ev. 230 ; R. v. Palmer, ub. sup. (passim).
[Thus the concealment of an accused person to avoid arrest may be
shown (Comm. v. Tolliver, 119 Mass. 312 ; Ryan v. People, 79 N. Y.
593) ; the act of writing letters to fasten the crime on others (Gardiner
v. People, 6 Park. Cr. 157), or to keep a witness away from the trial
(Adams v. People, 9 Hun, 89) ; the bribing of witnesses to leave the
State (Slate v. Norton, 121 Mo. 537) ; the alteration of documents to
conceal a fraud (State v. Jamison, 74 la. 613). As to suborning
witnesses, see Donohue v. People, 56 N. Y. 208 ; Murray v. Chase, 134
Mass. 92 ; Sinll \. Bray, 56 Wis. 156.]
4 Common practice. [Thus an accused person's flight may be
Chap. II.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 23
(<?) The question is, whether A suffered damage in a railway
accident.
The fact that A conspired with B, C, and D to suborn false wit-
nesses in support of his case is deemed to be relevant,1 as conduct
subsequent to a fact in issue tending to show that it had not happened.
Article 8.*
statements accompanying acts, complaints, statements
in presence of a person.
Whenever any act may be proved, statements accom-
panying and explaining that act made by or to the per-
son doing it may be proved, if they are necessary to
understand it.2
* See Note V. [Appendix ; also Art. 3, note],
shown, not as creating a legal presumption of guilt, but as having a
tendency to establish his guilt {Allen v. U. S., 164 U. S. 492 ; Conun.
v. Boroschino, 176 Pa. 103; People v. Ross, 115 Cal. 233; Comm.v.
Annis, 15 Gray, 197 ; People v. Ogle, 104 N. Y. 511 ; Fox v. People,
95 111. 71) ; his attempt to avoid or escape arrest or to escape from
jail {Jamison v. People, 145 111. 357; Comm. v. Brigham, 147 Mass.
414 ; State v. Jackson, 95 Mo. 623 ; State v. Stevens, 67 la. 557) ; his
advice to an accomplice to escape {People v. Rathbnn, 21 We'nd. 509) ;
his possession of property obtained by the crime {Stover v. People, 56
N. Y. 315 ; Linsday v. People, 63 N. Y. 143 ; Comm. v.Parmenler, 101
Mass. 211 ; Brown v. Comm., 76 Pa. 319) ; his acts in disposal of such
property {Foster v. People, 63 N. Y. 619) ; his giving a false account of
himself when arrested {Comm. v. Goodwin, 14 Gray, 55; People v.
Conroy, 97 N. Y. 62, 80) ; his conduct after the crime was committed.
Greenfield v . People, 85 N. Y. 75 ; People v. Welsh, 63 Cal. 167 ; and
see Ruloff's case, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 245.]
1 Moriarty v. London, Chatham and Dover Ry. Co., L. R. 5 Q. B.
314 ; compare Gery v. Red/nan, 1 Q. B. D. 161. [Fgan v. Bowker, 5
Allen, 449 ; Heslop v. Heslop, 82 Pa. 537 ; Gulercile v. McKinley, 27
Hun, 320; Lyons v. Lawrence, 12 111. App. 531. So as to bribing a
juror. Hastings v. Stetson, 130 Mass. 76 ; Taylor v. Gilman, 60 N. H.
506 ; see p 22, note 3, supra.}
5 Illustrations {a), {ad), {ac), {b) and {ba). Other statements made
by such persons are relevant or not according to the rules as to state-
24 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
In criminal cases [of rape] the conduct of the person
against whom the offence is said to have been committed,
and in particular the fact that soon after the offence
[she] made a complaint to persons to whom [she] would
naturally complain, are deemed to be relevant ; ' but the
terms of the complaint itself seem to be deemed to be
irrelevant.
ments hereinafter contained. See Ch. IV '. post. [Ay lesford Peerage
Case, L. R. n App. Cas. i ; Swift v. Life his. Co., 63 N. Y. 186, 190 ;
Kingsford v. Hood, 105 Mass. 495 ; Place v. Gould, 123 Mass. 347 ;
Merkel's Appeal, 89 Pa. 340.]
1 Illustration (c). [The form in which this rule is stated by Mr.
Stephen makes it applicable to all criminal cases (he omits the words
"of" rape" and has "he" for "she" in the fourth line), but the
rule is regarded in this country as one peculiar to cases of rape,
and it is at least questionable whether it applies to other crimes even
under English law. There appear to be only two English decisions
extending the rule to other crimes than rape, and they are both nisi
prius cases and of slight value. (This subject is fully discussed in the
Am. Law Rev., xiv. 829-838 ; and see Haynes v. Co/nm., 28 Gratt. 942.)
Still the doctrine of res gestce, as applied to other crimes, is sometimes
extended so far as to make the analogy to cases of rape a noticeable
one (see Driscoll v. People, 47 Mich. 413) ; and in some States an
analogous rule is applied, under statutes, to bastardy cases (Benton v.
Starr, 58 Ct. 285 ; Peed v. Haskins, 1 16 Mass. 198).
This rule, as applied to cases of rape (or an attempt to commit rape),
is fully supported by American decisions (Baccio v. People, 41 N. Y.
265 ; People v. O' Sullivan, 104 N. Y. 481 ; State v.Ivins, 36 N. J. L.
233 ; State v. Cook, 92 la. 483 ; Cross v. State, 132 Ind. 65 ; State v.
Carroll, 67 Vt. 477 ; Stevens v. People, 158 111. ill ; Parker v. State,
67 Md. 329 ; Lee v. State, 74 Wis. 45 ; People v. Stewart, 97 Cal. 238).
In these cases evidence of the particulars or details of the complaint
was held not admissible, and such is the general American rule ; but
in some States such evidence is admitted (State v. Kinney, 44 Ct. 153 ;
Burt v. State, 23 O. St. 394 ; Hill v. State, 5 Lea, 725), and by a recent
decision this is now the English rule (R. v.Lilly»ian, [1896] 2 Q. 13.
167). Some cases, however, say that the particulars are provable only
when the person so complaining is a girl of tender years (Hannon v.
State, 70 Wis. 448 ; see People v. Gage, 62 Mich. 271).
Though, in general, the complaint must be made " soon after " the
offence, yet if a longer delay in making it be adequately explained,
Chap. II.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 25
When a person's conduct is in issue, or is deemed to be
relevant to the issue, statements made in his presence
and hearing by which his conduct is likely to have been
affected, are deemed to be relevant.'
as e. g., if the delay be due to threats made by the perpetrator of the
wrong, to duress, to lack of suitable opportunity to complain, etc., the
fact of making complaint (and also the particulars in States admitting
such evidence) may still be proved ; and especially is this true where
the injury was done to a child. Thus a delay of several days, and in
some States even of several weeks or months, when thus explained,
has been held not to exclude the evidence {State v. Reid, 39 Minn.
277 ; People v. Duncan, 104 Mich. 303 ; Dunn v. State, 45 O. St. 249 ;
People v. Terwilliger, 74 Hun, 310, 142 N. Y. 629 ; State v, Byrne, 47
Ct. 465 ; State v. Wilkins, 66 Vt. 1 ; Jackson v. State, 91 Wis. 253).
In such cases, however, the lapse of time may be considered by the
jury as affecting the weight of the evidence. (Id.)
The making of a complaint is generally said to be admissible,
not as constituting part of the res gestce, but as a fact corroborative of
the testimony of the complainant (Gr. Ev. iii. § 213 ; Baccio v. People,
41 N. Y. 265, 268 ; State v. Mitchell, 68 la. 116 ; R. v. Lillyman, [1896]
2 Q. B. 167 ; Am. Law Rev., xiv. 832 ; see the cases supra). Hence, if
she does not testify, the evidence is not received, and that too, even
though she is incompetent to testify {Hornbeck v. State, 35 O. St. 277 ;
State v. Meyers, 46 Neb. 152). Some American decisions hold, how-
ever, that complaints made "immediately after" the commission of
the wrong are admissible as part of the res gestce {People v. Gage, 62
Mich. 271 ; McMurrin v. Rigby, 80 la. 322 ; Snow den v. U. S., 2 App.
D. C. 89 ; see Note V., Appendix).
The particulars of the complaint may be elicited on cross-exami-
nation of the complainant, or may be proved to confirm her testimony
after it has been impeached. State v. Jones, 61 Mo. 232 ; Barnett v.
State, 83 Ala. 40 ; State v.Langford, 45 La. Ann. 1177.]
1 R. v. Edmunds, 6 C. & P. 164 ; Neil v. Jakle, 2 C. & K. 709.
[Illustration (d). This is because tacit acquiescence in such state-
ments may be deemed an admission of their truth {Proctor v. Old
Colony R. Co., 154 Mass. 251 ; Johnson v. Day, 78 Me. 224 ; Jewett v.
Banning, 21 N. Y. 27). The rule applies when the statements made
impute a crime, as well as in other cases {Kelley v. People, 55 N. Y. 565 ;
Comm. v. Galavan, 9 Allen, 271 ; Ettinger v. Comtn., 98 Pa. 338 ; State
v. Reed, 62 Me. 129 ; Watt v. People, 126 111. 9 ; Conway v. State, 118 Ind.
482 ; see Art. 21, note, post) ; but it does not apply if the person be in-
26 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A committed an act of bankruptcy, by
departing the realm with intent to defraud his creditors.
Letters written during his absence from the realm, indicating such
an intention, are deemed to be relevant facts.1
{ab) [The question is, whether a written paper which A destroyed
was his will, and what was his intent in destroying it.
Statements made by A at the time of destruction that the paper was
his will and giving his reasons for the act were deemed to be relevant.
But statements made after the destruction were deemed not to be
relevant.]2
(ac) [The question is, whether a person is domiciled in the town of B.
Statements made by him, accompanying his removal from B to
the city of C, that he intended to make his home in C, are deemed to
be relevant.]3
capable of hearing or understanding the statements, though these are
made in his presence [Ldnergan v. People, 39 N. Y. 39 ; Wright v.
Maseras, 56 Barb. 521 ; Martin v. Capital his. Co., 85 la. 643 ; Tufts v.
Charlestown, 4 Gray, 537 ; Comm. v. Sliney, 126 Mass. 49). So if the
statements are made in a judicial proceeding, silence does not admit
their truth, since there is no opportunity to respond {People v. Willett, g2
N. Y. 29 ; Collier v. Dick, 1 1 1 Ala. 263 ; State v. Mullins, 101 Mo. 514;
State v. Boyle, 13 R. I. 537 ; Johnson v. Holliday, 79 Ind. 151 ; but see
B 'lane hard v.Hodgkins, 62 Me. 119). Nor does "silence give consent,"
if the circumstances are such as would not naturally call for a reply or
explanation {Drury v. Hervey, 126 Mass. 519; People v. Koerner,
154 N. Y. 355 ; Fry v. Stowers, 92 Va. 13 ; Peck v. Ryan, 1 10 Ala. 336 ;
People v. Larubia, 140 N. Y. 87 ; Pierce 's Admr-. v. Pierce, 66 Vt. 369 ;
cf. Hoffmann v. Hoffmann's Excr., 126 Mo. 486). If a reply is actually
made in any case, it is admissible in evidence with the statement.
Comm. v. Trefethcn, 157 Mass. 180 ; People v. Driscoll, 107 N. Y. 414 ;
Slate v.Rogers, 108 Mo. 202.]
1 Raivson v. Haigh, 2 Bing. 99 ; Batcman v. Bailey, 5 T. R. 512.
[ Eighmy v. People, 79 N. Y. 546 ; Waterman v. Whitney, 11 N. Y.
I57-]
3 [Viles v. Waltham, 157 Mass. 542 ; Fulham v. Howe, 62 Vt. 386 ;
Deer Isle v. Winterport, 87 Me. 37; Roberts Will, 8 Pai. 519; cf.
Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Chancellor, 165 111. 438. So where a person on
leaving home and in going elsewhere to stay or live, states his reasons
for so doing, such declarations are admissible, being part of the res
gestae {Johnson v. Sherivin, 3 Gray, 374 ; Hunter v. State, 40 N. J. L.
Chap. II.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 37
(b) The question is, whether A was sane.
The fact that he acted upon a letter received by him is part of the
facts in issue. The contents of the letter so acted upon are deemed
to be relevant, as statements accompanying and explaining such
conduct.1
(ba) [The question is, whether B is liable for the malicious prosecu-
tion of A.
The information as to A's guilt upon which B relied in instituting
the prosecution is deemed to be relevant, as tending to show whether
A had probable cause for the prosecution and was or was not actuated
by malice.]'2
(c) The question is, whether A was ravished.
The fact that, shortly after the alleged rape, she made a complaint
relating to the crime, and the circumstances under which it was made,
are deemed to be relevant, but not (it seems) the terms of the com-
plaint itself.3
The fact that, without making a complaint, she said that she had been
ravished, is not deemed to be relevant as conduct under this Article,
though it might be deemed to be relevant (e.g.) as a dying declaration
under Article 26.
(d) [The question is, whether A committed arson.
The fact that at the fire or soon afterwards A's son said to him,
" What did you want to set this afire for ? " and that he made no reply,
is deemed to be relevant.]4
495 ; Rudd v. Rounds, 64 Vt. 432 ; Cattison v. Cattison, 11 Pa. 275 ;
Robinson v. State, 57 Md. 14 ; cf. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145
U. S. 285). So replies given at the house of an absent defendant to the
sheriff, who is attempting to serve process upon him, are admissible
to show whether he can be found or is evading service. Buswell v.
Lincks, 8 Daly, 518 ; Gr. Ev. i. § 101.]
1 Wright v. Doe d. Tat/iam, 7 A. & E. 324-5 (per Denman, C. J.).
[See Barber's Appeal, 63 Ct. 393 ; Fosters Excrs. v. Dickerson, 64 Vt.
233-]
* \Fitzgibbon v. Brown, 43 Me. 169 ; Dwain v. Descalso, 66 Cal. 415.
So as to actions for false imprisonment. Neall v. Hart, 115 Pa. 347 ;
Perryman v. Lister, L. R. 4 E. & I. App. 521.]
3 7?. v. Walker, 2 M. & R. 212. See Note V., Appendix. [In England
now evidence is received of the particulars of the complaint. R. v.
Lillyman, [1896] 2 Q. B. 167.]
i[Comm.v. Brailey, 134 Mass. 527 ; see Brown v. State, 32 Tex.
App. 119.]
28 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
Article 9.
facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts.
Facts necessary to be known to explain or introduce a
fact in issue or relevant or deemed to be relevant to the
issue, or which support or rebut an inference suggested
by any such fact, or which establish the identity of any
thing or person whose identity is in issue or is, or is
deemed to be, relevant to the issue, or which fix the time
or place at which any such fact happened, or which show
that any document produced is genuine or otherwise, or
which show the relation of the parties by whom any such
fact was transacted, or which afforded an opportunity for
its occurrence or transaction, or which are necessary to
be known in order to show the relevancy of other facts,
are deemed to be relevant in so far as they are necessary
for those purposes respectively.1
Illustrations,
(a) The question is, whether a writing published by A of B is
libelous or not.
The position and relations of the parties at the time when the libel
1 [As to evidence of identity, see Udderzook v. Comm., 76 Pa. 340 ;
Johnson v. Comm., 115 Id. 369; Comm. v. Campbell, 155 Mass. 537;
State v. Witham, 72 Me. 531 ; of the relations of the parties, Meltz-
ger v. Doll, 91 N. Y. 365 ; Craig's Appeal, jy Pa. 448 ; Siberry v.
State, 133 Ind. 677 ; Roach v. Caldbeck, 64 Vt. 593 ; to support or
rebut an inference suggested by other facts in evidence, State v.
A damson, 43 Minn. 196 ; O'Brien v. Comm., 89 Ky. 354 ; Morris v.
Spojford, 127 Mass. 85. For other cases of relevant evidence under
this Article, see Pontius v. People, 82 N. Y. 339, 350 ; Bronner v. Frauen-
thal, 37 N. Y. 166 ; Quincey v. White, 63 N. Y. 370, 380 ; Comm. v.
Annis, 15 Gray, 197; Comm. v. Williams, 105 Mass. 62; People v.
Whitson, 43 Mich. 421 ; Wagenseller v. Simmers, 97 Pa. 465 ; for
cases of irrelevant evidence, see Barnes v. Keene, 132 N. Y. 13 ; Phil.
R. Co. v. Henrice, 92 Pa. 431 ; Thompson v. Bowie, 4 Wall. 463;
Craves v. Jacobs, 8 Allen, 141.]
Chap. II.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 2g
was published may be deemed to be relevant facts as introductory to
the facts in issue.'
The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter un-
connected with the alleged libel are not deemed to be relevant under
this Article, though the fact that there was a dispute may be deemed
to be relevant if it affected the relations between A and B.1
(b) The question is, whether A wrote an anonymous letter, threaten-
ing B, and requiring B to meet the writer at a certain time and place
to satisfy his demands.
The fact that A met B at that time and place is deemed to be
relevant, as conduct subsequent to and affected by a fact in issue.
The fact that A had a reason, unconnected with the letter, for being
at that time at that place, is deemed to be relevant, as rebutting the
inference suggested by his presence.'2
(c) A is tried for a riot, and is proved to have marched at the head
of a mob. The cries of the mob are deemed to be relevant, as explan-
atory of the nature of the transaction.3
(d) The question is, whether a deed was forged. It purports to be
made in the reign of Philip and Mary, and enumerates King Philip's
titles.
The fact that, at the alleged date of the deed, Acts of State and
other records were drawn with a different set of titles, is deemed to
be relevant.4
(e) The question is, whether A poisoned B, Habits of B known to
A, which would afford A an opportunity to administer the poison, are
deemed to be relevant facts.5
(/) The question is, whether A made a will under undue influence.
1 Common practice.
2 R. v. Barnard, 19 St. Tri. 815, &c. [S. P. Hoar v. Abbott, 146
Mass. 290 ; Schlemmer v. State, 51 N. J. L. 23 ; People v. Dixon, 94
Cal. 255 ; Pr indie v. Glover, 4 Ct. 266 ; Comm. v. Brady, 7 Gray, 320.]
z R.x. Lord George Gordon, 21 St. Tri. 520. [See Stone v. Segur,
11 Allen, 568 ; Goins v. State, 46 O. St. 457 ; Comm. v. Ratcliffe, 130
Mass. 36 ; Alexander v. U. S., 138 U. S. 353 ; McRae v. State, 71
Ga. 96.]
4 Lady Lvy's Case, 10 St. Tri. 615.
6 R. v. Donellan, Wills' Circ. Ev. 192 ; and see my " History of the
Criminal Law," ill, 371. [Cf. McMeed v. Conwi., 114 Pa. 300; People
v. Buchanan, 145 N. Y. 1.]
3o A DIGEST OF [Part I.
His way of life and relations with the persons said to have influenced
him unduly, are deemed to be relevant facts.1
(g) [The question is, whether A, an infant child, who was killed
while on his way from England to this country, was domiciled in
New York State at the time of his death.
The fact that his father, having resided in England, had lived in
New York several months prior to A's death, and had come there for
the purpose of making his home and living in that State, is deemed
to be relevant.] '2
(k) [The question is, whether a gold watch, chain, and locket, sold
to a wife, are necessaries, for which the husband should pay.
The fact that the husband wore diamonds, and kept a fast horse, and
had paid for silk dresses worn by her, is deemed to be relevant.]3
id) [The question is, whether A was employed by B.
Conduct of A during the term of such employment, inconsistent with
the theory of such employment, is deemed to be a relevant fact.]4
(/) [The question is, whether A has survived his partner B.
Evidence that a person having the same name as B has died at the
place of B's residence, is deemed to be relevant.]5
(k) [The question is, whether A has been appropriating his em-
ployer's property.
The fact that for several years A has been living far beyond his
apparent means is deemed to be relevant, as tending to confirm other
evidence of dishonesty in taking the employer's property.]6
(/) [The question is, whether A murdered B.
Evidence is relevant which tends to identify a body found six months
after B's disappearance as that of B by showing similarity in the color
of the hair, in the size of the body, in the appearance of the teeth, etc.
' Boyse v. Rossborough, 6 H. L. C. 42-58. [Horn v. Pullman, 72 N.
Y. 269 ; Coil v. Patchen, 77 N. Y. 533 ; May v. Bradlee, 127 Mass. 414 ;
Spruit v. Spratt, 76 Mich. 384 ; Frew v. Clarke, 80 Pa. 170 ; Griffith
v. Diffenderffer, 50 Md. 466 ; Kenyon v. Ashbridge, 35 Pa. 157.]
2 [Kennedy v. Ryall, 67 N. Y. 379.]
s[Raynes v. Bennett, 1 14 Mass. 424.]
* [Miller v. Irish, 63 N. Y. 652.]
b[Daby v. Ericsson, 45 N. Y. 786. Identity of name is, in general,
prima facie evidence of identity of person. See Art. 101, note.]
6 [Hackett v. King, 8 Allen, 144 ; Martin v. State, 104 Ala. 71 ; see
N. Y. etc. Ferry Co. v. Moore, 1 N. Y. St. R. 374, 102 N. Y. 667 ; Bos-
Ion &* W. R. Co. v. Dana, 1 Gray, 83.]
Chap. II.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 31
Evidence of the following facts is also deemed relevant . — that blood-
stains were found on boards where an accomplice of A testified the
body of B had been placed ; that these stains were of human blood ;
that A had B's watch in his possession a few months after B's dis-
appearance ; that the accomplice was absent from home on the night
when, as he swore, he aided A in removing the body to another place;
that A was seen on this night to ride in the direction of this place.] '
(m) [A, having suffered injury from the defective condition of a
highway, machine, structure, etc., sues B (the city in which the high-
way lies, or the owner of the machine, etc.), claiming that such defect
and the consequent injury are attributable to B's negligence.
Evidence that after the injury happened to A, the defect was
repaired by B, is deemed not to be relevant for the purpose of prov-
ing that B was negligent, as alleged, before the injuryj'2
(n) [The question is, whether A, a physician, has been guilty of mal-
practice and neglect.
The fact that A has not presented any bill or asked any pay for his
services is deemed not to be relevant.]3
(0) [The question is, whether a credit for goods sold was given to
the defendant or his son.
Evidence that the son had no property at the time of the sale, and
was entirely irresponsible, is deemed not to be relevant.]4
1 [Linsday v. People, 63 N. Y. 143 ; see Greenfield v. People, 85 N.
Y. 75 ; People v. Beckwith, 108 N. Y. 67 ; People v. Johnson, 140 N. Y.
350; State v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153; People v. Sanders, 114 Cal. 216;
Comm. v. Dorsey, 103 Mass. 412.]
2 [Corcoran v. Peekskill, 108 N. Y. 151 ; Morse v . Minneapolis, etc.
R. Co., 30 Minn. 465; Nal ley v. Hartford Carpet Co., 51 Ct. 524 ;
Langworthy v. Green Township, 88 Mich. 207 ; Lang v. Sanger, 76
Wis. 71 ; Terr e Haute, etc. R. Co. v. Clem, 123 Ind. 15 ; Skinners v.
Proprietors, 154 Mass. 168 ; Columbia R. Co. v. Hawthorne, 144 U. S.
202; Sappenfield v. Alain St. R. Co., 91 Cal. 48. In some States,
however, such evidence is deemed competent as an implied ad-
mission of prior negligence. (Id.)]
z[Baird v. Gillctt, 47 N. Y. 186 ; cf. McBride v. Grand Rapids,
49 Mich. 239 ; Barnes v. Keene, 132 N. Y. 13.]
4 [Green v. Disbroiu, 56 N. Y. 334 ; but see Lee v. Wheeler, 1 1 Gray,
236 ; cf. Buswell Trimmer Co. v. Case, 144 Mass. 350 ; Canaday v.
Krum, 83 N. Y. 67, 73 ; McLoghliu v. Mohawk, etc. Bk., 139 N. Y.
5I4,524-]
32 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
(p) [The question is, whether A, the maker of a promissory note,
paid it shortly before he died.
Evidence that for a year before his death he had been hopelessly
insolvent, and had had great difficulty in procuring means to meet
his obligations, is deemed not to be relevant. " It is common for both
solvent and insolvent men to pay some of their debts and to leave
some unpaid."] '
(q) [The question is, whether an executor is liable to pay a note of
long standing, signed by his testator.
Evidence that the testator was in the habit of paying his debts
promptly, or that another person had agreed to pay them for him, or
that he made a list of his debts in which this note was not included, is
deemed not to be relevant for the purpose of proving that the note
has already been paid.]2
(r) [The question is, whether A is the father of B, a young child.
Evidence that B resembles A, or counter-evidence to show non-
resemblance, is deemed not to be relevant.3 But, by some decisions,
B may be exhibited to the jury to enable them to judge, from its
resemblance or non-resemblance to A, whether A is its father.]4
1 [Xenia Bk. v. Stewart, 114 U. S. 224 ; but see Atwoodv. Scott, 99
Mass. 177 ; cf. Bean v. Tonnele, 94 N. Y 381.]
'2[Abercrombie v. Sheldon, 8 Allen, 532; cf. Martin v. Shannon,
92 la. 374 ; Burke v. Kaley, 138 Mass. 464 ; Carroll v. Deimel, 95 N.
Y. 252.]
3[ Young v. Makepeace, 103 Mass. 50 ; Jones v. Jones, 45 Md. 144 ;
Eddy v. Gray, 4 Allen, 435 ; cf . People v. Carney, 29 Hun, 47 ; but see
Faulk v. State, 52 Ala. 427.]
4 [Gaunt v. State, 50 N. J. L. 490 ; Scott v. Donovan, 153 Mass. 378 ;
Crow v. Jordan, 49 O. St. 655; Gilmantonv. Ham, 38 N. H. 108;
contra, Rcitz v. State, 33 Ind. 187 ; Clark v. Bradstreet, 80 Me. 454 ;
Hanawalt v '. State, 64 Wis. 84 ; Robnetl v. People, 16 111. App. 299.
In Iowa it has been held that a child two years and one month old
might be exhibited to the jury {State v. Smith, 54 la. 104), but not a
child three months old, because at such an age its features would be
too immature (State v. Danforth, 48 la. 43). A photograph of the
alleged father has been admitted in evidence, after his death, for the
purpose of comparison with the child, the latter being old enough to
have sufficiently developed features. Shorten v Judd, 56 Kan. 43 ;
see Farrell v. IVezts, 160 Mass. 288 ; cf. McKenna v. Paper Co., 176
Pa. 309, where photographs were compared with each other in order
to ascertain a person's identity.]
Chap. II.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 33
(s) [The question is, whether A is insane.
The fact that his father, mother, or other blood relation is or has
been insane, is deemed to be relevant.]1
1 [State v. Hoyt, 47 Ct. 518 ; Prentis v. Bates, 93 Mich. 234 ; Baxter
v. Abbott, 7 Gray, 71 ; Shaeffer v. State, 61 Ark. 241 ; Walsh v. People,
88 N. Y. 458. But as to some kinds of insanity, it may be necessary
to prove them to be inheritable in order to make such evidence com-,
petent ; so held as to melancholia from intemperance. Reichenbach v. '
Ruddach, 127 Pa. 564.]
34 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
CHAPTER III.
OCCURRENCES SIMILAR TO BUT UNCONNECTED
WITH THE FACTS IN ISSUE, IRRELEVANT EXCEPT
IN CERTAIN CASES.
Article io.*
similar but unconnected facts.
A fact which renders the existence or non-existence of
any fact in issue probable by reason of its general resem-
blance thereto, and not by reason of its being connected
therewith in any of the ways specified in Articles 3-9,
both inclusive, is deemed not to be relevant to such fact,1
except in the cases specially excepted in this chapter.
* See Note VI. [Appendix].
1 [Barney v. Richard, 157 U. S. 352 ; Wise v. Ackerman, 76 Md. 375.
But where the question is as to the cause of a certain occurrence,
the fact that similar occurrences have, under like conditions, been
produced by a particular cause is deemed to be relevant {Evans v.
Keystone Gas Co., 148 N. Y. 112; Rockford Gas Light Co. v. Ernst,
68 111. App. 300) ; and where the question is whether a certain state of
things existed at a given time, the fact that a cause was in operation
which, under like conditions, constantly produced such a result, is
deemed to be relevant (Up/iam v. Salem, 162 Mass. 483). So the
quality of an act or thing, as prudent or negligent, safe or dangerous,
etc., may be exhibited, by showing that under like conditions it has
produced similar favorable or injurious results, as in the case in
question (see Illustrations // to m). This rule is analogous to that
stated in Article 12, post. But if the conditions are not substantially
the same in all cases, the evidence is not relevant. Morse v. Minn.
etc. R. Co., 30 Minn. 465; Hunt v. Lowell Gas Co., 8 Allen, 169;
Cleveland, etc. R. Co. v. Newell, 104 Ind. 264 ; Bloomington v. Legg,
151 111. 9; Shepardv. Hill, 151 Mass. 540 ; Randolph v. Bloomfield,
77 la. 50 ; Brewing Co. v. Bauer, 50 O. St. 560 ; GriJJin v. Auburn, 58
N. H. 121 ; Hodgkins v. Chappell% 128 Mass. 197 1 cf. Stale v. Flint,
60 Yt. 304.]
Chap. III.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 35
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
The fact that he formerly committed another crime of the same
sort, and had a tendency to commit such crimes, is deemed to be
irrelevant.1
(ab) [A is indicted and brought to trial for the robbery of a bank-
key from the janitor of the bank.
Evidence of a burglary committed on the bank immediately after
the taking of the key, of the breaking open of the safe and the larceny
of the valuables therein, is deemed to be relevant ; also that defend-
ant had for two years been engaged in a conspiracy to rob the bank,
and had made two prior attempts to carry out this purpose.]'2
(b) The question is, whether A, a brewer, sold good beer to B, a
publican. The fact that A sold good beer to C, D, and E, other pub-
1 R. v. Cole, 1 Ph. Ev. 508 (said to have been decided by all the
Judges in Mich. Term, 18 10). [People v. Sharp, 107 N. Y. 427 ; People
v. McLaughlin, 150 N. Y. 365, 386 ; Jordan v. Osgood, 109 Mass. 457 ;
Costelo v. Crowell, 139 Mass. 588; Janzen v. People, 159 111. 440;
Boyd v. U. S., 142 U. S. 450 ; Shaffner v Comm., 72 Pa. 60. But the
commission of another crime may be shown, if it supplies a motive or
constitutes preparation for the commission of the one in question
(Pierson v. People, 79 N. Y. 424 ; Comm. v. Choate, 105 Mass. 451, 458 ;
Painter v. People, 147 111. 444; People v. Harris, 136 N. Y. 423;
McConkey v. Comm., 101 Pa. 416; State N.Kline, 54 la. 183; see
Illustration (ab) ; also Art. 7, supra) ; or if it tends to prove any fact
constituting an element of the crime charged ( Weed v. People, 56 N.
Y. 628) ; or if the different crimes form parts of one general scheme
or transaction and exhibit the same general purpose (Illustration
(ab) ; People v. Murphy, 135 N. Y. 450 ; Scott v. People, 141 111 195;
Comm. v. Scott. 123 Mass. 222 ; Brown v. Comm., 76 Pa. 319 ; Pa. Co.
for Insurance v, Phila. etc. R. Co., 153 Pa. 160; State v. Lee, 91 la.
499 ; People v. Mead, 50 Mich. 228 ; People v. Smith, 106 Cal. 7} ;
Halleck v. State, 65 Wis. 147) ; and in other like cases (see Comm. v.
Jackson, 132 Mass. 16, 19 ; Goerscn v. Comm., 99 Pa. 388). Thus
former attempts to commit the same crime may be proved to show
criminal intent, the identity of the actor, etc, {Comm. v. Bradford,
126 Mass. 42 ; State v. Nugent, 71 Mo. 136 ; Xicholas' Case, 91 Va. 741 ;
People v. O Sullivan, 104 N. Y. 481). These latter cases fall properly
under Arts. 11 and 12, post. The whole subject is well discussed in
Farris v. People, 129 111. 521 and People v. Sharp, 107 N. Y. 427.]
2 [Hope v. Peofile, 83 N. Y. 418.]
36 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
licans, is deemed to be irrelevant,1 (unless it is shown that the beer
sold to all is of the same brewing).'2
(c) [The question is, whether certain shovel-handles sold by A to B
were of good quality.
Evidence that shovel-handles sold by A to another party at the same
time were of good quality, is deemed to be relevant, if accompanied
by evidence that the handles sold to both purchasers were of the same
kind and quality.]3
(d) [The question is, whether A, having killed a person at night,
knew him to be an officer of the law.
The fact that there was a lighted street lamp near by is relevant, as
tending to show that A could see the official uniform. But to prove
the amount of light cast by the lamp on this night, evidence showing
the amount of light cast by the same lamp on a night four months
afterwards is irrelevant, (the conditions not being shown to be the
same).]4
(e) [The question is, whether A has a right to travel on a railroad
ticket after the time limited therein for its use, without the payment
of fare.
The fact that he has at other times purchased similar tickets and
used them after the time specified, without being required to pay fare,
is irrelevant.]5
(/) [The question is, what is the value of a certain vessel.
Evidence to prove the value of other vessels with which she" might
be compared is irrelevant.]6
1 Holco)nbe v. Hewson, 2 Camp. 391 ; [cf. Lake v. Clark, 97 Mass.
346.]
s See Illustrations to Article 3 ; [see Comm. v. Goodman, 97 Mass.
117; Luetgertv. Volker, 153 111. 385.]
3 [Ames v. Quimby, 106 U. S. 342 ; cf. Albany, etc. Co. v. Lundberg,
121 U. S. 451 ; Pike v. Fay, 101 Mass. 134; Thill's Sons v. Perkins
Lamp Co., 63 Ct. 478.]
4 [ Yates v. People, 32 N. Y. 509 ; see King v. N. Y. Central, etc. R.
Co., 72 N. Y. 610; Fillo v. Jones, 2 Abb. Dec. 121 ; Stone v. Ins. Co.,
71 Mich. 81.]
5 [Hill v. Syracuse, etc. R. Co., 63 N. Y. 101 ; cf. Harris v. Howard,
56 Vt. 695 ; Dana v. Nat. Bk. of Republic, 132 Mass. 156.]
6 [Blanchard v. Steamboat Co., 59 N. Y. 292 ; Gouge v. Roberts, 53
N. Y. 619; Huntington v. Atlrill, 118 N. Y. 635; but see Berney v.
Dins?nore, 141 Mass. 42 ; Carr v. Moore, 41 N. H. iji. But in Mas-
sachusetts and some other States the value of land may be proved by
Chap. III.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 37
(g) [The question is, whether a servant was negligent on a particular
occasion.
Evidence that he was negligent on previous occasions is irrelevant;
but if the question were whether the master was negligent in retaining
in his employ a careless and incompetent servant, evidence of the
servant's prior acts of negligence to the master's knowledge, would
be relevant.] '
(h) [The question is, what sum A is entitled to receive from B, as
compensation for services rendered by A as B's attorney, agent, or
servant.
Evidence as to what compensation has been paid to other persons
by B for similar services is deemed not to be relevant.]'2
(z) [The question is, whether A is hired by his employer B by the
week or by the year.
Evidence that other employees of B are hired by the year is deemed
to be irrelevant.]3
(J) [The question is, whether A, having been injured by slipping
showing the prices received upon sales of other lands of like descrip-
tion in the vicinity at times not too remote {Haven v. Coitnty Commrs.,
155 Mass. 467 ; St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Clark, 121 Mo. 169 ; Laing v.
United N.J. R. Co., 54 N. J. L. 576; Elmore v. Johnson, 143 111. 513 ;
Mayor oj Baltimore v. Smith Co., 80 Md. 458; Washburn v. Mil-
waukee R. Co., 59 Wis. 364). The contrary rule, however, prevails in
some States {Matter oj Thompson, 127 N. Y. 463 ; Becker v. Phila.
etc. R. Co., 177 Pa. 252; Mills, Em. Domain, §170; cf. Kerr v. So.
Park Commrs., 117 U. S. 379; Witmark v. N. Y. Elev. R. Co., 149
N. Y. 393). What was paid for property when it was bought is some
evidence of its present value, hi re Johnston, 144 N. Y. 563 ; Ken-
drick v. Beard, 90 Mich. 589.]
1 [Baulec v. JV. Y. etc. R. Co., 59 N. Y. 356 ; Whittaker v. Delaware,
etc. R. Co., 126 N. Y. 544 ; Western Stone Co. v. Whalen, 151 111. 472 ;
Baltimore Elevator Co. v. Neal, 65 Md. 438 ; Grube v. Mo. Pac. R.
Co., 98 Mo. 330; cf. Connors v. Morton, 160 Mass. 333; Michigan
Cent. R. Co. v. Gilbert, 46 Mich. 176, contra, Stale v. Railroad Co.,
52 N. H. 528; see p. 46. n. ^fiost ; also Arts. 12, 57, and notes.]
3 [Playjord v. Hutchinson, 135 Pa. 426; Seurer v. Horst, 31 Minn.
479; Linn v. Gilman, 46 Mich. 628; Bonynge v. Field, 81 N. Y. 159;
cf. Newhall v. Appleton, 102 N. Y. 133.]
3 [Lichtenhein v. Fisher, 6 App. Div. (N. Y.) 385 ; Schneider v. Hill,
19 Misc. 56.]
38 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
and falling upon a sidewalk, can recover damages from the city for
its alleged neglect to keep the walk in a safe condition.
The fact that other persons slipped and fell upon the same walk,
while its condition remained the same as when A fell, is relevant to
show that it was unsafe for use at the time of his fall.] '
(/■) [The question is, whether the act or structure of A, which fright-
ened B's horse, was one which was calculated to render the use of the .
highway with horses dangerous. ■
Evidence that other horses of ordinary steadiness were frightened '
by the same act or structure, or one of the same kind under like cir-
cumstances, is relevant.] -
(/) [The question is, whether a loom-attachment will work success-
fully on a certain loom.
The fact that it works successfully on another loom of substantially
the same construction, is relevant.] :"
(;;/) [A, having been injured in using (as he lawfully might, as cus-
1 [District of Col. v. Amies, 107 U. S. 519 ; Quinlan v. Utica, 11 Hun,
217, 74 N. Y. 603; Magee v. Troy, 48 Hun, 383, 119 N. Y. 640; Gillrie
v. Lockport, 122 N. Y. 403 ; Lombar v. East Tawas, 86 Mich. 14;
Topeka v. Sherwood, 39 Kan. 690; Cook v. New Durham, 64 N. H.
419; Phelps v. Winona, etc. R. Co., 37 Minn. 485; Birmingham R. Co.
v. Alexander, 93 Ala. 133; Golden v. Clinton, 54 Mo. App. 100; Row-
lands v. Elgin, 66 111. App. 66; cf. Eraser v. Schroedcr, 163 111. 459;
Kent v. Lincoln, 32 Yt. 591. But some cases are to the contrary
{Phillips v. Willow, 70 Wis. 6; Moore v. Richmond, 85 Ya. 538;
Pre inner v. ATewcastle, 83 Me. 415).
Evidence that other persons had been injured at the same place
has also been received to show that the city had notice of the defect.
City of Goshen v. England, 119 Ind. 368 ; Alberts v. Vernon, 96 Mich.
549; Chicago v. Powers, 42 111. 169; Ashtabula v. Bartram, 3 O. C. C.
640.]
: [Crocker v. McGregor, 76 Me. 282; Bonis v. Temple, 162 Mass.
312; /Ian 1 II v. Albemarle, etc. R. Co., no N. C. 215; Gordon v.
Boston &= M. R. Co., 58 N. H. 396 ; House v. Metcalf, 27 Ct. 631 ; cf.
Lewis v. Eastern R. Co., 60 N. H. 187 ; Brown v. Eastern, etc. R. Co.,
22 Q\ B. D. 391 ; Piollct v. Simmers, 106 Pa. 95 ; contra, Cleveland,
etc. R. Co. v. Wynant, 114 Ind. 525 ; Ploorv. Delafield, 69 Wis. 273.]
3 [Briefly v. Davoll Mills, 128 Mass. 291 ; cf. Locke v. Express, etc.
Co., 71 Mich. 263 ; Bayer v. Rhinehart, 17 X. Y. S. 346, 137 N. Y. 564 ;
Tremblay v. I/arndcn, 162 Mass. 383 ; Bradley v. Hartford, etc. Lns.
Co., 19 F. R. 246.]
Chap, til.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 39
tomer, passenger, traveler, etc.) B's appliance, machine, structure, etc.,
claims that the injury is due to B's negligence in not having said
appliance, machine, structure, etc., in reasonably safe condition for
use. Evidence, introduced in B's behalf, that many others had for a
long time used the same thing (or an identical thing or things) in the
same condition, and that no similar injury had ever occurred, is
deemed to be relevant. Such evidence tends to show that the appli-
ance, machine, structure, etc., is such as a reasonably prudent person,
exercising reasonable diligence, would properly consider safe for the
purposes for which it was designed.] '
(n) [A sues B (a city, village, railway company, bridge company,
etc.) to recover damages for an injury alleged to have been sustained
through a defect in a highway, railway track, bridge, etc., which defect
is alleged to be due to B's neglect or default. A submits no evidence
as to the condition of the way, track, bridge, etc., at the precise place
where the injury is alleged to have occurred, but offers evidence that
the same was defective or dangerous in the immediate vicinity of this
place. Such evidence is deemed to be relevant, if it is proved, or if
the circumstances of the case justify the conclusion, that the condition
of the place where the injury occurred and of the place to which the
evidence relates was substantially the same.2
A also submits evidence to show what was the condition of the place
1 [Field v. Davis, 27 Kan. 400 (grain elevator) ; Doyle v. St. Paul,
etc. R. Co., 42 Minn. 79 ; McGrell v. Buffalo Office Bldg. Co., 153 N.
Y. 265 (passenger elevator); Frobisherv. Fifth Ave. Co., 151 N. Y.
431 (omnibus) ; Lafflin v. Buffalo, etc. R. Co., 106 N. Y. 136 (platform
of railway station) ; Loftus v. Union Ferry Co., 84 N. Y. 455 (ferry
float) ; Cleveland v. N.J. Steamboat Co., 68 N. Y. 306 (steamboat) ;
cf. Calkins v. Hartford, 33 Ct. 57 (sidewalk) ; to the contrary are
Hodges v. Bearse, 129 111. 87 (elevator) ; Langworthy v. Green Typ,
88 Mich. 207 (highway) ; Branch v. Libbey, 78 Me. 321 (highway).]
2 [Barrett v. Hammond, 87 Wis. 654 ; Vicksburg, etc. R. Co. v. Put-
nam, 118 U. S. 545 ; Nashville, etc. R. Co. v. Johnson, 15 Lea, 6jy (con-
dition of railway track shown for 100 yards on either side) ; Ohio
Valley R. Co. v. Watson, 93 Ky. 654 ; Fort Wayne v. Combs, 107 Ind.
75 (break in sewer 100 feet distant) ; Sidekum v. Washburn, etc.R. Co.,
93 Mo. 400 (railway track, \%. miles held too far distant and evidence
rejected) ; Campbell v. Kalamazoo, 80 Mich. 655 (plank walk, con-
dition near by proved). Evidence of this kind is, also, generally re-
ceived to show notice of the condition of the way, track, bridge, etc.,
to the municipality, railroad company, etc., in order to establish its
40 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
where the injury occurred some time before the injury or some time
after the injury, as tending to show what was its condition at the time
of the injury. This evidence is deemed to be relevant, if it is also
proved, or if the circumstances justify the conclusion, that the condi-
tion of the place has continued without change during the interval.]1
(o) [The question is, whether a fire was caused by sparks and coals
from a locomotive of a railroad company.
The fact that passing locomotives of similar construction have on
other occasions, not too remote, caused fires at or near the place in
question by scattering sparks and coals, is deemed to be relevant ; so
also is Ihe fact that they have thus repeatedly scattered sparks and
coals, though no actual fires were thereby caused, since such a cause
may have occasioned fire in this instance, though not in others. But
preliminary evidence should be given excluding the probability that
the fire in question originated from another source.] '2
negligence in not having made repairs at the place of the injury.
Girardv. Kalamazoo, 92 Mich. 610 ; McConnell v. Osage, 80 la. 293 ;
Shaw v. Sun Prairie, 74 Wis. 105 ; Shelbyville v. Brant, 61 111. App.
153 ; McGuire v. Ogdensburgh, etc. R. Co., 18 N. Y, S. 313.]
1 \Jessup v. Osceola Co., 92 la. 178 (condition of bridge shown "a few
days after ") ; Bloomington v. Osterlee, 139 111. 120 (two weeks after) ;
Swadley v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 118 Mo. 268 ; Stewart v. Everts, 76 Wis.
35 (six months after) ; Sullivan v. Syracuse, 77 Hun, 440 (three days
after) ; McCulloch v. Dobson, 133 N. Y. 1 14 (a few months) ; Hunt v.
City of Dubuque, 96 la. 314 (one year before); but evidence to
show the condition of a railway track one or more years afterwards
has been rejected as too remote (Sto/ier v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 91 Mo.
509). So where the conditions have changed, the evidence is rejected,
even though the interval be short. Woodcock v. Worcester, 138 Mass.
268 (a week before).]
3 {Field v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 32 N. Y. 339; Crist v. Erie R. Co., 58
N. Y. 638 ; Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Richardson, 91 U. S. 454 ; Boyce v.
Cheshire R. Co., 43 N. H. 627 ; Ky. Cent. R. Co. v. Barrow, 89 Ky.
638 ; Steele v. Pacific, etc. R. Co., 74 Cal. 323 ; Campbell v. Mo. Pac. R.
Co., 121 Mo. 340 ; see Atchison, etc, R. Co. v. Stanford, 12 Kan. 354 ;
Albert v. Nor. Central R. Co., 98 Pa. 316. In some of these cases it is
also said that evidence of this kind may show a habit of negligence in
running the trains. The last sentence of the Illustration states a rule
declared by the New York cases, (and see Wiley v. West fersey R. Co.,
44 N. J. L. 247 ; Johnson v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., yj la. 666).
So where it is claimed that the fire was set by a particular engine,
Chap. III.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 41
(p) [The question is, whether a fire causing the destruction of a cer-
tain building by night was of incendiary origin.
The fact that an attempt was made on the same night to set fire to a
neighboring building by the use of similar means is relevant.] '
(0) [The question is, whether the foundering of a vessel, while she is
being towed by a tug, is caused by her being overladen and unsea-
worthy, or is due to the reckless and improper rate of speed at which
she is towed.
The fact that she has been frequently towed in safety with as heavy
or heavier loads and at as high a rate of speed is deemed to be
relevant, as tending to show that negligence in towing must have
caused the disaster. The fact that she has repeatedly foundered
while being carefully towed is deemed to be relevant, as indicating
that her own improper condition must have occasioned the loss.] 2
(r) [The question is, whether the sickness of A, a seaman, while he
was upon a ship at sea of which B was master, was due to B's neglect
in failing to furnish suitable provisions and anti-scorbutics.
Evidence of the similar sickness of others of the crew about the
same time was deemed to be relevant, on account of the similarity of
the conditions and circumstances affecting all the crew.] 3
evidence tending to show that other fires were set by the same engine
about the same time is admissible (Haseltine v. Concord R. Co., 64
N. H. 545 ; Patton v. St. Louis, etc. R. Co., 87 Mo. 117 ; Tanning v.
Chicago, etc. R. Co., 68 la. 502 ; Brighthope R. Co. v. Rogers, 76 Va.
443 ; Loring v. Worcester, etc. R. Co., 131 Mass. 469). In some States,
moreover, if the plaintiff identifies a particular engine as being the
alleged cause of the fire, evidence as to other engines is in such a case
inadmissible. Henderson v. Philadelphia, etc. R. Co., 144 Pa. 461 ;
Gibbons v. Wisconsin, etc. R. Co., 58 Wis. 335 ; Inman v. Elbertbn R.
Co., 90 Ga. 663 ; but see Thatcher v. Me. Cent. R. Co., 85 Me. 502,
and cases supra.]
1 [Faucett v. Nicholls, 64 N. Y. 377 ; State v. Thompson, 97 N. C.
496 ; see Comm. v. Gauvin, 143 Mass. 134 ; Landell v. Hotchkiss, 1 T.
& C. 580 ; Mead v. Husted, 49 Ct. 336.]
3 [Baird v. Daly, 68 N. Y. 547 ; see Wilson v. Granby, 47 Ct. 59 ;
Beatrice Gas Co. v. Thomas, 41 Neb. 662 ; Weldon v. Harlem R. Co.,
5 Bos 576.]
3 [Baxter v. Doe, 142 Mass. 558 ; Shea v. Glendale Co., 162 Mass.
463. But to prove the intoxication of A, it is not competent to prove
that B, who had been with him and had drunk the same kinds and
amount of liquor, was intoxicated. Comm. v. Cleary, 135 Pa. 64.]
A DIGEST OF [Part I.
Article n.*
ACTS SHOWING INTENTION, GOOD FAITH, ETC.
When there is a question whether a person said or did
something, the fact that he said or did something of the
same sort on a different occasion may be proved, if it
shows the existence on the occasion in question of any
intention, knowledge, good or bad faith, malice, or other
state of mind, or of any state of body or bodily feeling,
the existence of which is in issue, or is or is deemed to be
relevant to the issue ; ' but such acts or words may not
be proved merely in order to show that the person so
acting or speaking was likely on the occasion in question
to act in a similar manner.2
* See Note VI. [Appendix].
1 [This rule is fully considered and its proper limitations stated in
Mayer v. People, 80 N. Y. 364 ; Cotnm. v. Jackson, 132 Mass. 16 ; State
v. Kelley, 65 Vt. 531. See also Gr. Ev. i. §53 ; People v. Dimick, 107
N. Y. 13; TV. Y. Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 117 U. S. 591 ;
State v. Jamison, 74 la. 613; Butler v. Watkins, 13 Wall. 456; Tarbox
v. State, 38 O. St. 581 ; State v. Wentworth, 37 N. H. 196 ; p. 35, ante,
note 1.]
2 [At this point Mr. Stephens adds the following rule derived from
an English statute (34 and 35 Vict. c» 112, s. 19) : " Where proceedings
are laken against any person for having received goods, knowing
them to be stolen, or for having in his possession stolen property, the
fact that there was found in the possession of such person other
property stolen within the preceding period of twelve months, is
deemed to be relevant to the question whether he knew the property
to be stolen which forms the subject of the proceedings taken against
him. If, in the case of such proceedings as aforesaid, evidence has
been given that the stolen property has been found in the possession of
the person proceeded against, the fact that such person has within five
years immediately preceding been convicted of any offence involving
fraud or dishonesty, is deemed to be relevant for the purpose of
proving that the person accused knew the property which was proved
to be in his possession to have been stolen, and may be proved at any
Chap, ill.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 43
Illustrations.
(a) A is charged with receiving two pieces of silk from B, knowing
them to have been stolen by him from C.
The facts that A received from B many other articles stolen by him
from C in the course of several months, and that A pledged all of
them, are deemed to be relevant to the fact that A knew that the two
pieces of silk were stolen by B from C.1
(b) A is charged with uttering, on the 12th December, 1854, a coun-
terfeit crown piece, knowing it to be counterfeit.
The facts that A uttered another counterfeit crown piece on the nth
December, 1854, and a counterfeit shilling on the 4th January, 1855,
are deemed*to be relevant to show A's knowledge that the crown piece
uttered on the 12th was counterfeit.2
stage of the proceedings; provided that not less than seven days'
notice in writing has been given to the person accused that proof is
intended to be given of such previous conviction. The fact that the
prisoner was within twelve months in possession of other stolen
property than that to which the charge applies is not deemed to be
relevant, unless such property was found in his possession at or soon
after the time when the proceedings against him were taken, (R. v.
Carter, 12 Q. B. D. 522; and see R. v.Drage, 14 Cox, 85.)" This
enactment, he says, overrules, to a strictly limited extent, R. v. Oddy,
2 Den. C. C. 264, and practically supersedes R. v. Dunn, 1 Moo. C.
C. 150, and R. v. Davis, 6 C. & P. 177.
In this country such cases are governed by the general common
law rule. See Illustrations and cases cited.]
1 Dunn's Case, 1 Moo. C. C. 146. [S. P. Copperman v. People, 56
N. Y. 591 ; Coleman v. People, 58 N. Y. 555 ; State v. Ward, 49 Ct. 429;
Comm. v.Johnson, 133 Pa. 293 ; Shriedley v. State, 23 O. St. 130 ; see
People v. McClure, 148 N. Y. 95. But the fact that A received prop-
erty on other occasions from other persons than B, knowing it to have
been stolen, is deemed not to be relevant. Coleman v. People, 55
N. Y. 81.]
* R. v. Forster, Dears. 456 ; and see R. v. Weeks, L. & C. 18. [See
Comm. v. Bigelow, 8 Met. 235; Comm. v. Price, 10 Gray, 472; Stalker
v. State, 9 Ct. 341 ; People v. Dibble, 3 Abb. Dec. 518.
So upon a trial for forgery or uttering forged instruments, evidence
of other recent forgeries or utterings by the defendant is admissible
to show guilty knowledge or intent. People v. Everhardt, 104 N. Y.
591 ; Comm. v. Russell, 156 Mass. 196 ; Anson v. People, 148 111. 494 ;
People v. Baird, 105 Cal. 126; People v. Kemp, 76 Mich. 410.]
44 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
(c) A is charged with attempting to obtain money by false pretences,
by trying to pledge to B a worthless ring as a diamond ring.
The facts that, two days before, A tried, on two separate occasions,
to obtain money from C and D respectively, by a similar assertion as
to the same or a similar ring, and that on another occasion on the same
day he obtained a sum of money from E by pledging as a gold chain
a chain which was only gilt, are deemed to be relevant, as showing
his knowledge of the quality of the ring.1
(d) A is'charged with obtaining money from B by falsely pretend-
ing that Z had authorized him to do so.
The fact that on a different occasion A obtained money from C by
a similar false pretence is deemed to be irrelevant,2 as A's knowledge
that he had no authority from Z on the second occasion Tiad no con-
nection with his knowledge that he had no authority from Z on the
first occasion.
(e) A sues B for damage done by a dog of B's, which B knew to be
ferocious.
The facts that the dog had previously bitten X, Y, and Z, and that
they had made complaints to B, are deemed to be relevant.3
(/) The question is, whether A, the acceptor of a bill of exchange,
knew that the name of the payee was fictitious.
The fact that A had accepted other bills drawn in the same manner
before they could have been transmitted to him by the payee, if the
1 R. v. Francis, L. R. 2 C. C. R. 128. The case of R. v. Cooper,
I Q. B. D. (C. C. R.) 19, is similar to R. v. Francis, and perhaps
stronger. [S. P. Mayer v. People, 80 N. Y. 364; Comm. v. Coe, 115
Mass. 481 ; State v. Bayne, 88 Mo. 604; see People v. Henssler, 48
Mich. 49. Evidence of this kind is also relevant in civil actions to
prove guilty knowledge or fraudulent purpose. Nail v. Naylor, 18
N. Y. 588 ; Beuerlien v. O'Leary, 149 N. Y. 33 ; Lincoln v. Claflin, 7
Wall. 132; Hovey v. Grant, 52 N. H. 569; Lockwood v. Doane, 107
111. 235.]
2 R. v. Holt, Bell, C. C. 280 ; and see R. v. Francis, ub. sup. p. 130.
[Comm. v .Jackson, 132 Mass. 16 ; Strong v. State, 86 Ind. 208 ; Jack-
son v. People, 126 111. 139; cf. Hugatiir v. Cotter, 92 Wis. 1 ; but see
People v. Shulman, 80 N. Y. 373.]
3 See cases collected in Roscoe's Nisi Prius, 739. [Evans v.
McDermott, 49 N. J. L. 163; Graham v. Payne, 122 Ind. 403; Rey-
nolds v. Hussey, 64 N. H. 64 ; see Godeau v. Blood, 52 Vt. 251 ; Muller
v. McKesson, 73 N. Y. 195. So evidence of the general repute of the
Chap. III.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 45
payee had been a real person, is deemed to be relevant, as showing
that A knew that the payee was a fictitious person.1
(g) A sues B for a malicious libel. Defamatory statements made
by B regarding A for ten years before those in respect of which the
action is brought are deemed to be relevant to show malice.2
(ga) [The question is, whether A committed adultery with B.
The fact that on other occasions, not too remote, these persons had
committed adultery is deemed to be relevant, to show the existence of
an adulterous disposition ; but not to show the commission of the
particular act in question.]3
dog in the neighborhood, as being vicious and dangerous, is compe-
tent, as tending to raise an inference that the owner knew of such
propensity. Cameron v. Bryan, 89 la. 214; Fake v. Addicks, 45
Minn. 37. J
1 Gibson v. Hunter, 2 H. Bl. 288.
2 Barrett v. Long, 3 H. L. C. 395, 414. [Evening Journal Ass'n v.
McDermott, 44 N. J. L. 430 ; Comm. v. Place, 153 Pa. 314 ; Beneway
v. Thorp, 7J Mich. 181 ; Fredricksoti v. Johnson, 60 Minn. 337; Aus-
tin v. Remington, 46 Ct. 116; Freeman v. Sanderson, 123 Ind. 264;
Cruikshank v. Gordon, 118 N. Y. 178. It is generally held that the
charges proved to show malice must be substantially similar to the
one in question, and that they may have been made either before it
was published or afterwards (Id.; Comm. v. Damon, 136 Mass. 441,
448; Conant v. Leslie, 85 Me. 257; Brown v. Barnes, 39 Mich. 211;
Cavanaugh v. Austin, 42 Vt. 576; Howard v. Sexton, 4 N. Y. 157).
In some States they may be proved though made after suit brought
{Chamberlain \. Vance, 51 Cal. 75; Larrabee v. Minnesota Tribune
Co., 36 Minn. 141; Post Pub. Co. v. Hallam, 59 F. R. 530; Knapp v.
Smith, 55 Vt. 311), but not in others {Daly v. Byrne, jj N. Y. 182;
but see Turton v. N. Y. Recorder Co., 144 N. Y. 144, 150). By some
decisions, also, enhanced damages are recoverable in the same action
for the repeated charges {Leonard v. Pope, 27 Mich. 145; cf. Hintz
v. Graupner, 138 111. 158 ; Alpin v. Morton, 21 O. St. 536) ; but in most
States damages are only obtainable for the particular charge sued
upon, while the evidence of repetitions is deemed competent to show
the degree of malice in such charge. IFardv. Dick, 47 Ct. 300; Clark
v. Brown, 116 Mass. 504 ; Enos v. Enos, 135 N. Y. 609.]
3 [Brooks v. Brooks, 145 Mass. 574 ; Thayer v. Thayer, 101 id. 111 ;
State v. Williams, 76 Me. 480 ; Comm. v. Bell, 166 Pa. 405 ; People v.
Patterson, 102 Cal. 239 ; People v. Skutt, 96 Mich. 449 ; State v. Potter,
52 Vt. 33 ; State v. Markins, 95 Ind. 464 ; State v. Briggs, 68 la. 416 ;
State v. Young, 99 Mo. 284.]
[6 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
(h) A is sued by B for fraudulently representing to B that C was
solvent, whereby B, being induced to trust C, who was insolvent,
suffered loss.
The fact that, at the time when A represented C to be solvent, C
was to A's knowledge supposed to be solvent by his neighbors and by
persons dealing with him, is deemed to be relevant, as showing that A
made the representation in good faith.1
(/) A is sued by B for the price of work done by B, by the order of
C, a contractor, upon a house, of which A is owner.
A's defence is that B's contract was with C.
The fact that A paid C for the work in question is deemed to be
relevant, as proving that A did, in good faith, make over to C the
management of the work in question, so that C was in a position to
contract with B on C's own account, and not as agent for A.'2
(/) A is accused of stealing property which he had found, and the
question is, whether he meant to steal it when he took possession of it.
The fact that public notice of the loss of the property had been
given in the place where A was, and in such a manner that A knew
or probably might have known of it, is deemed to be relevant, as
showing that A did not, when he took possession' of it, in good faith
believe that the real owner of the property could not be found.3
(h) The question is, whether A is entitled to damages from B, the
seducer of A's wife.
The fact that A's wife wrote affectionate letters to A before
the adultery was committed, is deemed to be relevant, as show-
1 Sheen v. Btempslead, 2 H. & C. 193. [See Slingerland v. Bennett,
6 T. & C. 446 ; Larkin v. Hapgood, 56 Vt. 597 ; Gordo?i v. Ritenour,
87 Mo. 54 ; Killam v. Peirce, 153 Mass. 502 ; West v. St. Paul Nat.
Bk., 54 Minn. 466 ; Whitcher v. Shattuck, 3 Allen, 319 ; cf. Bliss v.
Johnson, 162 Mass. 323.]
2 Gerish v. Charlier, 1 C. B. 13. [See Moody v. Tenney, 3 Allen, 327 ;
Regan v. Dickinson, 105 Mass. 112.]
3 This Illustration is adapted from Preston s Case, 2 Den. C. C. 353,
but the misdirection given in that case is set right. As to the rele-
vancy of the fact, see in particular Lord Campbell's remark on p. 359.
[Cf. State v. Flint, 60 Yt. 304 ; Woods v. Montevallo, etc. Co., 84 Ala.
560 ; Stallings v. State, 33 Ala. 425. So in order to prove that a
master knew of his servant's incompetency, it may be shown that the
servant had a general reputation for incompetency in the community.
Driscollv. Fall River, 163 Mass. 105 ; Western Stone Co. v. Whalen,
151 III.472; Grubex.Mo. Pac.R. Co., 98 Mo. 330; see p. 160, note, post.]
Chap. III.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.
47
ing the terms on which they lived and the damage which A
sustained.1
(/) The question is, whether A's death was caused by poison.
Statements made by A before his illness as to his state of health,
and during his illness as to his symptoms, are deemed to be relevant
facts.2
1 Trelawney v. Coleman, I B. & A. 90. [Gr. Ev. i. § 102 ; Palmer v.
Crook, 7 Gray, 418 ; Perry v. Lovejoy, 49 Mich. 529 ; Harter v. Crill,
33 Barb. 283 ; Long v. Booe, 106 Ala. 570 ; Fratini v. Caslini, 66 Vt.
273 ; Holtz v. Dick, 42 0. St. 23 ; Horner v. Yance, 93 Wis. 352 ; see
Edgell v. Francis, 66 Mich. 303. So, in general, declarations of a
person, whether oral or written, expressing present mental feeling,
stale of mind, or intention, are admissible in evidence, when his mental
state, intention, etc., is a distinct material fact to be proved. Gr. Ev. i.
§ 102 ; Mutual Life Lns. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U. S. 285 ; Comm. v. Tre-
fethen, 157 Mass. 180 ; Deer Isle v. Winterport, 87 Me. 37 ; Smith v.
Nat. Benefit Society, 123 N. Y. 85 ; but see State v. Fitzgerald, 130
Mo. 407.]
2 R. v. Palmer. See my " Gen. View of Crim. Law," pp. 363, 377, (evi-
dence of Dr. Savage and Mr. Stephens). [Gr. Ev. i. §102. It is a
general rule that expressions of present bodily pain or suffering or
symptoms of illness are admissible as part of the res gestcp, and,
whether made to physicians or to other persons, may be proved by
those who heard them {Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Urlin, 158 U. S. 271 ;
and see cases infra) ; but statements as to past sufferings, or as to the
past cause of the injury or of the suffering, are not admissible (Insur-
ance Co. v. Mosley, 8 Wall. 397 ; State v. Fournier, 68 Vt. 262 ; Globe
Ins. Co. v. Gerisch, 163 111. 625 ; Keller v. Gilman, 93 Wis. 9 ; Girard
v. Kalamazoo, 92 Mich. 610 ; Carthage Co. v. Andrews, 102 Ind. 138;
Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Johns, 36 Kan. 769; Co nun. v. Jardine, 143
Mass. 567 ; Ashland v. Marlborough, 99 id. 47 ; Wilson v. Granby, 47
Ct. 59 ; Lichtenwallner v. Laubach, 105 Pa. 366 ; see p. 8, note 3, ante).
Statements of present bodily feelings have in some States been held
admissible, though made after suit brought, especially if made to an
attending physician with a view to medical advice or treatment (Cleve-
land, etc. R. Co. v. Newell, 104 Ind. 264 ; Hatch v. Fuller, 131 Mass.
574) ; but not, if they were made to a physician for the sole purpose
of enabling him to testify as a witness on the trial (Abbott v. Heath, 84
Wis. 314 ; Jones v. Portland, 88 Mich. 598 ; but see Cleveland, etc. R.
Co. v. Newell, supra ; Matteson v. N. Y. Cent. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 487).
Some cases even assert (mainly, however, as dicta) that statements
made to a physician for medical treatment may be proved, though
48 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
(m) The question is, what was the state of A's health at the time
when an insurance on her life was effected by B.
Statements made by A as to the state of her health at or near the
time in question are deemed to be relevant facts.1
(;/) The question is, whether A, the captain of a ship, knew that a
port was blockaded.
The fact that the blockade was notified in the Gazette is deemed to
be relevant.2
(<?) [The question is, whether a testator, in making his will, was con-
trolled by undue influence.
Statements made by him on prior occasions as to his testamentary
intentions in the disposition of his property are deemed to be relevant,
as showing his cherished purposes and state of mind when the will
was made ; if such statements are consistent with the provisions of
the will, they tend to rebut charges of undue influence, otherwise to
confirm them. But statements of the testator to show the fact of
undue influence ate deemed not to be relevant.]3
they relate to past (as well as present) feelings and symptoms (Roosa
v. Boston Loan Co., 132 Mass. 439 ; Cleveland, etc. R. Co. v. Newell,
104 Ind. 264) ; but it is held otherwise in New York {Davidson v. Cor-
nell, 132 N. Y. 228).
In New York a more limited rule prevails, and while evidence may
be given of an injured person's groans, screams, and exclamations
showing present pain, yet his mere declarations, made some time after
the injury, that he is then suffering pain, are not competent, unless
they are made to a physician for the purpose of treatment. Roche v.
Brooklyn, etc. R. Co., 105 N. Y. 294 ; Davidson v. Cornell, 132 N. Y.
228 ; S. P. Atlanta R. Co. v. Walker, 93 Ga. 462 ; cf. Co»i»i. v. Leach,
156 Mass. 99; contra, Board of Co/tunrs. v. Leggett, 115 Ind. 544.]
1 Aveson v. Lord Kinnaird, 6 Ea. 188. [See Swift v. Life Lns. Co.,
63 N. Y. 186 ; Edington v. Life Bis. Co., 67 N. Y. 185 ; Dilleberw. Life
Lns. Co., 69 N. Y. 256. By these New York cases the statements of
the assured, if made at a time prior to, and not remote from the appli-
cation, are deemed relevant to show his knowledge of his physical
condition. See also Kelsey v. Universal, etc. Lns. Co., 35 Ct. 225 ;
State v. Cedicke, 43 N. J. L. 86 ; and cases cited under last Illustra-
tion.]
2 Harrat v. Wise, 9 B. & C. 712.
3 [AW v. Potter, 40 Pa. 483; Marx v. McGlynn, 88 N. Y. 357;
Haines v. Hayden, 95 Mich. 332; Goodbar v. Lidikey, 136 Ind. 1;
Jn re Calkins, 112 Cal. 296 ; Hill v. Bahrns, 158 111. 314 ; Gardner v.
Chap. III.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 49
Article 12.*
facts showing system.
When there is a question whether an act was accidental
or intentional, the fact that such act formed part of a
series of similar occurrences, in each of which the person
doing the act was concerned, is deemed to be relevant.1
* See Note VI. [Appendix].
Frieze, 16 R. I. 640; Thompson v. Ish, 99 Mo. 160; Moore v. McDon-
ald, 68 Md. 321 ; Potter v. Baldwin, 133 Mass. 427 ; Dye v. Young,
55 la. 433 ; see Jones v. Mc Lei Ian, 76 Me. 49 ; Hersterv. Herster, 122
Pa. 239. So subsequent statements or acts maybe shown which indi-
cate the state of mind when the will was made (Shailer v. Bumslead,
99 Mass. 112 ; Waterman v. Whitney, 11 N. Y. 157). And in general,
evidence of the testator's acts or declarations may be given, which
show his mental peculiarities, settled convictions, deeply rooted feel-
ings or purposes, or any enduring state of mind, as they existed at the
making of the will {Shailer v. Bumstead, supra). So as to making
a deed {Howe v. Howe, 99 Mass. 88), or a lease {Sherman v. Wilder,
106 Mass. 537), or a gift {Lane v. Moore, 151 Mass. 87 ; Sherman v.
Sherman, 75 la. 136; Meriden Bk.v. Wellington, 64 Ct. 553 ; Ridden
v. Thrall, 125 N. Y. 572 ; see Converse v. Wales, 4 Allen, 512).
Similar evidence may be receivable in criminal cases to show the
state of the prisoner's mind when the crime was committed. Comm.
v. Pomeroy, 117 Mass. 144 ; Comm. v. Burlington, 136 id. 435 ; People
v. Sessions, 58 Mich. 594, 601.]
1 [State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245, 294 ; Comm. v. Robinson, 146 Mass.
571 ; Hawes v. State, 88 Ala. 37, 67 ; State v.Kelley, 65 Vt. 531 ;
People v. Murphy, 135 N. Y. 450 ; State v. Slice, 88 la. 27 ; Dawson
v. State, 32 Tex. App. 535 ; People v. Shulman, 80 N. Y. 373; Comm. v.
Bradford, 126 Mass. 42 ; Goersen v. Comm., 99 Pa. 388, 106 id. 477 ;
Hope v. People, 83 N. Y. 418 ; see Comm. v. Choate, 105 Mass. 451 ;
Swan v. Comm., 104 Pa. 218 ; Dayton v. Monroe, 47 Mich. 193 ;
Hayncs v. Christian, 30 Mo. App. 198 ; and pp. 34, 35, ante, and
notes.
So a party's system or course of business may be proved to show
whether he has exercised due diligence on a particular occasion
{Holly v. Boston Gas Co.,% Gray, 123 ; Fuller v. Naugatuck R. Co., 21
Ct. 557 ; Wallace v. Central Vt. R. Co., 138 N. Y. 302 ; see Coates v.
5°
A DIGEST OF [Part I.
Illustrations.
(a) A is accused of setting fire to his house in order to obtain money
for which it is insured.
The facts that A had previously lived in two other houses succes-
sively, each of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and
Burlington, etc. R. Co., 62 la. 486; Bailey v Rome, etc. R. Co., 139
N. Y. 302) ; and the usual practice of others in the same business
or employment under like circumstances may be shown, to indica'te
whether ordinary care has been used in a special instance (Maynard
v. Buck, 100 Mass. 40 ; Cook v. Champlain, etc. Co., 1 Den. 91 ;
Jarvis v. Brooklyn R. Co., 16 N. Y. S. 96, 133 N. Y. 623; Case v.
Perew, 46 Hun, 57, 122 N. Y. 665 ; Holland v. Tenn. Coal Co., 91 Ala.
444 ; Myers v. Hudson Iron Co., 150 Mass. 125, 138 ; Daley v. Amer.
Printing Co., 152 id. 581 ; Reese v. Hershey, 163 Pa. 253; Doyle v.
St. Paid, etc. R. Co., 42 Minn. 79 ; Whitsett v. Chicago, etc. R. Co.,
67 la. 150; Railway Co. v. Manchester Mills, 88 Tenn. 653; cf.
Veginan v. Morse, 160 Mass. 143 ; but see Grand Trunk R. Co.
v. Richardson, 91 U. S. 454 ; Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Clark, 108 111.
113; Bassett v. Shares, 63 Ct. 39 ; Lake Erie, etc. R. Co. v. Mugg,
132 Ind. 168 ; Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Robbins, 43 Kan. 145).
With the cases under this Article may be compared those in which a
system of conduct or action, as shown by a series of similar acts, is
proved, in order to establish the habit of a person or animal, the
character of a house, etc. (See Baulec v.N. Y. etc. R. Co., 59 N. Y.
356; Lanpherv. Clark, 149 N. Y. 472 ; Comm. v. Meany, 151 Mass.
55; Beard v. State, 7 1 Md.275; Cameron v. Bryan, 89 la. 214). Thus
the vicious habit of a horse for shying, balking, etc., may be shown
by proving cases of like misbehavior, both before and after the act
in question (Jfaggi v. Cutis, 123 Mass. 535 ; Kennon v. Gilmer, 131 U.
S. 22 ; Chamberlain v. Enfield, 43 X. H. 356 ; cf. Whitney v. Leomin-
ster, 136 Mass. 25). And evidence of a person's repeated acts of
drunkenness may be admitted, to prove habitual drunkenness (Comm.
v. Ryan, 134 Mass. 223 ; Comm. v. McNamee, 1 12 Mass. 285 ; Wright
v. Crawfordsville, 142 Ind. 636 ; Ml Gill x. McGill, 19 Fla. 341). So
sales of liquor to different persons at different times may be proved to
show that the seller is in the business of liquor selling (State v. Welch,
64 X. H. 525). But a habit of lying cannot be proved by evidence of
lies told on other occasions (Comm. v. Kennon, 130 Mass. 39). In
New Hampshire, evidence of prior acts of negligence of the same
kind by a person is received, as tending to show his negligence on a
particular occasion (Parkinson v. Nashua, etc. R. Co., 61 N. H. 416) ;
Chap. III.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 51
that after each of those fires A received payment from a different in-
surance office, are deemed to be relevant, as tending to show that the
fires were not accidental.1
{b) A is employed to pay the wages of B's laborers, and it is A's
duty to make entries in a book showing the amounts paid by him.
He makes an entry showing that on a particular occasion he paid
more than he really did pay.
The question is, whether this false entry was accidental or inten-
tional.
The fact that for a period of two years A made other similar false
but in most States this doctrine is denied (see Art. 10, Illustration
{g) ; Robinson v. F. &* IV. R. Co., 7 Gray, 92 ; Brennan v. Friend-
ship, 67 Wis. 223). So in that State, on the question at what speed
an engineer drove a railway train at a certain time and place, evi-
dence of the speed at which he drove the same train at the same
place on other days may be admitted {State v. B. &*= M. R. Co., 58 N.
H. 410 ; S. P. Hall v. Brown, id. 93 ; cf. Shaber v. St. Raid, etc. R. Co.,
28 Minn. 103). But it is elsewhere held that to prove care on a par-
ticular occasion, the party's habit of being careful cannot be shown
{McDonald v. Savoy, no Mass. 49 ; Chase v. Maine Cent. R. Co., yj
Me. 62 ; Morris v. East Haven, 41 Ct. 252 ; Wooster v. Broadway,
etc. R'. Co., 72 Hun, 197 ; but see Dorman v. Katie, 5 Allen, 38 ; Toledo,
etc. R. Co. v. Bailey, 145 111. 159) ; nor can the fact of gambling on a
certain occasion, when intoxicated, be proved by showing a habit so to
do ( Thompson v. Bowie, 4 Wall. 463 ; cf. McMahon v. Harrison, 6 N.
Y. 443 ; Triplctt v. Goff's Admr., 83 Va. 784) ; nor drunkenness on a
particular occasion by showing a habit of intemperance {Cotnm. v.
Werling, 164 Pa. 559) ; nor the taking of usury on one occasion
by showing prior acts of taking usury. Ross v. Ackerman, 46 N. Y.
210.]
1 R. v. Gray, 4 F. & F. 1102. I acted on this case in R. v Stanley,
Liverpool Summer Assizes, 1882, but I greatly doubt its authority.
The objection to the admission of such evidence is that it may
practically involve the trial of several distinct charges at once, as it
would be hard to exclude evidence to show that the other fires were
accidental. [Cf., as tending to support R. v. Gray, Hoxie v. Home
Ins. Co., 32 Ct. 21 ; Whitmore v. Supreme Lodge Knights, 100 Mo. 36 ;
Conwi. v. McCarthy, 119 Mass. 354 ; People v. Dimick, 107 N. Y. 13.
But evidence of other fires in defendant's buildings has been rejected,
when they occurred from five to eleven years before the fire in
question. State v. Raymond, 53 N. J. L. 260.]
52 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
entries in the same book, the false entry being in each case in favor of
A, is deemed to be relevant.1
(c) The question is, whether the administration of poison to A, by Z,
his wife, in September, 1848, was accidental or intentional.
The facts that B, C, and D (A's three sons), had the same poison
administered to them in December, 1848, March, 1849, and April, 1849,
and that the meals of all four were prepared by Z, are deemed to be
relevant, though Z was indicted separately for murdering A, B, and
C, and attempting to murder D.2
(ca) [The question is, whether A and his wife intentionally caused
the death of an infant child, which they had received from its mother
for adoption upon the payment of a small sum of money, the body of
the child having been found buried in their grounds.
The facts that the defendants had received several other infants
from their mothers for adoption, on like terms, and that the bodies of
a number of infants had been found buried in a similar manner in the
gardens of several houses which they had occupied, are deemed to
be relevant.] s
(c6) [The question is, whether the firing of a pistol by A at B,
inflicting a serious wound, was accidental or willful.
Evidence that A had fired his pistol at two other persons the day
before was deemed to be relevant to show that the act was willful] '
(d) A promises to lend money to B on the security of a policy of
insurance which B agrees to effect in an insurance company of his
choosing. B pays the first premium to the company, but A refuses to
lend the money except upon terms which he intends B to reject, and
which B rejects accordingly.
1 R. v. Richardson, 2 F, & F. 343. [See Lang v. State, 97 Ala. 41 ;
Ossipce v. Grant, 59 N. H. 70 ; Funk v. Ely, 45 Pa. 444 ; for a case of
forgery, see Rankin v. Blackwell, 2 Johns. Cas. 198.]
8 R. v. Geering, 18 L. J. M. C. 215 ; cf. R. v. Garner, 3 F. & F. 681.
These cases were discussed in R. v. Neill (or Cream), tried at the
Central Criminal Court in October, 1892, when Hawkins, J., admitted
evidence of subsequent administrations of strychnine by the prisoner
to persons other than and unconnected with the woman of whose
murder the prisoner was then convicted. [See Zoldoske v. State, 82
Wis. 580 ; Goersen v. Conim., 99 Pa. 388, 106 id. 477 ; People v. Foley,
64 Mich. 148 ; Weyman v. People, 4 Hun, 511, 518, 62 N. Y. 623 ; R. v.
Flannagan, 15 Cox, 403.]
3 [ Makin v. Attorney General, [1894] A. C. 57.]
4[State v. McDonald, 14 R. I. 270.]
Chap. III.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 53
The fact that A and the insurance company have been engaged in
similar transactions is deemed to be relevant to the question whether
the receipt of the money by the company was fraudulent.1
Article 13.*
existence of course of business, when deemed to be
relevant.
When there is a question whether a particular act was
done, the existence of any course of office or business
according to which it naturally would have been done, is
a relevant fact.2
When there is a question whether a particular person
held a particular public office, the fact that he acted in
that office is deemed to be relevant.3
When the question is whether one person acted as agent
for another on a particular occasion, the fact that he so
acted on other occasions is deemed to be relevant.4
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether a letter was sent on a given day.
The post-mark upon it is deemed to be a relevant fact.5
(b) The question is, whether a particular letter was dispatched.
* See Note VII. [Appendix].
1 Blake v. Albion Life Assurance Society, 4 C. P. D. 94.
s [Gr. Ev. i. §§38, 40 ; People v. Oyer and Terminer Court, 83 N. Y.
436 ; Twogood v. Mayor, 102 N. Y. 216; Beakes v. Da Cutiha, 126 N. Y.
293 ; Dun lop v. United States, 165 U. S. 486 ; State v. Taylor, 126 Mo.
531 ; Knickerbocker Ins. Co. v. Pendleton, 115 U. S. 339; Comm. v.
Kimball, 108 Mass. 473 ; Hall v. Brown, 58 N. H. 93.]
3 1 Ph. Ev. 449; R. N. P. 46; T. E. s. 139; [see Art. 90, post, last
paragraph.]
4 [Olcott v. Tioga R. Co., 27 N. Y. 546 ; Seattle v. Delaware, etc. R.
Co., 90 N. Y. 643 ; Gallinger v. Lake Shore Co., 67 Wis. 529 ; Kent
v. Tyson, 20 N. H. 121 ; Thurber v. Anderson, 88 111. 167; Kent's
Comm. ii. 615. But it is said that an agency to commit crimes cannot
be proved by evidence of prior like crimes committed by one as agent.
People v. McLaughlin, 150 N. Y. 365, 391.]
6 R. v. Canning, 19 S. T. 370. [United States v. Williams, 3 F. R.
54 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
The facts that all letters put in a certain place were, in the common
course of business, carried to the post, and that that particular letter
was put in that place, are deemed to be relevant.1
(c) The question is, whether a particular letter reached A.
The facts that it was posted in due course, properly addressed, and
was not returned through the Dead Letter Office, are deemed to be
relevant.2
(d) The facts stated in Illustration (d) to the last Article are deemed
to be relevant to the question whether A was agent to the company.3
484; United States v. Noelke, 17 Blatch. 554. But there is no pre-
sumption that the date of the post-mark was the day of depositing
the letter. Shelburne Falls Bk. v. Townsley, 102 Mass. 177 ; see
Price v. McGoldrick, 2 Abb. N. C. 69.]
1 Hctherington v. Kemp, 4 Camp. 193 ; and see Skilbeck v. Garbett,
7 Q. B. 846, and Trotter v. Maclean, 13 Ch. Div. 574. [See Howard
v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362; Swampscott Co. v. Rice, 159 Mass. 404; Dix
v. Atkins, 128 Mass. 43 ; Whitney Works v. Moore, 61 Vt. 230; Hall
v. Brown, 58 N. H. 93, 97; cf. Hastings v. Brooklyn Ins. Co., 138
N. Y. 473-]
2 Warren v. Warren, 1 C. M. & R. 250; Woodcock v. Houlds-
worth, 16 M. & W. 124. Many cases on this subject are collected in
Roscoe's Nisi Priits, pp. 374-5. [Hedden v. Roberts, 134 Mass. 38 ;
Rosenthal v. Walker, m U. S. 185; Folsom v. Cook, 115 Pa. 539;
Sabre v. Smith, 62 N. H. 663 ; McFarland v. Accident Ass' n, 124 Mo.
204 ; cf. Ellison v. Lindsley, 33 N. J. Eq. 258, note. This is only
pri)na facie evidence that the letter was received, not a conclusive
presumption of law {Huntley v. Whitticr, 105 Mass. 391 ; Schutz v.
Jordan, 141 U. S. 213 ; Harrington v. Hickman, 148 Pa. 405 ; Austin
v. Holland, 69 N. Y. 571 ; cf. Marston v. Bigelow, 150 Mass. 45).
The same rule applies to telegrams. U. S. v. Babcock, 3 Dill. 571 ;
Oregon Steamship Cc. v. Otis, 100 N. Y. 446; Eppingerv. Scott, 112
Cal. 369.]
3 Blake v. Albion Life Assurance Society, 4 C. P. D. 94.
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 55
CHAPTER IV.
rIEARSA Y IRRELEVANT EXCEPT IN CERTAIN CASES.
Article 14.*
hearsay and the contents of documents irrelevant.
{a) The fact that a statement was made by a person not
called as a witness, and
(b) the fact that a statement is contained or recorded
in any book, document, or record whatever, proof of
which is not admissible on other grounds,
are respectively deemed to be irrelevant to the truth of
the matter stated, except (as regards (a) ) in the cases
contained in the first section of this chapter ; '
and except (as regards (b) ) in the cases. contained in
the second section of this chapter.
Illustrations,
(a) A declaration by a deceased attesting witness to a deed that he
had forged it, is deemed to be irrelevant to the question of its
validity.2
* See Note VIII. [Appendix].
1 It is important to observe the distinction between the principles
which regulate the admissibility of the statements contained in a
document and those which regulate the manner in which they must
be proved. On this subject see the whole of Part II. [As to the
general rule that hearsay evidence is excluded, see Stephens v.
Vroman, 16 N. Y. 381 ; Felska v. N. Y. Central R. Co., 152 N. Y. 339 ;
Farrell v. Weitz, 160 Mass. 288 ; Wallace v. Story, 139 Mass. 115 ;
Hollister v. Cordero, 76 Cal. 649.J
2 Stobart v.Dryden, 1 M. & W. 615. [Some American decisions
deny the doctrine of this case (Boylan v. Meeker, 28 N. J. L. 274, 295 ;
56 A DIGEST OF [Part I,
(b) The question is, whether A was born at a certain time and place.
The fact that a public body for a public purpose stated that he was
born at that time and place is deemed to be irrelevant, the circum-
stances not being such as to bring the case within the provisions of
Article 34.1
(c) [The question is, whether A, a person on trial for larceny, was
absent from the State at a particular date.
The police sergeant of a city in the State may not testify that a
police officer reported to him on that date that he had seen A in the
street that night.] '2
(d) [A sues a railroad company to recover damages for personal
injuries caused by the defendant's negligence.
A written statement made by a physician while he was treating A
for these injuries, in which he set forth the nature of the injuries and
their effect upon A's bodily and mental condition, is deemed to be
hearsay evidence and therefore inadmissible.]3
/- (e) [A sues B to recover for services rendered as attorney and
/ counselor at law in arguing a case for B before an appellate court.
The report of said case in the published reports of said court is.
deemed incompetent to show that A did so appear and argue the
case.j ■ *
/ (/) [A is tried for the murder of B. \
I A statement by C that he murdered B is deemed to be irrelevant.]5 I
Otterson v. Hofford, 36 id. 129 ; Neely v. Neely, 17 Pa. 227 ; cf. Losee
v. Losee, 2 Hill, 609 ; In re Hesdra, 1 19 N. Y. 615) ; but others follow it
(Sewall v. Bobbins, 139 Mass. 164 ; U. S. v. Boyd, 8 App. D. C. 440 ;
Boardnian v. IVoodmati, 47 N. H. 120 ; see also Gr. Ev. i. § 126).
That the declarations of other deceased witnesses may be rejected as
hearsay, see Gray v. Goodrich, 7 Johns. 95 ; Spats v. Lyons, 55 Barb.
476.]
1 Sturla v. Freccia, L. R. 5 App. Cas. 623.
- \Comnt. v. Richer, 131 Mass. 581.]
3 [ J ricksburg, etc. R. Co. v. O'Brien, 1 19 U. S. 99. But such state-
ment might be used by the physician as a witness to refresh his
recollection. Id.; cf. Russell v. Hudson River R. Co., 17 N. Y. 134;
Armstrong v. Ackley, 71 la. 76 ; Weaver v . Bromley , 65 Mich. 212.]
4 [Roraback v. Pennsylvania Co., 58 Ct. 292.]
6 [Stale v. Beaudet, 53 Ct. 536, 545 ; State v. Gee, 92 N. C. 756 ;
Munsli07ver v. State, 55 Md. 11 ; Kelly v. State, 82 Ga. 441 ; see p. 7,
note 5, ante.]
Chap. IV.j THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 57
SECTION I.
HEARSAY, WHEN RELEVANT.
Article 15.*
admissions defined.
An admission is a statement, oral or written, suggesting
any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant or
deemed to be relevant to any such fact, made by or on
behalf of any party to any proceeding.' Every admission
is (subject to the rules hereinafter stated) deemed to be a
* See Note IX. [Appendix].
1 [It is an impcrtant rule that if part of a statement made by a
party be relevant against him as an admission, other parts of the same
statement which in any way qualify or explain such admission are
also relevant, though they are in such party's favor (Gr. Ev. i. § 201 ;
Grattan v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 92 N. Y. 274 ; Gildersleeve v. Lan-
don, 73 N. Y. 609 ; Insurance Co. v. Newton, 22 Wall. 32 ; Vanneter
v. Crossman, 42 Mich. 465 ; Farley v. Rodocanachi, 100 Mass. 427 ;
Hunter v. Pherson, 89 Me. 71 ; as to letters, see Simmons v. Haas, 56
Md. 153). But other portions of the same conversation or statement,
which do not explain or affect the part which is unfavorable to the
declarant, are not admissible (Plainer v. Plainer, 78 N. Y. 90) ; nor
are independent declarations admissible which are made by a party
in his own favor (Downs v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 83 ; Corder v.
Corder, 124 111. 229 ; Taylor v. Brown, 65 Md. 366 ; Royal v. Chandler,
79 Me. 265 ; Tolbert v. Burke, 89 Mich. 132), unless they form part of
the res gestce (Brown v. Kenyon, 108 Ind. 283 ; see Art. 3, notes). But
a party giving evidence of the opposing party's admissions may also
disprove those parts of the same statement which are in the other
party's favor, but are nevertheless receivable in evidence (Mott v.
Consumers' Ice Co., 73 N. Y. 543).
Oral admissions may be proved by any witness who heard them
(Hartley v. Weideman, 175 Pa. 309) ; if he cannot remember the exact
words, he may testify to the substance of the admission (Gr. Ev. i.
§ 191 ; Kittredge v. Russell, 1 14 Mass. 67).
Admissions may also be implied from acts and conduct (Gr. Ev. i.
§§ 195-199 ; Hayes v. Kelley, 1 16 Mass. 300 ; Greenfield Bk. v. Crafts,
2 Allen, 269 ; Wesner v. Stein, 97 Pa. 322 ; Lefever v. Johnson, 79 Ind.
58 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
relevant fact as against the person by or on whose behalf
it is made, but not in his favor unless it is, or is deemed
to be, relevant for some other reason.
554; Foster v. Persc/1,68 N. Y. 400). Thus, if an account rendered
be not objected to within a reasonable time, it is deemed to be admit-
ted by the party charged to be prima facie correct ( Wiggins v. Burk-
ham, 10 Wall. 129; Samson v. Freedman, 102 N. Y. 699). Tender of
money to a claimant is an admission of liability to the amount of the
tender {Rainwater v. Hummel, 79 la. 571; Wilson v. Doran, no
N. Y. 101). The act of a landlord in making repairs after an injury
is an admission that it is his duty, rather than that of the tenant
{Readman v. Conway, 126 Mass. 374). So if a partner has access to
the books of the firm, the book-entries therein are admissible against
him {Fairchild v. Fairchild, 64 N. Y. 471 ; Top/iff v. Jackson, 12 Gray,
565). But failure to answer a letter is not generally deemed an ad-
mission of the truth of its contents ( Wiedemann v. Walpole, [1891]
2 Q- B. 534 ; Thomas v. Gage, 141 N. Y. 506 ; Razor v. Razor, 149 111.
621 ; Fearing x. Kimball, 4 Allen, 125 ; cf. Oregon Steamship Co. v.
Otis, 100 N. Y. 446 ; Hays v. A/organ, 87 Ind. 231 ; Murphy v. Gates,
81 Wis. 370). As to other admissions by acquiescence, see Art. 8, ante,
last paragraph.
Admissions made incidentally or indirectly are competent evidence
as well as those made directly (Gr. Ev. i. § 194 ; Harrington v. Gable,
81 Pa. 406; see Art. 17, Illustration^-). Admissions made in a plead-
ing, sworn to by a party, are admissible against him in another action
{Cook v. Barr, 44 N. Y. 156; Elliott v. Hayden, 104 Mass. 180; Folger
v. Boyington , 67 Wis. 447), though only made upon information and
belief {Pope v. Ellis, 1 15 U. S. 363 ; cf. Mayor of N. Y. v. Fay, 53 Hun,
553). And the same is true of a pleading not so sworn to, if the admis-
sions therein were derived from the instructions of the party, or were
otherwise authorized or adopted by him {Johnson v. Russell, 144 Mass.
409 ; Rockland v. Farnsworth, 89 Me. 481 ; Vogelv. Osborne, 32 Minn.
167); aliter, if they were merely the suggestions of the attorney (Id. ;
Denniev. Williams, 135 Mass. 28; Delaware Co. v. Diebold Co., 133
U. S. 473; Duff v. Duff 71 Cal. 513). But some authorities admit
former pleadings as evidence of admissions without insisting so rigor-
ously upon these distinctions {Coward v. Clan ton, 79 Cal. 23 ; Raridan
v. Cent. Iowa R. Co., 69 la. 527 ; Lamar v. Pearre, 90 Ga. 377).
Admissions may also be made in affidavits or depositions, or in evi-
dence given in a former proceeding, etc. ( Whiton v. Snyder, 88 N. Y.
299; Comm. v. Reynolds, 122 Mass. 454 ; Phenix Ins. Co. v. Clark, 58
N. H. 164 ; Bogie v. Nolan, 96 Mo. 85). Admissions made simply for
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 59
Article 16.*
who may make admissions on behalf of others, and when.
Admissions may be made on behalf of the real party to
any proceeding- —
/ By any nominal party to that proceeding- ; 1 \
* See Note X. [Appendix],
one trial cannot be used in another [McKinney v. Salem, jj Ind. 213),
but the rule is otherwise, if they are made without such limitation
(Holley v. Young, 68 Me. 215 ; Owen v. Cowley, 36 N. Y. 600 ; Perry
v. Simpson, etc. Co., 40 Ct. 313 ; Central Branch, etc. R. Co. v. S/wup,
28 Kan. 394 ; Ex parte Hayes, 92 Ala. 120).
Evidence of oral admissions, though competent, is in general not
conclusive, and may need to be received with great caution (Gr. Ev. i.
§§199, 200 ; Jones v. Knauss, 31 N. J. Eq. 609 ; Haven v. Markstrum,
67 Wis. 493 ; Allen v. Kirk, 81 la. 658 ; Miller v. Rowan, 108 Ala. 98).
Still, if deliberately made and clearly proved, they may be of much
weight (Id.). Admissions may, in proper cases, be explained and
shown to be incorrect, or to have been made by mistake or inadvert-
ence {Davis v. McCrocklin, 34 Kan. 218 ; Stowe v. Bishop, 58 Vt. 498;
Knobloch v. Mueller, 123 111. 554 ; Dale v. Gilbert, 128 N. Y. 625, 628;
cf. Brooks v. Belfast, etc. R. Co., 72 Me. 365). But admissions are
conclusive when they amount to estoppels (Gr. Ev. i. §§204-208;
Halloran v. Halloran, 137 111. 100) ; and admissions made in plead-
ing and not obviated by amendment, are conclusive in the same case
(Tisdale v. Pres. of D. &* H. Co., 116 N. Y. 416 ; Peck ham Iron Co.
v. Harper, 41 O. St. 100 ; see Art. 60). But if the law allows a party
to plead several pleas, the admissions in one plea cannot be used
against him in another. Glenn v. Sunnier, 132 U. S. 152.]
' [Mr. Stephen illustrates this rule by saying that the admissions of an
/assignor of a chose in action, who is the nominal plaintiff in an action
' brought for the benefit of his assignee, are admissible against the
, latter. But in New York and many other States of this country the
' assignee sues in his own name, and there is, therefore, no ground for
receiving the admissions of the assignor made after the assignment ;
they are therefore excluded (Van Gelder v. Van Gelder, 81 N. Y.
625). And evidence of such admissions has been generally rejected
in this country, even when the rule prevailed that the assignee must
sue in the assignor's name ( Wing v. Bishop, 3 Allen, 456 ; Butler v.
Millelt, 47 Me. 492; Sargeant v. Sargeant, 18 Yt. 371 ; Dazey v.
60 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
By any person who, though not a party to the pro-
ceeding, has a substantial interest in the event ; '
By any one who is privy in law,2 in blood,3 or in estate4
to any party to the proceeding, on behalf of that party.
Mills, 5 Gilm. (111.) 67 ; Frear v. Evertson, 20 Johns. 142 ; cf. Fay v.
Guynon, 131 Mass. 31). But the admissions of the assignee, made
after a valid assignment, are relevant against him.]
1 [Gr. Ev. i. § 180 ; Fickett v. Swift, 41 Me. 65 ; Bigelow v. Foss, 59
Me. 162 ; Barber's Adm'r v. Be?ifiett, 60 Vt. 662 ; Benjamin v. Smith,
4 Wend. 332, 335, 12 Wend. 404, 407 ; see Taylor v. Grand Trunk R.
Co., 48 N. H. 304. But the declarations of a person who is not a party
to the record nor a witness are not received to show that he is the
real party in interest {Ryan v. Merriam, 4 Allen, 77).
Under this head is sometimes placed the rule that in an action
against a sheriff for the misconduct of his deputy the admissions of
the deputy are receivable, on the ground that he is the real party in
interest (Gr. Ev. i. § 180, note). But in some States it is held that such
declarations are only receivable when they accompanied the deputy's
official acts, and therefore formed part of the res gestce. Barker v.
Binninger, 14 N. Y. 270 ; Stewart v. Wells, 6 Barb. 79.]
2 [Thus the admissions of an intestate are receivable against his ad-
ministrator {Brown v. Mailler, 12 N. Y. 118; Fellows v. Smith, 130
Mass. 378 ; Clouser v. Ruckman, 104 Ind. 588) ; and of testator against
executor {Hurlbutv. Hurlbut, T28 N. Y. 420; Childs v. Jordan, 106
Mass. 321). So in an action by a widow for dower, admissions made
by her husband while living are deemed to be relevant against her.
Van Duyne v. Thayre, 14 Wend. 233.]
3 [Admissions made by an ancestor are receivable against his heirs.
Spaulding v. Hallenbeck, 35 N. Y. 204 ; Enders v. Sternbergh, 2 Abb.
Dec. 31 ; Davis v. Melson, 66 la. 715 ; Mc Sweeney v. McMillen, 96
Ind. 298.]
4 [Admissions by a grantor of land are relevant against his grantee ;
of a landlord against his tenant ; of devisor against devisee ; of any
owner of land against those who subsequently derive title from or
through him {Chadwick v.Fonner, 69 N. Y. 404 ; New Jersey Zinc Co.
v.Lehigh Zinc Co., 59 N. J. L. 189; Potter v. Waite, 55 Ct. 236;
Simpson v. Dix, 131 Mass. 179 ; Pickering v. Reynolds, 1 19 Mass. 1 1 1).
But the admissions of a tenant for life or years will not bind the re-
versioner {Fitzgerald v. Brennan, 57 Ct. 511). As to personal property,
see p. 63, post, note.
Not only those declarations by an owner of land, or by one claiming
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 61
A statement made by a party to a proceeding may- be
an admission whenever it is made,1 unless it is made by a
person suing or sued in a representative character only,
title, which are in disparagement of his title, are admissible against the
declarant or persons in privity with him (see Bowen v. Chase, 98 U. S.
254 ; Dooley v. Baynes, 86 Va. 644), but also those statements made by
him while in possession, which show the character of his possession and
by what title he claims {Pitts v. Wilder, 1 N. Y. 525 ; Moore v. Hamil-
ton, 44 N. Y.666 ; Creighton v. Hoppis, 99 Ind. 369 ; Smith v. Putnam,
62 N. H. 369 ; Hale v. Rich, 48 Vt. 217 ; Hale v. Silloway, 1 Allen, 21}:
as^.^., to show that he held under adverse claim of title (Aforss v. Salis-
bury, 48 N. Y. 636 ; Snsq. etc. R. Co. v. Quick, 68 Pa. 189 ; Mississippi
Co. v. Vowels, 101 Mo. 225); or as the tenant or agent of a particular
person {Gibney v. Marchay, 34 N. Y. 301 ; Garber v. Doersom, 117 Pa.
162 ; Lucy v. Tenn. etc. R. Co., 92 Ala. 246) ; or to show the extent of
occupation or boundary {Abeel v. Van Gelder, 36 N. Y. 513 ; Wood v.
Fiske, 62 N. H. 173; Flagg v. Mason, 141 Mass. 64; Sharp v.
Blankenship, 79 Cal. 411). Such evidence comes properly under the
doctrine of res gestw, and by some decisions such statements are held
admissible, though they were, when made, in the declarant's own
favor (Gr. Ev. :. 3 109 ; see ante, Art. 3, notes ; Bennett v. Camp, 54 Vt.
36; Sheaffer \. Eakman, 56 Pa. 144; McConnell \. Hannah, 96 Ind.
102 ; contra, Morrill v. Titcomb, 8 Allen, 100 ; in Roebke v. Andrews,
26 Wis. 311, the question is fully discussed, pro and con ; cf. Lampe
v. Kennedy, 60 Wis. 110; the same question arises as to personal
property. Id. ; Mates v. Borne, 123 Ind. 522). But declarations of an
owner in possession of land will not be received in place of record
evidence, nor to destroy a record title. Gibney v. Marchay, supra ;
Dodge v. Trust Co., 93 U. S. 379 ; Hancock Ins. Co. v. Moore, 34 Mich.
41 ; but see Loomis v. Wadhams, 8 Gray, 557.]
1 [Cook v. Barr, 44 N. Y. 156 ; Williains v. Sergeant, 46 N. Y. 481 ;
Wiggin v. B. &* A. R. Co., 120 Mass. 201 ; Hatch v. Brown, 63 Me.
410; Duncan v. Lawrence, 24 Pa. 154; cf. Shailer v. Bumstead, 99
Mass. 112, 127. So if one be substituted as a party after suit brought,
his admissions are receivable ( Wadsworth v. Williams, 100 Mass.
126). The admissions of a party to a suit against the validity of the
claim sued upon have been held competent evidence, though made
before he became owner of the claim {Barber s Adnir v. Bennett, 60
Vt. 662 ; Taylor v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 48 N. H. 304 ; cf. Fitzgerald
v. Weston, 52 Wis. 354). But statements of a party which merely
raise a suspicion or conjecture as to the existence of an alleged fact
62 A DIGEST OF [Part 1.
in which case (it seems) it must be made whilst the per-
son making it sustains that character.1
A statement made by a person interested in a proceed-
ing, or by a privy to any party thereto, is not an admis-
sion, unless it is made during the continuance of the in-
terest which entitles him to make it.2
cannot constitute an admission of its truth. People v. Corey, 148
N. Y. 476.]
1 [Gr. Ev. i. § 179 ; Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452. Thus the decla-
rations of an executor or administrator are not competent as admissions,
unless made after his appointment and while he was acting in that
capacity and representing the estate {Church v. Howard, 79 N. Y.
415 ; Brooks v. Goss, 61 Me. 307 ; Webster v. Le Compte, 74 Md. 249 ;
see Heywood v. Heywood, 10 Allen, 105). But if he sues or is sued
in an individual capacity, his admissions made at other times are
receivable (see Whiton v. Snyder, 88 N. Y. 299). And his admissions
made as party in one suit are receivable against him as party in
another {Phillipps v. Middlesex , 127 Mass. 262).
Admissions made by a guardian will not be allowed by the courts to
prejudice the rights of his ward. Buffalo Loan, etc. Co. v. Knights
Templar Ass n, 126 N. Y. 450 ; Cooper v. Mayhew, 40 Mich. 528.]
'-' [Thus declarations by a grantor or mortgagor of land, which were
made before he acquired or after he parted with his title or interest, are
not receivable as admissions against his grantee or mortgagee {Hutchins
v. Hutchins, 98 N. Y. 56 ; Chase v. Horton, 143 Mass. 118; Ruckman v.
Cory, 129 U. S. 387 ; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 91 Pa. 462 ; Miller v.
Cook, 135 111. 190); nor those of an assignor of chattels or choses in .action
against the assignee, when they were made after the assignment and
transfer of possession {Coyne v. Weaver, 84 N. Y. 386 ; Burnham v.
Brennan, 74 N. Y. 597; Roberts v. Medbery, 132 Mass. 100; Win-
chester, etc. Co. v. Creary, 1 16 U. S. 161 ; Ohio Coal Co. v. Davenport,
37 O. St. 194 ; Turner v. Hardin, 80 la. 691). But if a transferor of
land or chattels remains in possession, his declarations characterizing
that possession are generally deemed competent, under the doctrine
of res gestw {Pier v. Duff, 63 Pa. 59 ; Robbins v. Spencer, 140 Ind. 483 ;
Loos v. Wilkinson, 1 10 N. Y. 195 ; Merriam v. Swensen, 42 Minn. 383 ;
Roberts v. Medbery, supra; see Williams v. Williams, 142 N. Y. 156).
In some States the declarations of an assignor of personal property,
made while he remains in continuous possession of it after the assign-
ment, are receivable to show fraud as to creditors {Adams v. Davidson,
10 N. Y. 309; Tilson v. Tenvilliger, 56 N. Y. 273 ; Murch v. Swensen,
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 63
Illustrations.
(a) The assignee of a bond sues the obligor in the name of the
obligee.
40 Minn. 421 ; Boyd v. Jones, 60 Mo. 454 ; Smith v. Boyer, 29 Neb. 76;
Dodge v. Goodell, 16 R. I. 48; Kirby v. Masten, 70 N. C. 540; cf. Loos
v. Wilkinson, no N. Y. 195); and the same rule has been applied to
declarations of grantors of land {Osgood v. Eatoti, 63 N. H. 355 ; U. S,
v. Griswold, 8 F. R. 556; Byrdx. Jones, 84 Ala. 336; cf. Williams v.
Williams, 142 N. Y. 156; Hart v. Randolph, 142 111. 521; McCormicks
v. Williams, 56 la. 143). But the declarations of a grantor cf realty
or assignor of personalty, made after the transfer of possession, cannot
be received for the same purpose (Ho lb rook v. Ho lb rook, 113 Mass.
74; Flamiery v. Van Tassel, 131 N. Y. 639), unless there be a con-
spiracy between the parties to defraud creditors and such declarations
are made in pursuance of the conspiracy (Id. ; Cuyler v. McCartney,
40 N. Y. 221 ; Souder v. Schechterly, 91 Pa. 83 ; Jones v. Simpson, 1 16
U. S. 609 ; Daniels v. McGinnis, 97 Ind. 549 ; see Art. 4).
The admissions of an assignor of a chattel or chose in action, made
while he had ownership and possession, are in many States held com-
petent against his assignee (Hanchcltv. Kimbark, 1 18 111. 121 ; Taylor
v. Hess, 57 Minn. 96; Merrick v. Park man, 18 Me. 407; Alger v.
Andrews, 47 Vt. 238; Magee v. Raiguel, 64 Pa. no; Bond v. Fitz-
patrick, 4 Gray, 89 ; Randegger v. Ehrhardt, 51 111. 101 ; aliter, as to
commercial paper negotiated before maturity) ; but the rule is some-
times limited by important qualifications (Coit v. Howd, 1 Gray, 547).
This rule is like that applied to real estate (see p. 60, note 4, ante). But
in New York, while the rule as to realty is accepted, a different rule
is applied to personalty, and it is held that the declarations of the
assignor, though made before the assignment, are not admissible
against an assignee for value or for the benefit of creditors (Paige v.
Cagwin, 7 Hill, 361 ; Von Sachs v. Kretz, 72 N. Y. 548, 554 ; Bush v.
Roberts, m N. Y. 278), unless they were made in pursuance of .'.
fraudulent conspiracy between the parties, or in fraudulent salts
where the vendor remains in continuous possession, etc. (Flanncry v.
Van Tassel, 127 N. Y. 631). The same rule is adopted by. the U. S.
Supreme Court (Dodge v. Trust Co., 93 U. S. 379 ; S. P. Deasey v.
Thurman, 1 Ida. 775). But against other assignees, not acquiring
title for value (as an executor, etc.), such declarations of the assignor
are competent ( Von Sachs v. Krctz, supra). And an assignor's decla-
rations may be proved as part of the res gesto?, even as against a
holder for value if they were made at the time of the transfer and
serve to qualify the title. Benjamin v. Rogers, 126 N. Y. 60.]
64 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
An admission on the part of the obligee that the money due has
been paid is deemed to be relevant on behalf of the defendant.1
(b) An admission by the assignee of the bond in the last Illustration
would also be deemed to be relevant on behalf of the defendant.
(da) [The question is, whether a horse was sold to the defendant by
the plaintiff for $500, or was entrusted to him as a bailee.
The defendant upon seeing an entry made in the plaintiff's book of
account immediately after the transaction, charging him with $500 as
the price of the horse, admitted its accuracy ; this admission is
deemed to be relevant against him.] '2
(bb) [A sues B to recover the possession of land. A claims under C
and B claims under D. Declarations made by D while in possession
of the land that C was the owner are admissible against B.]3
{be) [The admissions of a holder of a promissory note after maturity,
made while he held it, are deemed to be relevant against a subsequent
holder.] 4
(c) A statement made by a person before he becomes the assignee
of a bankrupt is not deemed to be relevant as an admission by him in
a proceeding by him as such assignee.5
(d) Statements made by a person as to a bill of which he had been
the holder are deemed not to be relevant as against the holder, if they
are made after he has negotiated the bill.6
(e) [A sues B to recover his salary for services rendered as foreman
of B's tannery.
A witness X testifies that B had declared to him that he had dis-
charged A and that he was to pay A S400 a year ; and that in the
same conversation B said that A got drunk, was absent and neglected
his business, and that on that account he had discharged him. These
qualifying statements were admitted in evidence in connection with
the admission.] 7
1 See Moriarty v. L. C. &> D. Co., L. R. 5 Q. B. 320; [see p. 59, note i,
ante.]
'-' [ Tanner v. Pa /shall, 4 Abb. Dec. 356.]
3 [Simpson v. Dix, 131 Mass. 179.]
4 [Bond v. Fitzpatrick, 4 Gray, 89 ; Kane v. Torbitt, 23 111. App. 311;
contra, Clews v. Kehr, go N. Y. 633.]
5 Fenwick v. Thornton, M. & M. 51 (by Lord Tenterden). In Smith
v. Morgan, 1 M. & R. 257, Tindal, C. J., decided exactly the reverse.
6 Pocock v. Billing, 2 Bing. 269.
' [Bearss v. Copier, 10 N. Y. 93 ; see Rouse v. Minted, 25 N. Y. 170.
But the fact that the whole statement is admissible does not require
the same weight to be given to every part of it. Id.]
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 65
Article 17.*
admissions by agents and persons jointly interested with
PARTIES.
Admissions may be made by agents authorized to make
them either expressly or by the conduct of their prin-
cipals ; but a statement made by an agent is not an ad-
mission merely because if made by the principal himself
it would have been one.1
*See Note XI. [Appendix].
1 [Illustrations (a), (ab), (c) and (d). The admission of an agent, in
order to be competent evidence against his principal, must relate to,
and be made in connection with, some act done in the course of his
agency, so as to form part of the res gestae {Anderson v. Ro7ne, etc. R.
Co., 54 N. Y. 334 ; Manhattan Ins. Co. v. Forty-second St. etc. R. Co.,
139 N. Y. 146; Goetz v. Batik of Kansas City, 1 19 U. S. 551 ; Xenia Bk.
v. Stewart, 1 14 U. S. 224; Lane v. B. &°A.R. Co., 112 Mass. 455; Giber-
son v. Patterson Mills Co., 174 Pa. 369; Ohio, etc. R. Co. v. Stein, 133
Ind. 243; Ayres v. Hubbard, 71 Mich. 594). Or else they must be ex-
pressly authorized ( White v. Miller, 71 N. Y. 1 18, 136). But an agent's
declarations are not admissible to prove his own authority (Stringham
v. St. Nicholas Ins. Co., 4 Abb. Dec. 315; Baltimore, etc. Ass'n v.
Post, 122 Pa. 579; Swanstrom v. Improvement Co., 91 Mich. 367).
A wife's declarations are competent against her husband when she
makes them as his agent, within this rule ; and so of a husband's ad-
missions as against his wife. The marital relation does not of itself
establish the agency, but it must be otherwise shown to exist ; it may
be express or implied (Gr. Ev. i. § 185 ; Lay Grae v. Peterson, 2
Sandf. 338 ; Deck v. Johnson, I Abb. Dec. 497 ; Rose v. Chapman, 44
Mich. 312 ; Phelps v. James, 86 la. 399 ; Goodrich v. Tracy, 43 Vt. 314 ;
see McGregor v. Wait, 10 Gray, 72 ; Wright v. Towle, 67 Mich. 255).
The admissions of a member or officer of an aggregate corporation,
who is not a party to the action, are not competent evidence against
the corporation, unless made within this rule while he was acting as
its authorized agent (Soper v. Buffalo, etc. R. Co., 19 Barb. 310 ; N. Y.
Code Civ. Pro. § 839 ; Trucsdellv. Chumar, 75 Hun, 416 ; Allegheny
Co. Workhouse v. Moore, 95 Pa. 408 ; 2 How. St. (Mich.) § 7512). So
the admissions of an inhabitant of a municipal corporation are not, in
this country, competent evidence against the corporation ; and so of
the admissions of a public officer, unless made while he is acting as
66 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
A report made by an agent to a principal is not an
admission which can be proved by a third person.1
Partners and joint contractors are each other's agents
for the purpose of making admissions against each other
in relation to partnership transactions or joint contracts.2
agent of the municipality, and as part of the res gesto?. Smyth v.
lla/igor, 72 Me. 249; Weeks v. Needham, 156 Mass. 289; Gray v.
Rollinsford, 58 N. H. 253 ; Petition of Landaff, 34 N. H. 163.]
1 Re Devala Co., 22 Ch. Div. 593 ; [cf. Insurance Co. of N. America
v. Gttardiola, 129 U. S. 642.]
2 [Illustrations (e) and (/). This is a well-settled rule as to the admis-
sions of a partner made during the existence of the partnership ( Union
Nat. Bk. v. Underhill, 102 N. Y. 336; Van Keuren v. Parmelee, 2 N. Y.
512; Smith v. Collins, 115 Mass. 388; Western Assurance Co. v. Towle,
65 Wis. 247; Griffin v. Steams, 44 N. H. 498; Slipp v. Hartley, 50 Minn.
118; Ruckman v. Decker, 23 N. J. Eq. 283). The existence of the part-
nership, however, must be first shown, and the admissions of one alleged
partner are not competent against others to prove them to be partners,
though each one's admissions are receivable against himself to show
him to be a partner {Robins v. Warden, 1 1 1 Mass. 244 ; McNeilatis
Estate, 167 Pa. 472 ; Bundy v. Bruce, 61 Vt. 619 ; Armstrong v. Potter,
103 Mich. 409 ; Vannoy v. Klein, 122 Ind. 416 ; Greenwood x. Sias, 21
Hun, 391 ; Pleasants v. Pant, 22 Wall. 1 16). One partner cannot con-
fess judgment against another, even for a partnership debt {McCleery
v. Thompson, 130 Pa. 443; Hall v. Panning, 91 U. S. 160, 170).
Different rules prevail in different States as to whether the admis-
sions of one partner, made after a dissolution of the firm, shall be
receivable against the others. In some States they are admissible
against the others, when made in regard to past debts or transactions
of the firm, but not so as to create new contracts or obligations ( Gay v.
Bowen, 8 Met. 100 ; Buxton v. Edwards, 134 Mass. 567, 579 ; Hinkley
v. Gilligan, 34 Me. 101 ; Rich v. Flanders, 39 N. H. 304, 339 ; cf.
Feigley v. Whitaker, 22 O. St. 606 ; Davis v. Poland, 92 Ya. 225) ; and
they are also competent in some States to arrest and start anew the
running of the Statute of Limitations as to a partnership debt which is
not yet barred {Merrill v. Day, 38 N. J. L. 32 ; Bissell v. Adams, 35
Ct. 299 ; McClurg v. Howard, 45 Mo. 365). But in New York ad-
missions by one as to dealings of the firm before dissolution are not
competent against the others, nor will his admissions affect the run-
ning of the Statute of Limitations except as to himself {Bakers.
Stackpole, 9 Cow. 420 ; Van Keuren v. Parmelee, supra) ; though if
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 67
Barristers and solicitors are the agents of their clients
for the purpose of making admissions whilst engaged in
the actual management of the cause, either in court or in
correspondence relating thereto ; but statements made
one is authorized to act as agent in the business of winding up, the
declarations which he makes in the course of his agency are com-
petent against all {Nichols v. White, 85 N. Y. 531). When a partner
retires, the remaining members cannot bind him by their admissions
(Pringle v. Lev e rich, 97 N. Y. 181). Some other States have adopted
similar rules {Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 351 ; Cronkhite v. Herrin, 15
F. R. 888 ; Wilson v. Waugh, 101 Pa. 233 ; Gates v. Fisk, 45 Mich.
522 ; Conkey v. Barbour, 22 Ind. 196 ; Nat. Bk. of Commerce v.
Header, 40 Minn. 325 ; Maxey v. Strong, 53 Miss. 280 ; see Parsons
on Partnership, pp. 184-197).
As respects creditors who have had dealings with the firm but to
whom no notice of dissolution has been given, part payments by one
partner after dissolution will prevent the bar of the Statute of
Limitations as to the other partners {Davison v. Sherburne, 57 Minn.
355 ; Buxton v. Edwards, 134 Mass. 355 ; Tappaii v. Kimball, 30
N. H. 136 ; Gates v. Fisk, 45 Mich. 522).
So in some States the admissions of one joint debtor or contractor
are received against the others, and will also arrest and start anew
the running of the Statute of Limitations as respects all, except so
far as the statutes cited below (see p. 69, note 2) modify this rule
{Dennie v. Williams, 135 Mass. 28 ; Shepley v. Waterhouse, 22 Me.
497; Clark v. Sigourney, 17 Ct. 510; Woonsocket Inst.v. Ballou, 16
R. I. 351 ; Schindel v. Gates, 46 Md. 604 ; Block v. Dorman, 51 Mo. 31 ;
see Parker v. Butterworth, 46 N. J. L. 244). In other States a con-
trary or modified doctrine is held {Campbell v. Brown, 86 N. C. 376 ;
see Kallenbach v. Dickinson, 100 111: 427, which enumerates the States
having the diverse rules, and cites many leading cases). Thus it is
held in a number of the States that one cannot bind the others so as
to affect their defence that the claim is barred, but can only bind him-
self {Shoemaker x. Benedict, 11 N. Y. 176 ; Bush v. Stowell, 71 Pa.
208 ; Clark v. Burn, 86 id. 502 ; Hance v. Hair, 25 O. St. 349 ;
Willoughby v. Irish, 35 Minn. 63 ; Steele v. Souder, 20 Kan. 39 ;
Miller v. Miller, 4 McArth. 109). In New York it is well settled that
a joint debtor or joint contractor has no authority to bind his associate,
unless he is the agent or in some other way the representative of such
person (IVallisv. Randall, 81 N. Y. 164 ; Lewis v. Woodworth, 2 N.
Y. 512 ; McMullen v. Rafferty, 89 N. Y. 456 ; see Rogers v. Anderson,
40 Mich. 290). The rule in any State as to joint debtors ;s much the
A DIGEST OF [Part I.
by a barrister or solicitor on other occasions are not ad-
missions merely because they would be admissions if
made by the client himself.1
same as to partners after dissolution ; so, also, it is held in most States
that the admissions of one such partner or debtor, made after the
claim is already barred, will not revive it against the others. New-
man v. McComas, 43 Md. 70 ; Parker v. Butterworth, 46 N. J. L. 244 ;
Harris v. Odeal, 39 Mo. App. 270 ; Davis v. Polatid, 92 Va. 225 ;
Bates on Partnership, ii. 703.]
1 [Illustrations (g) and (//). This rule is generally applicable in this
country to attorneys and counsellors ; the admissions may be oral or
written (Gr. Ev. i. § 186; Lewis v. Sumner, 13 Met. 269; Loomis v. N. Y.
etc. R. Co., 159 Mass. 39 ; Ohlquest v. Farwell, ji la. 231 ; Isabel le v.
Iron Cliffs Co., 57 Mich. 120; Nichols v. /ones, 32 Mo. App. 657; Ohio,
etc. R. Co. v. Rooker, 134 Ind. 343 ; Oliver v. Bennett, 65 N. Y. 559;
Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 333), So the "stipulations" of attorneys
in relation to the conduct of the cause are, in general, binding upon
their clients [Bray v. Doheny, 39 Minn. 355 ; Garrett v. Hanshue, 53
O. St. 482; Ex parte Hayes, 92 Ala. 120; Townsendw. Mastcrson Co.,
15 N. Y. 587) ; it is common practice to require that stipulations shall
be in writing {State v. Stewart, 74 la. 336; People v. Stephens, 52 N. Y.
306). A plaintiff may be nonsuited on admissions contained in his
attorney's opening speech (Oscanyan v. Arms Co., 103 U. S. 261 ;
Person v. Wilcox, 19 Minn. 449 ; Clews v. N. Y. Banking Assy n, 105
N. Y. 398 ; Evans v. Montgomery, 95 Mich. 497 ; cf. Converse v.
Sickles, 146 N. Y. 200). As to unsolemn admissions, or those made
in casual conversation, etc., which are not usually allowed to be
proved against the client, see Rockwell v. Taylor, 41 Ct. 55 ; McKeen
v. Gammon, 33 Me. 187 ; Douglass v. Mitchells Excr., 35 Pa. 441 ;
Treadway v. S. C. etc. R. Co., 40 la. 526 ; Pickert v. Hair, 146 Mass.
1 ; Fay v. Hebbard, 42 Hun, 490. As to admissions made by an
attorney on a former trial, or contained in the pleadings, see the
cases cited in the preceding Article (p. 58, ante). An admission made
by counsel may be withdrawn by permission of the court (Sullivan v.
Eddy, 154 111. 199). In this country it is the general rule that an at-
torney cannot compromise or settle a suit without his client's consent
(Mandeville v. Reynolds, 68 N. Y. 528; Dalton v. West End, etc. R.
Co., 159 Mass. 221 ; State v. Clifford, 124 Mo. 492 ; Eaton v.Knowles,
61 Mich. 625 ; Brockley v. Brockley, 122 Pa. 1 ; Wethcrbce v. Fitch,
117 III.67). Sometimes, however, an attorney's compromise, if fair
and reasonable, has been sustained, though made without such con-
sent ( Whipple v. Whitman, 13 R. I. 512). English law allows counsel
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 69
The fact that two persons have a common interest in
the same subject-matter does not entitle them to make
admissions respecting it as against each other.1
In cases in which actions founded on a simple contract
have been barred by the Statute of Limitations no joint
contractor or his personal representative loses the benefit
of such statute, by reason only of any written acknowledg-
ment or promise made or signed by (or by the agent
duly authorized to make such acknowledgment or promise
of) any other or others of them (or by reason only of
payment of any principal, interest, or other money, by
any other or others of them).2
to make compromises. Mathews v. Munster, 20 Q. B.D. 141; Lewis s
v. Lewis, 45 Ch. D. 281.]
1 [Illustration (z). Gr. Ev. i. § 176. Thus the admission of one ex-
ecutor or administrator is not competent against his co-executor or
co-administrator to establish a demand against the estate of the
deceased, nor is it receivable against heirs or devisees {Church v.
Howard, 79 N. Y. 415, 418 ; Davis v. Gallagher, 124 N. Y. 487) ; nor
the admission of one devisee or legatee against another {Clark v.
Morrison, 25 Pa. 453 ; La Ban v. Vanderbilt, 3 Redf. 384 ; McMillan
v. McDill, no 111. 47; Shailerv. Buinstead, 99 Mass. 112, 127); nor
of one tenant in common against another {Dan v. Brown, 4 Cow. 483 ;
Pier v. Dttff, 63 Pa. 59) ; nor, generally, of one defendant in a tort
action against another, unless made as part of the res gestae, as in con-
spiracy {Carpenter v. Shelden, 5 Sandf. 77; Wilson v. O' Day, 5 Daly,
354; cf. Edgerton v. Wolf, 6 Gray, 453 ; see Art. 4). As to the admis-
sions of a cestui que trust, see Warren v. Carey, 145 Mass. 78.]
2 9 Geo. IV. c. 14, s. 1. The first set of words in parenthesis was
added by 19 & 20 Vict. c. 97, s. 13 ; the second set by s. 14 of the same
Act. The language is slightly altered. [Similar statutes have been
passed in several States of this country (Mass. Pub. St. c. 197, s. 17;
N. J. Rev., p. 595, s. 10; Maine Rev. St. c. 82, ss. 98, 100; Faulkner v.
Bailey, 123 Mass. 588 ; Bailey v. Corliss, 51 Vt. 366 ; Gates v. Fisk,
45 Mich. 522 ; Bottles v. Miller, wz Ind. 584 ; Nat. Bk.of ' Delavan v.
Cotton, 53 Wis. 31). In New York and some other States a similar
common law rule prevails ; but in a number of the States the con-
trary rule of the English common law prevails, which was estab-
lished by Whitcombv. Whiting. See pp. 66-68, ante, note; also Illus-
tration (/), post.]
70 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
A principal, as such, is not the agent of his surety for
the purpose of making admissions as to the matters for
which the surety gives security.1
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether a parcel, for the loss of which a rail-
way company is sued, was stolen by one of their servants. State-
ments made by the station master to a police officer, suggesting that
the parcel had been stolen by a porter, are deemed to be relevant, as
against the railway, as admissions by an agent.2
(ab) [In an action against a railroad company for an injury sustained
by plaintiff from a collision of trains caused by a misplaced switch, the
statements of a brakeman, made after the disaster, that he opened the
switch, were offered in evidence against the company. They were held
not admissible, not having been made as part of the res gesto?.] 3
(b) A allows his wife to carry on the business of his shop in his ab-
sence. A statement by her that he owes money for goods supplied to
the shop is deemed to be relevant against him as an admission by an
agent.4
(c) A sends his servant, B, to sell a horse. What B says at the time
of the sale, and as part of the contract of sale, is deemed to be a
relevant fact as against A, but what B says upon the subject at some
different time is not deemed to be relevant as against A,5 (though it
might have been deemed to be relevant if said by A himself).
1 [Illustration (J). Gr. Ev. i. § 187 ; Hatch v. Elkins, 65 N. Y. 489 ;
Rae v. Beach, 76 N. Y. 164 ; Wells v. Kavanagh, 70 la. 519 ; Lewis
v. Lee Co., 73 Ala. 148 ; Chelmsford Co. v. Demarest, 7 Gray, 1. But
declarations of the principal are admissible when forming part of the
res gestw. Id. ; Bank of Brighton v. Smith, 12 Allen, 243 ; see Agri-
cultural Ins. Co. v. Keeler, 44 Ct. 161 ; Bissell v. Saxton, 66 N. Y. 55.]
• Kirkstall Brewery v. Furness Ry., L. R. 9 Q. B. 468. [See Green
v. />'. &* I. B. Co., 128 Mass. 221 ; B. &> AI. R. Co. v. Ordway, 140
Mass. 510 ; Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Wilkinson, 55 Kan. 83 ; B. il~- O.
R. Co. v. Campbell, 36 O. St. 647 ; Steamboat Co. v. Brockett, 121 U. S.
637 ; cf. Hoag v. Lamonf, 60 X. Y. 96.]
3 [Patterson v. Wabash, etc. R. Co., 54 Mich. 91 ; see Art. 3, Illustra-
tion ica), ante.]
4 Clifford v. Burton, 1 Bing. 199; [Riley v. Suydam, 4 Barb. 222;
sec Stale v. Lemon, 92 N. C. 790.]
5 Hclycar v. Ilawkc, 5 Esp. 72 ; [see Wait v. Borne, 123 N. Y. 592.]
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 71
(d) The question is, whether a ship remained at a port for an un-
reasonable time. Letters from the plaintiff's agent to the plaintiff
containing statements which would have been admissions if made by
the plaintiff himself are deemed to be irrelevant as against him.1
(<?) A, B, and C sue D as partners upon an alleged contract re-
specting the shipment of bark. An admission by A that the bark was
his exclusive property and not the property of the firm is deemed to
be relevant as against B and C.2
(/) A, B, C, and D make a joint and several promissory note.
Either can make admissions about it as against the rest.3
(g) The question is, whether A accepted a bill of exchange. A
notice to produce the bill signed by A's solicitor and describing the
bill as having been accepted by A is deemed to be a relevant fact.4
(h) The question is, whether a debt to A, the plaintiff, was due from
B, the defendant, or from C. A statement made by A's solicitor to
B's solicitor in common conversation that the debt was due from C is
deemed not to be relevant against A.5
(i) One co-part-owner of a ship cannot, as such, make admissions
against another as to the part of the ship in which they have a common
interest, even if he is co-partner with that other as to other parts of
the ship.6
(/) A is surety for B, a clerk. B being dismissed makes statements
as to sums of money which he has received and not accounted for.
These statements are not deemed to be relevant as against A, as ad-
missions.7
1 Langhorn v. Allnutt, 4 Tau. 511.
2 Lucas v. De La Coitr, 1 M. & S. 249. [Cf. Brake v. Kimball, 5
Sandf. 237 ; Harding v. Butler, 156 Mass. 34; but see Williams v.
Lewis, 115 Ind. 45.]
3 Whitcomb v. Whiting, 1 S. L. C. 644. [The decisjon in this case
was that the acknowledgment of one of the drawers of a joint and
several note took it out of the Statute of Limitations as against the
others. This case is followed in some States of this country, rejected
in others. Kallenbach v. Dickinson, 100 111. 427 ; Murdoch v. Water-
man, 145 N. Y. 55, 63 ; see p. 67, ante, note.]
4 Holt v. Squire, Ry. & Mo. 282.
5 Fetch v. Lyon, 9 Q. B. 147 ; [Saunders v. McCarthy, 8 Allen, 43.]
6 /aggers v. Binning, 1 Stark. 64. [The New Orleans, 106 U. S. 13;
McLellan v. Cox, 36 Me. 95 ; see Smith v. Aldrich, 12 Allen, 553.]
1 Smith v. Whippingham, 6 C. & P. 78. See also Evans v. Beattie,
5 Esp. 26 ; Bacon v. Chesney, 1 Stark. 192 ; Caermarthen R. Co. v.
Manchester R. Co., L. R. 8 C. P. 685.
72 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
Article 18.*
admissions by strangers.
vStatements by strangers to a proceeding- are not
relevant as against the parties,1 except in the cases here-
inafter mentioned.
In actions against sheriffs for not executing process
against debtors, statements of the debtor admitting his
debt to be due to the execution creditor are deemed to be
relevant as against the sheriff.2
In actions by the trustees of bankrupts an admission
by the bankrupt of the petitioning creditor's debt is
deemed to be relevant as against the defendant.3
Article 19. f
ADMISSION BY PERSON REFERRED TO BY PARTY.
When a party to any proceeding expressly refers to any
other person for information in reference to a matter in
* See Note XII. [Appendix]. | See Note XIII. [Appendix].
1 Coole v. Braham, 3 Ex. 183. \Nelson v. Flint, 166 U. S. 276;
Brown v. Mailler, 12 N. Y. 118; Happy v. Mosher, 48 N. Y. 313;
Lyon v. Manning, 133 Mass. 439; Wilson v. Boivden, 113 id. 422;
Montgomery v. Brush, 121 111. 513. But statements made by a
stranger in the presence and hearing of a party, and naturally calling
for a reply, may be deemed admissions of the party if he keeps silent;
see ante, p. 25, note 1.]
'-' Kempland v. Macaulay, Peake, 95 ; Williams v. Bridges, 2 Stark.
42 ; [Mart v. Stevenson, 25 Ct. 499 ; Pugh v. M'Bae, 2 Ala. 393.]
8 Jarrett v. Leonard, 2 M. & S. 265, (adapted to the new law of bank-
ruptcy). [This rule as thus stated is peculiarly applicable to English
practice. But in New York it is held that the declarations of a bank-
rupt, made before the bankruptcy, are competent against his assignee
in bankruptcy, to establish or support a claim against the bankrupt's
estate. Von Sachs v. Kretz, 72 X. Y. 548; see Holt v. Walker, 26
Me. 107 ; Carnes v. White, 15 Gray, 378; Wellington v. Jackson, 121
Mass. 157 ; /// re Clark, 9 Blatch. 379]
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 73
dispute, the statements of that other person may be admis-
sions as against the person who refers to him.1
Illustration.
The question is, whether A delivered goods to B. B says, " If C "
(the carman) " will say that he delivered the goods, I will pay for
them." C's answer may as against B be an admission.2
Article 20.*
admissions made without prejudice.
No admission is de'emed to be relevant in any civil action
if it is made either upon an express condition that evi-
dence of it is not to be given,3 or under circumstances
from which the judge infers that the parties agreed to-
* See Note XIV. [Appendix].
1 [Gr. Ev. i. § 182 ; Gott v. Dinstnore, 1 1 1 Mass. 45 ; Wehle v. Spel-
man, 1 Hun, 634, 4 T. & C. 649 ; Chadsey v. Greene, 24 Ct. 562 ;
Chapman v. Twitchell, 37 Me. 59; Folsom v. Batchelder, 22 N. H.
47 ; Beebe v. Knapp, 28 Mich. 53 ; cf. Adler-Gold?nan Co. v. Adams
Exp. Co., 53 Mo. App. 284. But the statements of the referee are
only admissible when they relate to the subject-matter of the refer-
ence {Duval v. Covenhover, 4 Wend. 561 ; Lambert v. People, 76 N. Y.
220 ; Allen v. Killinger, 8 Wall. 480), and when he was referred to
in such a way as to show an intention to give him authority like that
of an agent to make admissions (Rosenbury v. Angell, 6 Mich. 508 ;
Proctor x. Old Colony R. Co., 154 Mass. 251). Statements made by
the referee before the reference are also not admissible (Co/in v.
Goldman, 76 N. Y. 284).
If persons speaking different languages communicate by an inter-
preter, his version of their words may be proved as their own declara-
tions (Gr. Ev. i. §183; Comm. v. Vose, 157 Mass. 393; Wright v.
Maseras, 56 Barb. 521 ; Miller v. Lathrop, 50 Minn. 91). But evi-
dence of statements made by an interpreter that a party had made
admissions to him is hearsay and inadmissible. Territory v. Big
Knot, 6 Mont. 242.]
2 Daniel v. Pitt, 1 Camp. 366, n.; see, too, R. v. Mallory, 13 Q. B. D.
33. This is a weaker illustration than Daniel v. Pitt.
3 Cory v. Bretton, 4 C. & P. 462 ; [Copelandv. Taylor, 99 Mass. 613.]
74 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
gether that evidence of it should not be given,1 or if it
was made under duress.2
Illustrations.
(a) [A sued B to recover a debt for services rendered. B denied
the indebtedness. A year after the action was begun B wrote this
letter to A : " Dear Sir : To save cost and stop further litigation, I am
willing to send you my check for fifty dollars in full liquidation of
your claim." On the trial this letter was held not receivable in evi-
dence against B as an admission.]3
(d) [A sued B intmvjej^ior a colt. Both were brought together by
friends, that they might talk over and settle the case. During the
1 Paddock v. Forester, 3 M. & G. 918. [Under this rule statements
incorporating the express qualification that they shall be " without
prejudice " are deemed not to be relevant as admissions ( Walker v.
Wilsher, 23 Q. B. D. 335 ; Perkins v. Concord R. Co., 44 N. H. 223).
So statements made as offers to compromise a claim, or to " buy peace,"
as it is termed, are not competent e/idence as admissions (Illustration
(a) ; Gr. Ev. i. § 192 ; Draper v. Hatfield, 124 Mass. 53 ; Home Ins.
Co v. Baltimore, etc. Co., 93 U. S. 527 ; Tennant v. Dudley, 144 N. Y.
504 ; Slingerland v. Norton, 58 Hun, 578 ; Montgomery v. Allen, 84
Mich. 656 ; Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Wright, 115 Ind. 378). They are
equivalent to statements "without prejudice" {West v. Smith, 101
U. S. 263, 273; Reynolds v. Manning, 15 Md. 510; White v. Old
Dominion St' ft Co., 102 N. Y. 660). But an admission of an inde-
pendent fact is relevant, though made during a negotiation for com-
promise (Illustration (d); Barllettv. Tarbox, 1 Abb. Dec. 120 ; Durgin
v. Somers, 117 Mass. 55 ; Arthur v. James, 28 Pa. 236 ; Doon v. Ravey,
49 Yt. 293 ; Beaudette v. Gagne, 87 Me. 534 ; Manistee Nat. Bk. v.
Seymour, 64 Mich. 59 ; Broschart v. Tuttle, 59 Ct. 1 ; Colburn v. Gro-
ton, 66 N. H. 151 ; Binfordv. Young, 115 Ind. 174 ; cf. Brice v. Bauer,
108 N. Y. 428). This is the general American rule.]
2 Stockfleth v. De Tastet, per Ellenborough, C. J., 4 Camp. 1 1. [But
admissions made by a party, while testifying as witness in a prior suit,
are relevant against him ; the legal constraint to testify is not deemed
"duress" under this rule (Gr. Ev. i. § 193 ; see Art. 15, ante, note;
Tooker v. Gonner, 2 Hilt. 71).
A court of equity will sometimes restrain the use of admissions
obtained by fraud and duress. Callender v. Callender, 53 How. Pr.
364.]
'•'■[Smith v. Satterlee, 130 N. Y. 677.]
Chap. IV.J THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 75
conversation A said he would be glad to have the colt, to which B
replied, " I sold the colt about four weeks after I got it." Then A
said, " I demanded the colt, you recollect ? " and B answered, "Yes."
No settlement being effected, these declarations were held admissible
against B on the trial, as admissions that he had sold the property,
and that a demand for it had been made upon him.l J
s
[#LE 21.
Artk
confessions defined.
A confession is an admission made at any time by a
person charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the
inference that he committed that crime.2 Confessions,
1 [Dickinson v. Dickinson, 9 Met. 471.]
2 [The word " confession " denotes an acknowledgment of guilt.
Acknowledgments of other matters of fact in a criminal case are
termed "admissions" (Gr. Ev. i. § 170 ; People v. Hickman, 113 Cal.
80, 86 ; Fletcher v. State, 90 Ga. 468 ; Taylor v. State, 37 Neb. 788 ;
State v. Heidenreich, 29 Or. 381).
Confessions may not only be made expressly, but may also be im-
plied from a person's keeping silence when he is charged with a
crime under such circumstances that he would naturally reply (Spar/
v. United States, 156 U. S. 51 ; Comm. v. McCabe, 163 Mass. 98;
Richards v. State, 82 Wis. 172 ; see Art. 8, ante, last paragraph, and
note). This is true in some States, even though he be under arrest at
the time (Kelley v. People, 55 N. Y. 565 ; Murphy v. State, 36 O. St. 628 ;
Ackerson v. People, 124 111. 563 ; cf. Ettinger v. Comm., 98 Pa. 338;
contra, Comm. v. McDcnnott, 12-3 Mass. 440; State v. Howard, 102
Mo. 142).
It is a general rule that an extra-judicial confession (i. e., one made
out of court) is not sufficient to sustain a conviction, unless corroborated
by additional proof of the corpus delicti (Gr. Ev. i. § 217 ; People v.
Hennessy, 15 Wend. 147; N. Y. Code Cr. Pro. § 395; Campbell 'v.
People, 159 III.9; People v. Simonsen, 107 Cal. 345; Ryan v. State,
100 Ala. 94 ; State v. Walker, 98 Mo. 95 ; Gray v. Comm., ioi-Pa. 380 ;
People v.Lane, 49 Mich. 340 ; Blackburn v. State, 23 O. St. 146 ; State
v. Knowles, 48 la. 598). It is also an important rule that the whole of
a confession is to be taken together, so that the prisoner may have
the benefit of all qualifying or exculpatory statements incorporated
therein (Gr. Ev. i. §218 ; State v. McDonnell, 32 Vt. 491 ; Moreheadw.
76 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
if voluntary, are deemed to be relevant facts as against
the persons who make them only.1
Article 22.*
confession caused by inducement, threat, or promise,
when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.
No confession is deemed to be voluntary if it appears
to the judge to have been caused by any inducement,
* See Note XV. [Appendix].
State, 34 O. St. 212 ; Corbett v. State, 31 Ala. 329; see People v.
Ruloff, 3 Park. Cr. 401). But part of a conversation may be proved,
if it amounts to a confession which is substantially complete {Comm.
v. Pitsinger, no Mass. 101 ; Levison v. State, 54 Ala. 520). Facts
which explain or qualify a confession, or show it to be untrue in
whole or in part, may be adduced in evidence by the defendant
{State v. Hutchinson, 60 la. 478 ; People v. Fox, 121 N. Y. 449).
Judicial confessions will warrant a conviction without corroborative
proof of the corpus delicti {State v. Lamb, 28 Mo. 218 ; Dantz v. State,
87 Ind. 398) ; as e.g., upon a plea of "guilty" in cases either of felony
or misdemeanor {Hallinger v. Davis, 146 U. S. 314 ; Green v. Com?n.,
12 Allen, 155 ; Comm. v. Brown, 150 Mass. 331 ; Craig v. State, 49O.
St. 415 ; People v. Lennox, 67 Cal. 113), or a plea of non volo contendere
{Comt/i. v. Holstine, 132 Pa. 357). But the court may permit a plea of
"guilty " to be withdrawn, when it is due to the prisoner's ignorance
weakness or fears, to deception or duress practiced upon him, or other
like causes {Myers v. State, 115 Ind. 554 ; Gardner v. People, 106 111.
76 ; State v. Stephens, 71 Mo. 535 ; U. S. v. Bayaud, 21 Blatch. 217).
A plea so withdrawn cannot afterwards be proved against the prisoner
as a confession {People v. Ryan, 82 Cal. 617). In New York no con-
viction may be had upon a plea of guilty in cases punishable with
death. N. Y. Code Cr. Pro. § 332.]
f1 [Thus the confession of one of two or more defendants in a criminal
ase, not made in the presence of the others, is evidence against him-
self only, and not against the others {Spar/ v. United States, 15c* U.
J&. 51 ; Comm. v. Ingraham, 7 Gray, 46 ; State v. Albert, 73 Mo. 347 ;
People v. Stevens, 47 Mich. 41 1 ; Fife v. Comm., 29 Pa. 429 ; Ackerson
v. People, 124 111. 563). As to the declarations of conspirators, see
Art. 4, ante.]
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 77
threat, or promise, proceeding from a person in authority,
and having- reference to the charge against the accused
person, whether addressed to him directly or brought to
his knowledge indirectly ; '
and if (in the opinion of the judge)2 such inducement,
threat, or promise, gave the accused person reasonable
1 [The admissibility of confessions is to be determined by the judge,
their weight by the jury ( Willett v. People, 27 Hun, 469 ; Comm. v.
Culver, 126 Mass. 464 ; Palmer v. State, 136 Ind. 393 ; State v. Kin-
der, 96 Mo. 548 ; State v. Holden, 42 Minn. 350 ; Biscoe v. State, 67
Md. 6 ; Lefevre v. State, 50 O. St. 584 ; and cases infra). But in some
States, as in England, when a confession is offered in evidence, the
burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show it to be voluntary
{Bradford v. State, 104 Ala. 68 ; Wrye v. State, 95 Ga. 467 ; Nicholson
v. State, 38 Md. 140 ; People v. Soto, 49 Cal. 67 ; Thompson v. Comm.,
20 Gratt. 724 ; R. v. Thompson, [1893] 2 Q. B. 12). In other States it is
considered prima facie voluntary, but the defendant may object to its
being admitted in evidence and show it to have been improperly ob-
tained and so cause its exclusion (Comm. v. Sego, 125 Mass. 210;
Comm. v. Culver, supra ; Rufcr v. State, 25 O. St. 464 ; State v.
Meyers, 99 Mo. 107 ; People v. Barker, 60 Mich. 277 ; State v. Davis,
34 La. Ann. 351 ; cf. People v. Fox, 121 N. Y. 448). In some States,
moreover, when the evidence is conflicting whether a confession is
voluntary or not, the question may be left to the jury, with instructions
to disregard the confession if they find it to be involuntary. Comm.
x.Preece, 140 Mass. 276 ; Burdge v. State, 53 O. St. 512; Wilson v.
U. S., 162 U. S. 613 ; contra, Ellis v. State, 65 Miss. 44.]
'2 It is not easy to reconcile the cases on this subject. In R. v.
Baldry, decided in 1852 (2 Den. C. C. 430), the constable told the pris-
oner that he need not say anything to criminate himself, but that what
he did say would be taken down and used as evidence against him.
It was held that this was not an inducement, though there were
earlier cases which treated it as such. In R. v.Jarvis, L. R. 1 C. C.
R. 96, the following was held not to be an inducement : " I think it is
right I should tell you that, besides being in the presence of my
brother and myself " (prisoner's master), " you are in the presence of
two officers of the police ; and I should advise you that to any question
that may be put to you, you will answer truthfully, so that if you have
committed a fault you may not add to it by stating what is untrue.
Take care. We know more than you think we know." So in R. v.
Reeve, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 362, where the words were, " You had better, as
78 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
grounds for supposing that by making a confession he
would gain some advantage or avoid some eyil in reference
to the proceedings against him.1
good boys, tell the truth," the confession was held admissible. In R. v.
Fennell, 7 Q. B. D. 147, the prosecutor, in the presence of the police
inspector, said to the prisoner: "The inspector tells me you are making
housebreaking implements ; if that is so, you had better tell the truth,
it may be better for you ; " these words were held to exclude the con-
fession which followed. There are later cases (unreported) which
follow these. [See Illustrations (aa) and (ab) ; Comm. v. Preece, 140
Mass. 276 ; State v. Anderson, 96 Mo. 241 ; Ross v. State, 67 Md. 286 ;
Kelly v. State, 72 Ala. 244 ; Bram v. U. S., 168 U. S. 532.]
1 [People v. Phillips, 42 N. Y. 200 ; Comm. v. Curtis, 97 Mass. 574 ;
Fife v. Comm., 29 Pa. 429 ; Flagg v. People, 40 Mich. 706 ; Robinson
v. State, 159 111. 115; State v. Jones, 54 Mo. 478. But a confession
made to a person in authority, even though obtained by his induce-
ments, solicitations, or inquiries, is deemed to be voluntary, if no in-
ducements, threats, or promises are used which are calculated to
excite hope or fear in respect to the proceedings against the prisoner
(Illustration (ac) ; Com?n. v. Sego, 125 Mass. 210 ; People v. IVents, 37
N. Y. 303 ; State v. Fortner, 43 la. 494 ; Comm. v. Morey, 1 Gray, 461.;
Fife v. Comm., supra) ; and the same is true if improper threats or
promises are made, but it satisfactorily appears that the confession
was not induced thereby (Hartley v. People, 156 111. 234). So confes-
sions made by the prisoner while in custody are competent, if the
officer use no such improper inducements or threats (People v. Cox,
80 N. Y. 501 ; Pierce v. U. S., 160 U. S. 535 ; McQueen v. State, 94
Ala. 50 ; Comm. v. Cttffce, 108 Mass. 285 ; Comm. v. Mosler, 4 Pa. 264;
People v. Eckman, 72 Cal. 582), and that, too, even if the prisoner be
in irons and expecting to die from the effects of poison (State v. Gor-
/,\j?>i, 6j Yt. 365 ; cf. Sparfv. U. S., 156 U. S. 51) ; and the same rule
applies even though the arrest be illegal (Balbo v. People, 80 N. Y.
484). The fact that confessions are made under actual fear does not
make them involuntary, if this fear were not excited by inducements
or threats of the kind which this Article describes (Comm. v. Smith,
119 Mass. 305). So the hope of immunity (no promise of immunity
having been made) will not render a confession inadmissible (State
v. Griffin, 48 La. Ann. 1409 ; Comm. v. Sego, 125 Mass. 210, 213).
If an accomplice agrees to turn State's evidence, upon a promise
that he shall not be prosecuted, and thereupon makes a confession
but afterwards refuses to testify, his confession maybe proved against
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 79
. : . , *
A confession is not involuntary, only because it appears
to have been caused by the exhortations of a person in
authority to make it as a matter of religious duty,1 or by
an inducement collateral to the proceeding,2 or by in-
ducements held out by a person not in authority.3
him (Comm. v. Knapp, 10 Pick. 477 ; U. S. v. Hinz, 35 F. R. 272 ; State
v. Moran, 15 Or. 262 ; but see Neeley v. State, 27 Tex. App. 324).
In some States these common law rules are changed by statute.
Thus in New York it is now provided that a confession, whether made
in judicial proceedings or to a private person, can be given in evi-
dence, unless made under the influence of fear produced by threats,
or upon a stipulation of the district attorney not to prosecute therefor ;
but there must be additional proof of the commission of the crime to
warrant conviction (Code Cr. Pro. §395; People v. McCallan, 103
N. Y. 588 ; People v. Deacons, 109 N. Y. 374 ; cf. Benson v. State, 119
Ind. 488). But cases decided in New York before this statute are
cited herein, since they well illustrate the common law rule.]
1 [Illustration (b) ; cf. Comm. v. Drake, 15 Mass. 161.]
2 [Illustration (c) ; State v. Tatro, 50 Vt. 483 ; People v. Cox, 80 N. Y.
501 ; State v. Wentworth, yj N. H. 196 ; State v. Hopkirk, 84 Mo. 278 ;
Stone v. State, 105 Ala. 60, 69.]
3 [It is also the general rule in this country that confessions obtained
by the inducements of favor or threats of harm, held out by a person
twt in authority as respects the prosecution, are admissible ( U. S. v.
Stone, 8 F. R. 232 ; Smith v. Comm., 10 Gratt. 734 ; Shifflet v. Comm.,
14 Id. 652 ; Young v. Comm., 8 Bush (Ky.), 366; State v. Holden, 42
Minn. 350; State v. Morgan, 35 W. Va. 260; State v. Patterson, 73
Mo. 695 ; cf. Ulrich v. People, 39 Mich. 245 ; State v. Potter, 18 Ct.
166 ; see next note). Promises or threats made by a third person in
the presence of one in authority and with his apparent sanction may,
however, be regarded as made by the person in authority (Id.). But
in a few States confessions are excluded which are obtained by threats
of harm or promises of favor held out by any one connected with the
prosecution, or by a person who may be fairly supposed by the accused
to have power to secure the benefit promised or the harm threatened
{Murphy v. State, 63 Ala. 1 ; Spears v. State, 2 O. St. 583 ; Miller
v. State, 94 Ga. 1, 12; Beggarly v. State, 8 Baxt. 520; cf. Comm. v.
Tuckerman, 10 Gray, 173, 190 ; Gregg v. State, 106 Ala. 44 ; People v.
Wolcott, 51 Mich. 612). Moreover, confessions extorted by mob
violence, or by like forcible means, are excluded, though the persons
using such means have no authority as respects the prosecution. Mil-
80 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
• ;
The prosecutor, officers of justice having the prisoner
in custody, magistrates, and other persons in similar
positions, are persons in authority.1 The master of the
prisoner is not as such a person in authority, if the crime
of which the person making the confession is accused was
not committed against him.2
A confession is deemed to be voluntary if (in the
opinion of the judge) it is shown to have been made after
the complete removal of the impression produced by any
inducement, threat, or promise which would otherwise
render it involuntary.3
Facts discovered in consequence of confessions im-
properly obtained, and so much of such confessions as
distinctly relate to such facts, may be proved.4
Illustrations,
(a) The question is, whether A murdered B.
A handbill issued by the Secretary of State, promising a reward and
pardon to any accomplice who would confess, is brought to the
ler v. People, 39 111. 457 ; Young v. State, 68 Ala. 569 ; Williams v.
State, 72 Miss. 117 ; State v. Resells, 34 La. Ann. 381.]
1 [People v. Ward, 15 Wend. 231 ; Wolf v. Comm., 30 Gratt. 833;
State v. Brock?nan, 46 Mo. 566 ; Rector v. Comm., 80 Ky. 468 ; U. S.
v. Pocklington, 2 Cr. C. C. 293 ; State v. Staley, 14 Minn. 105 ; and
cases cited in last note and in note 1, on p. 78. A private detective
has been held not to be a person in authority. Early v. Comm., 86
Ya. 921 ; U. S. v. Stone, 8 F. R. 232.]
2 [Smith v. Comm., 10 Gratt. 734 ; cf. Comm. v. Sego, 125 Mass. 210.]
3 [The removal of the impression must be complete. Illustration (e)\
Ward v. People, 3 Hill, 395 ; Comm. v. Howe, 132 Mass. 250 ; Thomp-
son v. Comm., 20 Gratt. 724 ; Stale v. Brown, 73 Mo. 631 ; Rizzolo v.
Comm., 126 Pa. 54; cf. Comm. v. Cullen, m Mass. 435; People v.
Barker, 60 Mich. 277.]
4 [Illustration (/) ; Duffy v. People, 26 N. Y. 588 ; People v. Hoy Yen,
34 Cal. 176 ; Comm. v. James, 99 Mass. 438 ; Pressley v. State, 1 1 1 Ala.
34; State v. Winston, 116 N. C. 990; State v. Mortimer, 20 Kan. 93;
Laros v. Comm., 84 Pa. 200; see Murphy v. People, 63 N. Y. 590.
Some of these cases seem to adopt a more restricted rule than that of
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 81
knowledge of A, who, under the influence of the hope of pardon,
makes a confession. This confession is not voluntary.1
(aa) [A, having been committed to jail on a charge of murder, the I
/ committing magistrate visits him and tells him that " it would be I
I better for him to tell the truth and have no more trouble about it." i
!; He also tells A that he can make him no promises. Thereupon A/
i makes a confession. The confession is not voluntary, and is therefore
^inadmissible.] 2
(ad) [A, in prison on a charge of murder, sent for the sheriff to
come and see him and asked the sheriff if it would be best to tell the
truth about it. The sheriff replied that it was always best for him, or
for any one else, to tell the truth about anything. The sheriff also
said, " If you are going to tell the straight truth, I will listen to it and
want to hear it ; and if you are not going to tell the truth, I don't want
to hear it." A then made a confession. The confession is voluntary.]3
(ac) [A, a boy fourteen years old, was arrested by two police officers
on a charge of murder. Having searched him, stripped him of his
clothing, and put him in a cell, they took him out of the cell at night
and questioned him for two hours, without warning him of his right
not to answer, or offering him opportunity to consult friends or counsel.
Answers made by him tending to show his guilt were deemed volun-
tary confessions, as the officers had made no promises of favor or
threats of harm.]4
(b) A being charged with the murder of B, the chaplain of the gaol
reads the Commination Service to A, and exhorts him upon religious
grounds to confess his sins. A, in consequence, makes a confession.
This confession is voluntary.5
the text, as to admitting proof of words of confession, though they all
hold that the " facts discovered " may be proved.]
1 R. v. Boswell, C. & M. 584.
^[Biscoe v. State, 67 Md. 6; S. P. Comm. v. Nott, 135 Mass. 269;
Comm.' v. Myers, 160 Mass. 530; People v. Phillips, 42 N. Y. 200;
State v. Walker, 34 Vt. 296; State v. York, 37 N. H. 175 ; People v.
Thompson, 84 Cal. 598.]
3\Maull v. State, 95 Ala. 1 ; cf. Comm. v. Morey, 1 Gray, 461 ; Heldt
v. State, 20 Neb. 492.]
4 [Comm. v. Ciiffee, 108 Mass. 285.]
5 R. v. Gilham, 1 Moo. C. C. 186. In this case the exhortation was
that the accused man should confess "to God," but it seems from parts
of the case that he was urged also to confess to man " to repair any
injury done to the laws of his country." According to the practice at
82 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
(c) The gaoler promises to allow A, who is accused of a crime, to
see his wife, if he will tell where the property is. A does so. This is
a voluntary confession.'
(d) A is accused of child murder. Her mistress holds out an in-
ducement to her to confess, and she makes a confession. This is
a voluntary confession, because her mistress is not a person in au-
thority.2
(e) A is accused of the murder of B. C, a magistrate, tries to induce
A to confess by promising to try to get him a pardon if he does so.
The Secretary of State informs C that no pardon can be granted, and
this is communicated to A. After that A makes a statement. This
is a voluntary confession.3
(/) A, accused of burglary, makes a confession to a policeman
under an inducement which prevents it from being voluntary. Part
of it is that A had thrown a lantern into a certain pond. The fact that
he said so, and that the lantern was found in the pond in consequence,
may be proved.4
Article 23.*
confessions made upon oath, etc.
Evidence amounting to a confession may be used as
such against the person who gives it, although it was
given upon oath, and although the proceeding in which
it was given had reference to the same subject-matter as
the proceeding in which it is to be proved, and although
the witness might have refused to answer the questions
* See Note XVI. [Appendix],
that time, no reasons are given for the judgment. The principle seems
to be that a man is not likely to tell a falsehood in such cases from
religious motives. The case is sometimes cited as an authority for the
proposition that a clergyman may be compelled to reveal confessions
made to him professionally. It has nothing to do with the subject.
1 R. v. Lloyd, 6 C. & P. 393.
2 R. v. Moore, 2 Den. C. C. 522.
3 R. v. Clewes, 4 C. & P. 221.
4 R. v. Gould, 9 C. & P. 364. This is not consistent, so far as the
proof of the words goes, with A', v. Warwickshall, 1 Leach, 265.
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 83
put to him ; l but if, after refusing to answer any such
question, the witness is improperly compelled to answer
it, his answer is not a voluntary confession.2
Illustrations.
(a) The answers given by a bankrupt in his examination may be
used against him in a prosecution for offences against the law of
bankruptcy.3
(b) A is charged with maliciously wounding B.
Before the magistrates A appeared as a witness for C, who was
charged with the same offence. A's deposition may be used against
him on his own trial.4
(ba) [A is tried for burglary. On a former trial of the same case
A voluntarily became a witness in his own behalf. Answers given
1 [Comm. v. Bradford, 126 Mass. 42 ; State v. Glahn, 97 Mo. 679;
People v. Mitchell, 94 Cal. 550 ; State v. Witham, 72 Me. 531. On the
trial of a person for crime, testimony voluntarily given by him under
oath in a prior action or proceeding, and amounting to a confession,
is receivable {Dickerson v. State, 48 Wis. 288 ; Alston v. State, 41 Tex.
39). So confessions contained in a voluntary affidavit are admissible
(Behlerv. Stale, 112 Ind. 140). But it is provided in some States by
statute that on the preliminary examination of a prisoner before a
committing magistrate, he shall not be put under oath ; if, therefore,
he is compelled to take an oath and then makes a confession, such
confession is inadmissible (Gr. Ev. i. §§224-229; N. Y. Code Cr. Pro.
§ 198 ; Hendrickson v. People, 10 N. Y. 9, 27, 30; People v. Motidon,
103 N. Y. 21 1 ; Comm. v. Harman, 4 Pa. 269; N. C. Code, §1145; State
v. Matthews, 66 N. C. 106; see Wilson v. U. S., 162 U. S. 613, 623;
U. S. v. Duffy, 1 Cr. C. C. 164; People v. Kelley, 47 Cal. 125). In other
States he may, at his own option, testify under oath at such an exami-
nation ; if, therefore, he does so testify and makes confessions, they
are admissible against him on his subsequent trial. State v. Glass,
50 Wis. 218 ; Jackson v. State, 39 O. St. 37 ; State v. Miller, 35 Kan.
328; cf. Comm. v. Clark, 130 Pa. 641.]
'2 R. v. Garbett, 1 Den. C. C. 236. See also R. v. Owen, 20 Q. B. D.
829, as explained in R. v. Paul, 25 Q. B. D. 202. [Gr. Ev. i. § 451 ;
ffendricksofi v. People, 10 N. Y. 9, 27, 31 ; see Art. 120, note, post.]
3 R. v. Scott, 1 D. & B. 47; R. v. Robinson, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 80; R. v.
Widdop, L. R. 2 C. C. R. 5. [So as to testimony before a fire inquest.
Comm. v. Wesley, 166 Mass. 248.]
4 R. v. Chidley &* Cummins, 8 Cox, 365 ; [see People v. Thayer, 1
Park. Cr. 595.]
84 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
by him upon cross-examination on this former trial, and tending to
show his guilt, may be proved against him.] '
(e) [A is tried for the murder of B.
Statements made by A under oath at the coroner's inquest upon
he body of B are competent evidence against him, though he knew
•vhen he made the statements that he was suspected of the crime;'2
out not, if at the time he was under arrest for the crime, and was
taken before the coroner and put under oath without his own consent
or request.] 3
Article 24.
confession made under a promise of secrecy.
If a confession is otherwise relevant, it does not become
irrelevant, merely because it was made under a promise
of secrecy,4 or in consequence of a deception practised on
the accused person for the purpose of obtaining it,5 or
1 [State v. Eddings, 71 Mo. 545.]
^[Teachout v. People, 41 N. Y. 7 ; State v. Gilman, 51 Me. 206;
People v. Martinez, 66 Cal. 278 ; Wilson v. State, 1 10 Ala. 1 ; Newton
v. State, 21 Fla. 53; see Williams v. Cotnm., 29 Pa. 102; State v.
Coffee, 56 Ct. 399 ; Mack v. State, 48 Wis. 271 ; State v. Taylor, 36
Kan. 329. Some States, however, exclude confessions made under
such circumstances. State v. Young, 119 Mo. 495; State v. Senn,
32 S. Car. 392 ; Wood v. State, 22 Tex. App. 431 ; State v. Hobbs, 37
W. Va. 812.]
3 [People v. Mofidon, 103 N. Y. 21 1 ; Parkas v. State, 60 Miss. 847 ;
Lyons v. People, 137 111. 602. So as to statements made before the
grand jury by the prisoner while under arrest (Stale v. Clifford, 86
la. 550). If, however, a prisoner voluntarily appears before a coroner
and testifies under oath, confessions so made are provable against
him. Id. ; People v. Chapleau, 121 N. Y. 266 ; see State v. Wisdom,
119 Mo. 539.]
4 [Stale v. Squires, 48 N. H. 364.]
5 [Illustration (a); People v. Wentz, 37 N. Y. 303, 305, 306; Pricev.
State, 18 O. St. 418; State v. Phelps, 7 4 Mo. 128; Hardy v. United
States, 3 App. U. C. 35 ; Stone v. State, 105 Ala. 60; Wigginton v.
Cotnm., 92 Ky. 282; Stale v. Staley, 14 Minn. 105. Hope of immunity
aroused by taking advantage of the prisoner's superstition does not
exclude his contession. Slate v. Harrison, 115 N. C. 707 ]
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 85
when he was drunk,1 or because it was made in answer
to questions which he need not have answered, whatever
may have been the form of those questions,2 or because
he was not warned that he was not bound to make such
confession, and that evidence of it might be given against
him.3
Illustration,
(a) [A is indicted for the murder of B. A detective, with the con-
nivance of the prosecuting attorney, has himself arrested and indicted
on a fictitious charge of forgery, and, while imprisoned in jail on this
charge, ingratiates himself in the confidence of A, and by this means
obtains confessions from the latter as to the murder of B. These
confessions may be proved against A.] 4
1 [Comm. v. Howe, 9 Gray, no; Jefferds v. People, 5 Park. Cr. 522;
People v. Fox, 121 N. Y. 449 ; State v. Grear, 28 Minn. 426 ; People
v. Ramirez, 56 Cal. 533; State v. Feltes, 51 la. 495; Williams v. Stale,
12 Lea, 211; White v. State, 32 Tex. App. 625; Eskridge v. State, 25
Ala. 30. The intoxication affects the credibility, not the competency,
of the evidence ; if it be extreme, the jury may give the confession
little or no weight (Id.). Words spoken in sleep are not admissible
as a confession {People v. Robinson, 19 Cal. 41) ; but where it was
doubtful whether the accused was asleep or awake, his words were
allowed to go to the jury (State v. Morgan, 35 W. Va. 260). A con-
fession made by a prisoner in a prayer that was overheard was allowed
to be proved. Woolfolk v. State, 85 Ga. 69, 101.]
^[People v. IVentz, 37 N. Y. 303, 306 ; Comm. v. Cuffee, 108 Mass.
285.]
3 Cases collected and referred to in 1 Ph. Ev. 420, and T. E. s. 804.
See, too, Joy, ss. iii., iv., v. [ Wilson v. United States, 162 U. S. 613,
623 ; Comm. v. Cuffee, 108 Mass. 285. Such a warning is, however,
sometimes given, though not required, and is important evidence,
tending to show that the confession was voluntary (State v. Gilman,
51 Me. 206; People v. Simpson, 48 Mich. 474; People v. Chapleau, 121
N. Y. 266) ; and sometimes, upon a preliminary examination before
a committing magistrate, it is required by statute. N. Y. Code Cr.
Pro. § 196 ; N. C. Code, § 1 146 ; State V. Rogers, 112 N. C, 874 ; State
v. Hatcher, 29 Or. 309 ; Coffee v. State, 25 Fla. 501 ; Salas v. State,
31 Tex. App. 485.]
4 [State v. Brooks, 92 Mo. 542; Burton v. State, 107 Ala 108; Heldt
v. State, 20 Neb. 492.]
86 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
Article 25.
statements by deceased persons, when deemed to be
relevant.
Statements, written or oral, of facts in issue or rele-
vant or deemed to be relevant to the issue are deemed
to be relevant, if the person who made the statement is
dead, in the cases, and on the conditions, specified in
Articles 26-31, both inclusive.1 In each of those Articles
the word " declaration " means such a statement as is
herein mentioned, and the word " declarant " means a
dead person by whom such a statement was made in his
lifetime.
Article 26.*
dying declaration as to cause of death.
A declaration made by the declarant as to the cause of
his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the trans-
action which resulted in his death,2 is deemed to be
relevant
* See Note XVII. [Appendix].
1 [See Putnam v. Fisher, 52 Vt. 191.]
2 [Gr. Ev. i. § 156 ; State v. Mace, 118 N. C. 1244 ; Sullivan v. State,
102 Ala. 135. But such declarations are not competent evidence of
prior or subsequent occurrences, as e. g., of antecedent threats {State
v. Wood, 53 Vt. 560 ; Hackett v. People, 54 Barb. 370 ; Jones v. State,
71 Ind. 66 ; People v. Fong Ah Sing, 64 Cal. 253), nor of matters of
opinion, but only of facts to which declarant would be competent to
testify as a witness (Gr. Ev. i. § 159; Boyle v. State, 105 Ind. 469;
People v. Lanagan, 81 Cal. 142 ; State v. Baldwin, 79 la. 714 ;
State v. Chambers, 87 Mo. 406 ; People v. Shaw, 3 Hun, 272, 63 N. Y.
36). Dying declarations are admissible in favor of the defendant, as
well as against him {Mattox v. U. S., 146 U. S. 140 ; People v. Knapp,
26 Mich. 112; but see Moeck v. People, 100 111. 242). Though made in
answer to leading questions, or obtained by solicitation, or expressed
by signs instead of words, they are still competent evidence {Maine
v. People, 9 Hun, 113; Comm. v. Casey, 11 Cush. 417 ; State v. Foot
You, 24 Or. 61 ; Jones v. State, 71 Ind. 66). The constitutional pro-
vision that the accused shall be; confronted with the witnesses atrainst
I
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 87
only in trials for the murder or manslaughter of the
declarant ; '
and only when the declarant is shown, to the satisfaction
of the judge,2 to have been in actual danger of death,
and to have given up all hope of recovery at the time
when his declaration was made.3
him does not exclude evidence of dying declarations. Brown v.
Comm., 73 Pa. 321, 328; State v. Dickinson, 41 Wis. 299 ; Comm.v.
Carey, 12 Cush. 246 ; Robbins v. State, 8 0. St. 131.]
1 [People v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 95 ; Kilpatrick v. Comm., 31 Pa. 198 ;
Scott v. People, 63 111. 508 ; Puryear v. Comm., 83 Va. 15 ; and other
cases under this Article. Thus such evidence is not received in civil
actions {Wilson v.Boerem, 15 Johns. 286; Thayer v. Lombard, 165
Mass. 174 ; Hood v. Pioneer Co., 95 Ala. 461), and that too, though they
be actions for injury causing death {Daily v. N. Y. etc. R. Co., 32 Ct.
356 ; Waldele v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 19 Hun, 69 ; Marshall v. Chicago, etc.
R. Co., 48 111. 475) ; nor is it received in other criminal cases than those
of homicide (Illustration (b); Johnson v. State, 50 Ala. 456). But
sometimes these rules are changed by statute. See p. 90, note 2, post.]
2 [Gr. Ev. i. § 160 ; Slate v. Nocton, 121 Mo. 537 ; People v. Smith,
104 N. Y. 491 ; State v. Baldwin, 79 la. 714 ; Westbrook v. People, 126
111. 81. The person offering the declarations in evidence must show
that they were made under the sense of impending death. This may
be shown by the declarant's own statements, by his acts indicating a
sense that death is near, and by other attendant circumstances
(Illustrations (ab), [ac); Gr. Ev. i. § 158 ; People v. Simpson, 48 Mich.
474; Kehoev. Comm., 85 Pa. 127; Westbrook v. People, 126 111. 81 ;
State v. Nelson, 101 Mo. 464 ; State v. Baldwin, 79 la. 714 ; State v.
Swift, 57 Ct. 496). Thus the fact that he received extreme unction
has been admitted in evidence as bearing upon this question {Carver
v. United States, 164 U. S. 694). It is discretionary with the trial court
whether this preliminary evidence shall be given in the presence of
the jury. People v. Smith, 104 N. Y. 491 ; Doles v. State, 97 Ind. 555 ;
State v. Furney, 41 Kan. 115 ; cf. North v. People, 139 111. 81.]
3 [Brotherton v. People, 75 N. Y. 159 ; Allison v. Comm., 99 Pa. 17 ;
State v.Johnson, 118 Mo. 491 ; Simons v. People, 150 111. 66 ; Hale v.
Comm., 89 Va. 171; Comm. v. Brewer, 164 Mass. 577; and cases
supra. Even a faint hope of recovery excludes the declarations
{People v. Gray, 61 Cal. 164 ; Comm. v. Roberts, 108 Mass. 296). If
hope be expressed, but afterwards, when hope is gone, declarations
are made, they are competent {Small \. Comm.,qi Pa. 304 ; Stale v.
.
A DIGEST OF [Part I.
Such a declaration is not irrelevant merely because it
was intended to be made as a deposition before a magis-
trate, but is irregular.'
Evans, 124 Mo. 397 ; Johnson v. State, 102 Ala. 1 ; Mockabee v. Comm.,
78 Ky. 380 ; cf. Carver v. United States, 160 U. S. 553). And it has
been held that declarations made when there was no hope are
admissible, though the dying person lingered several days, and during
this time expressed some hope {Swisher v. Comm., 26 Gratt. 963 ;
State v. Kilgore, 70 Mo. 546 ; State v. Reed, 53 Kan. 767).
It is not necessary that the declarant should die immediately. In
one case he died fourteen days after making the statement (Jones v.
State, 71 Ind. 66), in others, seventeen days (Comm. v. Cooper, 5 Allen,
495 ; Lowry v. State, 12 Lea, 142), and in one case, four months
(State v. Craine, 120 N. C. 601).
The sense of impending death is deemed equivalent to the sanction
of an oath. Hence dying declarations made by persons disqualified
to act as witnesses in court are not competent, as e. g., atheists (Don-
nelly v. State, 26 N. J. L. 463 and 601) ; but aliter in States where their
disability to testify has been removed (People v. Chin Mook Sow, 51
Cal. 597 ; State v. Elliott, 45 la. 486; see Art. 107, noie,post). So the
declarations of very young children are not received (Gr. Ev. i. § 157),
or of a person who would be incompetent as a witness from mental
debility (Mitchell 'v. State, 71 Ga. 128, 146; cf. Comm. v. Slraesser,
153 Pa. 451). As to the contradiction of dying declarations, see Art.
135, fost.
Though dying declarations are deemed to have a sanction equal to
that of an oath, yet they are not of the same value and weight as the
direct evidence of a witness subject to cross-examination. People v.
Kraft, 148 N. Y. 631 ; cf. State v. Reed, 137 Mo. 125.]
1 {People v. Knapp, 1 Edm. Sel. Cas. 177. If the declarations be re-
duced to writing by a bystander, but are not read over to the dying
person, nor signed by him, parol evidence of the declarations is com-
petent (Allison v. Comm., 99 Pa. 17 ; State v. Sullivan, 51 la. 142;
Darby v. State, 92 Ala. 9); but the writing is not, though it may be
used to refresh memory (State v. Fraunburg, 40 la. 555). So parol
evidence was received when the memorandum was lost (State v.
Patterson, 45 Yt. 308). Where the writing was read over to decedent
and signed by him, it was held competent evidence, though it was not
so taken as to constitute a deposition (State v. Kindle, 47 O. St. 358 ;
People v. Bemmerly, 87 Cal. 117; Jones v. State, 71 Ind. 66); and
where it was subscribed and sworn to by him, but was inadmissible as
a deposition, its use to refresh recollection was held allowable (Comm.
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 89
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A has murdered B.
B makes a statement to the effect that A murdered him.
B, at the time of making the statement, has no hope of recovery,
though his doctor had such hopes, and B lives ten days after making
the statement. The statement is deemed to be relevant.1
B, at the time of making the statement (which is written down), says
something, which is taken down thus : " I make the above statement
with the fear of death before me, and with no hope of recovery." B,
on the statement being read over, corrects this to " with no hope at
present of my recovery." B dies thirteen hours afterwards. The
statement is deemed to be irrelevant.2
(ad) [A woman had been shot in the head, and the surgeon attending
her had told her that she was liable to die at any moment ; that an
operation which he would perform would be the only chance for her
recovery. He asked her if she expected to get well, and she said ;
" No, I do not expect to get well, but I would like to get well." She
then said that A was the person who shot her. On the trial of A for
murder, this statement was held inadmissible.]3
(ac) [The question is, whether A has murdered B.
B, having received a very dangerous wound in the neck, severing
the jugular vein, raised the cry of " murder," and then, bleeding
profusely, fell upon his bed. X, hearing the alarm, came quickly to
the room, when B cried out that he had been stabbed, that he had
been murdered, that his throat had been cut. X asked him who did it,
and B answered: "A, your bookkeeper." B died about an hour and a
v. Haney, 127 Mass. 455 ; cf. State v. Whitson, in N. C. 695). Some
cases, however, have held that the writing, if signed by the decedent,
is the primary evidence, and that unless the absence of the writing is
accounted for, parol evidence will not be received (Gr. Ev. i. § 161 ;
Boulden v. State, 102 Ala. 78 ; Turner v. State, 89 Tenn. 548 ; Say/or
v. Comm., 97 Ky. 184).
Oral declarations may be testified to by any one who heard and
remembers them, and he is only required to state their substance
{Comm. v. Haney, supra ; Montgomery v. State, n O. 424 ; Starkey v.
People, 17 111. 17); but they must be substantially complete. Gr. Ev.
i. § 159 ; State v. Patterson, 45 Vt. 308.]
1 R. v. Mosley, 1 Moo. C. C. 97 ; [cf . People v. Grunzig, 1 Park. Cr. 299.]
2 R. v. Jenkins, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 187 ; [cf. People v. Evans, 40 Hun,
492 ; People v. Hodgdon, 55 Cal. 72 ; Jackson v. Comm., 19 Gratt. 656.]
3 [Peak v. Stale, 50 N. J. L. 179 ; cf. Young v. State, 95 Ala. 4.]
90 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
half afterwards. On the trial of A it was held that X might testify to
this statement made by B.] '
(/>) The question is, whether A administered drugs to a woman with
intent to procure abortion. The woman makes a statement which
would have been admissible had A been on his trial for murder.
The statement is deemed to be irrelevant.2
(c) The question is, whether A murdered B. A dying declaration
by C that he (C) murdered B is deemed to be irrelevant.3
(d) The question is, whether A murdered B.
B makes a statement before a magistrate on oath, and makes her
mark to it, and the magistrate signs it, but not in the presence of A,
so that her statement was not a deposition within the statute then in
force. B, at the time when the statement was made, was in a dying
state, and had no hope of recovery. The statement is deemed to be
relevant.4
} ^ Article 27.*
j5eclarations made in the course of business or profes-
sional duty.
A declaration is deemed to be relevant when it was
made by the declarant in the ordinary course of business,
and in the discharge of professional duty,6 at or near the
*See Note XVIII. [Appendix].
1 {Donnelly v. State, 26 N. J. L. 463 and 601.]
"> R. v. Hind, Bell, 253, following R. v. Hutchinson, 2 B. & C. 608, n.,
quoted in a note to 7?. v. Mead. [People v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 95 ; State v.
Harper, 35 O. St. 78 ; Railing v. Coinm., no Pa. 100. Aliter, upon a
trial for murder or manslaughter, caused by an attempt to procure an
abortion {State v. Dickinson, 41 Wis. 299 ; State v. Leeper, 70 la. 748 ;
cf. Montgo)nery v. State, 80 Ind. 338). Now, however, in some States,
by statute, dying declarations of the woman are admissible in a trial for
an attempt to procure an abortion. N. Y. Rev. St. (Birdseye's 2d ed.)
i. 6; Laws of Mass. of 1889, c. 100; Comm. v. Bishop, 165 Mass. 148.]
3 Gray's Case, Ir. Cir. Rep. 76 ; [People v. Hall, 94 Cal. 595 ; Davis
v. Comm., 95 Ky. 19 ; West v. State, 76 Ala. 98.]
4 R. v. Woodcock, 1 East, P. C. 356. In this case, Eyre, C. B., is said
to have left to the jury the question, whether the deceased was not in
fact under the apprehension of death. 1 Leach, 504. The case was
decided in 1789. It is now settled that the question is for the judge.
5 Doe v. Turford, 3 B. & Ad. 890. [Gr. Ev. i. §§115-120; Chaffee
v. U. S„ 18 Wall. 516; Fisher v. Mayor, 67 N. Y. 73, jj ; Skipworth
v. Deyell, 83 Hun, 307 ; Kennedy v. Doyle, 10 Allen, 161 ; Wheeler v.
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 9i
time when the matter stated occurred, and of his own
knowledge.1
Walker, 45 N. H. 355; Macomb v. Wilkinson, 83 Mich. 486; Reynolds
v. Simmer, 126 111. 58; Culver v. Marks, 122 Ind. 554; Sands v. Ham-
mell, 108 Ala. 624; Laird v. Campbell, 100 Pa. 159; State v. PJiair, 48
Vt. 366. Thus the books or registers of a deceased notary are admis-
sible to prove his acts as to the presentment, demand, and notice of
non-payment of negotiable paper (Halliday v. Martinet, 20 Johns.
168 ; Porter v. Judson, 1 Gray, 175 ; Nicholls v. Webb, 8 Wheat. 326 ;
see N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 924, 962) ; and so as to entries of the
deceased clerk of a notary (Gawtry v. Doane, 51 N. Y. 84). So entries
made by merchants' clerks, bank tellers or messengers, or by other
persons, as attorneys, physicians, etc., in the ordinary course of busi-
ness and of professional duty as part of the res gestce, are competent
after their death (Leland v. Cameron, 31 N. Y. 115 ; Johnson v. Cow-
drey, 19 N. Y. S. 678 ; Sheldon v. Benham, 4 Hill, 129 ; Anns v.
Middleton, 23 Barb. 571 ; Hedrick v. Hughes, 15 Wall. 123). In some
States such evidence is admissible though the book entries may have
been in favor of the person making them (Lassone v. Boston, etc. R.
Co., 66 N. H. 345 ; Augusta v. Windsor, 19 Me. 317 ; cf. Donovan v.
Boston, etc. R. Co., 158 Mass. 450). The handwriting of the deceased
person should be proved (Chaffee v. U. S., 18 Wall. 516 ; Hoover v.
Gehr, 62 Pa. 136 ; Chenango Bridge Co. v. Lewis, 63 Barb. 11 1). In
some States such evidence is also admitted if the person making the
entries has become insane (Union Bk. v. Knapp, 3 Pick. 96), or has
gone to parts unknown (New Haven, etc. Co. v. Goodwin, 42 Ct. 230 ;
Reynolds v. Manning, 15 Md. 510 ; see Chaffee v. U. S., supra), or is
out of the State (Heiskell v. Rollins, 82 Md. 14; McDonald v. C antes,
90 Ala. 147; Rigby v. Logan, 45 S. Car. 651 ; Bridgewater v. Roxbury,
54 Ct. 213 ; Hay v. Kramer, 2 W. & S. 137). In New York, however,
if the clerk, etc., is out of the State, his deposition must be taken
(Brewster v. Doane, 2 Hill, 537 ; Fisher v. Mayor, 67 N. Y. jt, ; but
see Code Civ. Pro. §924). But it is a general rule that if he is alive
and within the State, he should be made a witness and authenticate
the entries (Ocean Bk. v. Carll, 55 N. Y. 440; Nelson v. Mayor of
N. Y., 131 N. Y. 4 ; Bartholomew v. Farwell, 41 Ct. 107 ; Briggs v.
Rafferty, 14 Gray, 525 ; House v. Beak, 141 111. 290). As to what is a
sufficient authentication, see Bank of Monroe v. Culver, 2 Hill, 531 ;
Moots v. State, 21 0. St. 653 ; Anderson v. Edwards, 123 Mass. 273.
As to the admissibility of entries or memoranda, not made in the regu-
lar course of business, see Art. 136, note ; Taylor v. Chicago, etc. R.
Co., 80 la. 431.]
1 [It is a general rule in this country that entries made by a parly
92 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
Such declarations are deemed to be irrelevant, except
so far as they relate to the matter which -the declarant
stated in the ordinary course of his business or duty, or
himself in his own books of account, in the regular course of business,
are admissible in his own favor, when properly authenticated, as evi-
dence of goods sold and delivered, of services rendered, and some-
times of other matters. But different modes of authentication are
prescribed in different States. Thus in New York it must be shown
by the party offering the books that they are the regular books of
account ; that there had been regular dealings between the parties,
resulting in more than a single charge ; that he kept no clerk ; that
some of the articles charged have been delivered, or some items of
service rendered ; and that other persons dealing with him have set-
tled their accounts by his books and found them accurate ( Vosburgh
v. Thayer, 12 Johns. 461 ; West v. Van Tuyl, 119 N. Y. 620 ; Dooley
v. Moan, 57 Hun, 535). This rule also prevails in Illinois (House v.
Beak, 141 111. 290). As to the meaning of "clerk " under the rule, see
McGoldrick v. Traphagen, 88 N. Y. 334 ; Ativoodv. Barney, 80 Hun,
1 ; Smith v. Smith, 13 App. Div. (N. Y.) 207; as to a physician's books,
see Knight v. Cunnington,6 Hun, 100 ; Davis v. Seaman, 64 Hun, 572.
But such entries are not admissible to sustain a charge for money lent
(Low v. Payne, 4 N. Y. 247), but only for sales and dealings in the
ordinary course of business (Griesheimer v. Tanenbaum, 124 N. Y.
650) ; books or entries relating to cash items or dealings between the
parties are not admissible (Smith v. Rents, 131 N. Y. 169). The fact
that parties are now competent witnesses does not exclude their books
as evidence (Stroud v. Tilton, 4 Abb. Dec. 324).
Book entries by a party against his interest are relevant as admis-
sions (Adams v. Olin, 61 Hun, 318 ; Griggs v. Day, 136 N. Y. 152).
In many of the States the party's suppletory oath (or that of his ex-
ecutor or administrator if the party be dead) is required to authenticate
his own book entries which are in his own favor, but there are diverse
rules as to the matters which may be proved by such entries. Gener-
ally, however, they are received to prove items of work done and goods
sold and delivered, when the entries have been made in the regular
course of business (Pratt v. White, 132 Mass. 477 ; Kaiser v. Alex-
ander, 144 Mass. 71 ; Oberg v. Brecn, 50 N. J. L. 145 ; Lyman v.
Bechtel, 55 la. 437; Corrv. Sellers, 100 Pa. 169; Smith v. Law, 47
Ct. 431). As to the effect of making parties competent witnesses, see
Nichols v. I lay ncs, 78 Pa. 174 ; Montague v. Dougan, 68 Mich. 98.
The rules in the different States are stated in the note to Price v.
Torrington, S. L. C. (Am. Ed.) (See Miller v. Shay, 145 Mass. 162 ;
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 93
if they do not appear to be made by a person duly author-
ized to make them.1
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A delivered certain beer to B.
The fact that a deceased drayman of A's, on the evening of the
delivery, made an entry to that effect in a book kept for the purpose,
in the ordinary course of business, is deemed to be relevant.'2
Countryman v. Bunker, 10 1 Mich. 218 and note; Stallings v. Gotl-
schalk, jy Md. 429 ; Hooper v. Taylor, 39 Me. 224 ; Anchor Milling
Co. v. Walsh, 108 Mo. 277 ; White v. Whitney, 82 Cal. 163 ; Schettler
v. Jones, 20 Wis. 433 ; Karr v. Stivers, 34 la. 123 ; Wells' Adm'r v.
Ayers, 84 Va. 341.)
The book to be produced in evidence is the book of original entries
(Woolsey v. Bohn, 41 Minn. 235; Stetson v. Wolcott, 15 Gray, 545).
If this be a ledger, it will be competent {Hoover v. Gehr, 62 Pa. 136 ;
Swain v. Cheney, 41 N. H. 232 ; Faxon v. Hollis, 13 Mass. 427); but
not where the ledger is used for posting entries originally made in
another book ( Vilmarv. Schall, 3 J. & Sp. 67; Fitzgerald v. McCarty,
55 la. 702 ; Hustons Estate, 167 Pa. 217). Sometimes day-book and
ledger are taken together as the book of original entries (McGoldrick
v. Traphagen, 88 N. Y. 334 ; Bonnellv. Mawha, 37 N. J. L. 198).
Sometimes entries or memoranda are first made upon a slate or
paper, and afterwards transcribed into the regular account books.
Where this is done on the same day or within two or three days, as
a common business practice, the books are generally admitted in
evidence {Stroud v. Tilton, 4 Abb. Dec. 324 ; McGoldrick v. Traph-
agen, 88 N. Y. 334 ; Van Wie v. Loomis, jj Hun, 399 ; Nichols v.
Vinson, 9 Houst. 274 ; Chishohn v. Beanian Co., 160 111. 101 ; Hoover
v. Gehr, 62 Pa. 136; Barker v. Haskell, 9 Cush. 218). But sometimes
they have been admitted after a much longer interval (Hall v. Glidden,
39 Me. 445, two to four weeks ; Redlich v. Bauerlee, 98 111. 134, four
weeks). But in Forsythe v. Norcross, 5 Watts, 432, a six days' inter-
val was held too long (cf. Rumsey v. N. Y. etc. Telephone Co., 49 N. J.
L. 322). As to the mode of proof when the party is dead or insane,
see Hoover v. Gehr, 62 Pa. 136 ; Pratt v. White, 132 Mass. 477 ; Hol-
brook v. Gay, 6 Cush. 215.]
1 [Skipworth v. Deyell, 83 Hun, 307 ; Riley v. Boehm, 167 Mass. 183 ;
Fulton's Estate, 178 Pa. 78 ; Burley v. German- American Bk., m U.
S. 216 ; and cases supra.~\
2 Price v. Torrington, 1 S. L. C. 328, 7th ed.
04 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
(b) The question is, what were the contents of a letter not produced
after notice.
A copy entered immediately after the letter was written, in a book
kept for that purpose, by a deceased clerk, is deemed to be relevant.1
(c) The question is, whether A was arrested at Paddington, or in
South Molton Street.
A certificate annexed to the writ by a deceased sheriff's officer, and
returned by him to the sheriff, is deemed to be relevant so far as it
relates to the fact of the arrest ; but irrelevant so far as it relates to
the place where the arrest took place.'2
(d) The course of business was for A, a workman in a coal-pit, to
tell B, the foreman, what coals were sold, and for B (who could not
write) to get C to make entries in a book accordingly.
The entries (A and B being dead) are deemed to be irrelevant, be-
cause B, for whom they were made, did not know them to be true.3
(e) The question is, what is A's age. A statement by the incumbent
in a register of baptisms that he was baptized on a given day is deemed
to be relevant. A statement in the same register that he was born on
a given day is deemed to be irrelevant, because it was not the incum-
bent's duty to make it.4
1 Prittv. Fairclough, 3 Camp. 305.
2 Chambers v. Bernasconi, 1 C. M. & R. 347 ; see, too, Smith v.
Blakey, L. R. 2 Q. B. 326.
3 Brain v. Preece, 11 M. & W. 773. [S. P. Gould v. Conway, 59
Barb. 355 ; Kent v. Garvin, 1 Gray, 148 ; Chaffee v. U.S., 18 Wall.
516, 543 ; Hoffman v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 14 J. & Sp. 526, 87 N. Y. 25 ;
Thomas v. Price, 30 Md. 483. Entries made in the usual course of
business upon information communicated by others have, however,
been held competent, when their correctness is authenticated by the
testimony of those who made such reports and entries, or by other
satisfactory proof. Payne v. Hodge, 7 Hun, 612,71 N. Y. 598 ; Mayor
of N. Y. v. Second Ave. R. Co., 102 N. Y. 572 ; Chisholm v. Beaman
Co., 160 111. 101 ; Chicago Lumbering Co. v. Hewitt, 64 F. R. 314 ;
Harwood v. Mnlry, 8 Gray, 250; Smith v. Law, 47 Ct. 431 ; cf.
Chateaugay Lroti Co. v. Blake, 144 U. S. 476 ; Cobb v. Wells, 124 N.
Y. 77 ; Powers v. Savin, 64 Hun, 560, 139 X. Y. 652.]
* R. v. Clapham, 4 C. & P. 29. [Durfee v. Abbott, 61 Mich. 471 ;
W hitc her \. McLaughlin, 115 Mass. 167; Blackburn v. Crawfords,
3 Wall. 175 ; Weaver v. Leiman, 52 Md. 708; Sitlerv. Gehr, 105 Pa.
577 ; see Hunt v. Order of Friends, 64 Mich. 671. So as to a register
of marriages {Maxwell v. Chapman, 8 Barb. 579); and a hospital
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 95
(/) The question is, whether A was married. Proceedings in a
college book, which ought to have been, but was not, signed by the
registrar of the college, were held to be irrelevant.1
Article 28.*
declarations against interest.
A declaration is deemed to be relevant if the declarant
had peculiar means of knowing the matter stated, if he
had no interest to misrepresent it, and if it was opposed
to his pecuniary or proprietary interest.2 The whole of
any such declaration, and of any other statement referred
to in it, is deemed to be relevant, although matters may
be stated which were not against the pecuniary or pro-
* See Note XIX. [Appendix].
record. Townsend v. Peppercll, 99 Mass. 40 ; see Butler v. St. Louis
Ins. Co., 45 la. 93.]
1 Fox v. Bearblock, 17 Ch. Div. 429.
2 These are almost the exact words of Bayley, J., in Gleadow v.
A thin, 1 C. & M. 423. The interest must not be too remote. Smith
v. Blakey, L. R. 2 Q. B 326. [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 147-155 ; Lyon v. Rickey,
141 N. Y. 225; Chenango Bridge Co. v. Paige, 83 N. Y. 178, 192;
Brennan v. Hall, 131 N. Y. 160; Taylor v. Gould, 57 Pa. 152 ; Hoben-
sack v. Halli/ian, 17 id. 154, 158 ; Hart v. Kendall, 82 Ala. 144 ; Bart-
lett v. Patlon, 33 W. Va. 7 1 ; Lamar v. Pearre, 90 Ga. 377 ; Scott Co.
v. Fluke, 34 la. 317; Zimmerman v '. Bloom, 43 Minn. 163; Dea/i v.
IVilkerson, 126 Ind. 338 ; cf. Lassone v. Boston, etc. R. Co., 66 N. H.
345 ; Chase v. Smith, 5 Vt. 556 ; Bird v. Hueston, 10 O. St. 418. The
doctrine is also recognized in dicta in Comm. v. Densmore, 12 Allen,
537 ; Dwight v. Brown, 9 Ct. 83, 92. The declarant, must be dead
(Id. ; Trammel! v. Hudmon, 78 Ala. 222). The statement in Lawrence
v. Kimball, 1 Met. 527, that the rule applies only to written entries or
statements, and not to oral declarations, is contrary to the weight of
authority. R. v. Exeter, L. R. 4 Q. B. 341 ; County of Mahaska v.
Ingalls, 16 la. 81 ; White v. Chouteau, 10 Barb, 202 ; Baker v. Taylor,
54 Minn. 71.]
J
96 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
prietary interest of the declarant ; ' but statements, not
referred to in, or necessary to explain such declara-
tions, are not deemed to be relevant merely because
they were made at the same time or recorded in the
same place.2
A declaration may be against the pecuniary interest of
the person who makes it, if part of it charges him with a
liability, though other parts of the book or document in
which it occurs may discharge him from such liability in
whole or in part, and (it seems) though there may be no
proof other than the statement itself either of such lia-
bility or of its discharge in whole or in part.3
A statement made by a declarant holding a limited
interest in any property and opposed to such interest is
deemed to be relevant only as against those who claim
under him, and not as against the reversioner.4
An indorsement or memorandum of a payment made
upon any promissory note, bill of exchange, or other
writing, by or on behalf of the party to whom such pay-
ment was made, is not sufficient proof of such payment
to take the case out of the operation of the Statutes of
Limitation ; 5 but any such declaration made in any other
form by, or by the direction of, the person to whom the
payment was made is, when such person is dead, suffi-
cient proof for the purpose aforesaid.6
Any indorsement or memorandum to the effect above
mentioned made upon any bond or other specialty by
a deceased person, is regarded as a declaration against
1 \Livingston v. Ar?ioux, 56 N. Y. 507; Elswortli v. Muldoon, 15
Abb. Pr. (N. S.) .140, 448.]
8 Illustrations (a), (b) and (c).
3 Illustrations (d) and {e).
4 Illustration (g) ; see Lord Campbell's judgment in case quoted,
p. 177.
s9 Geo. IV. c. 14, s. 3.
6 Bradley v. James, 13 C. B. 822. Newbouldv. Smith, 29 Ch. Div.
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 97
the proprietary interest of the declarant for the purpose
above mentioned, if it is shown to have been made at
the time when it purports to have been made ; ' but it
is uncertain whether the date of such indorsement or
memorandum may be presumed to be correct without
independent evidence.2
Statements of relevant facts opposed to any other than
the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the declarant are
not deemed to be relevant as such.3
877, seems scarcely consistent with this. It was a decision of North, J.
On appeal, 33 Ch. Div. 138, the court expressed no opinion on the
admissibility of the entry rejected by North, J.
1 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 42, which is the Statute of Limitations relating to
specialties, has no provision similar to 9 Geo. IV. c. 14, s. 3. Hence, in
this case the ordinary rule is unaltered.
2 See the question discussed in 1 Ph. Ev. 302-5, and T. E. ss. 625-9,
and see Article 85. [The general rule in this country, independently
of statute, is that an indorsement on a bond, bill, note, etc., made by
the obligee or promisee, without the privity of the debtor, cannot be
admitted as evidence of payment in favor of the party making such
indorsement, unless it be shown that it was made at a time when its
operation would be against the interest of the party making it, — that is,
before the statute has barred the claim. The date of the indorsement
is not sufficient to show this, but there must be independent evidence
to this point. But it is not necessary that the declarant be dead, in
order that the indorsement be received in evidence. Indorsements by
the debtor, or with his consent and privity, are competent. {Mills v.
Davis, 1 13 N. Y. 243 ; In re Kellogg, 104 N. Y. 648 ; Runner s Appeal,
121 Pa. 649 ; Coon's Appeal, 52 Ct. 186 ; Haver v. Schzuyhart, 39 Mo.
App. 303 ; Hamilton v. Coffin, 45 Kan. 556; Curtis v. Daughdrill, yi
Ala. 590; Clough v. McDaniel, 58 N. H. 201 ; White v. Beaman, 85
N. C. 3 ; Clark v. Burn, 86 Pa. 502.) Sometimes a similar rule is
established by statute {Young v. Perkins, 29 Minn. 173).
A number of the States have statutes similar to the present English
statute (9 Geo. IV. c. 14), stated in the text. Mass. Pub. St. c. 197, s. 16 ;
Me. Rev. St. c. 81, s. 100 ; Libby v. Brown, 78 Me. 492 ; Rogers v.
Anderson, 40 Mich. 290 ; N. J. Rev. p. 596 ; Ind. Rev. St. s. 303 ; Wis.
Rev. St. s. 4247.]
3 Illustration (/z). {United States v. Mulholland, 50 F. R. 413;
Maine v. People, 9 Hun, 1 13.]
A DIGEST OF [Part I.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether a person was born on a particular day.
An entry in the book of a deceased man-midwife in these words is
deemed to be relevant : '
"\V. Fowden, Junr.'s wife,
Filius circa hor. 3 post merid. natus H.
W. Fowden,. Junr.,
App. 22, filius natus,
Wife, .£1 6s. id.
Pd. 25 Oct., 1768."
(b) The question is, whether a certain custom exists in a part of a
parish.
The following entries in the parish books, signed by deceased
church-wardens, are deemed to be relevant : —
" It is our ancient custom thus to proportion church-lay. The
chapelry of Haworth pay one-fifth, etc."
Followed by —
" Received of Haworth, who this year disputed this our ancient
custom, but after we had sued him, paid it accordingly, — ,£8, and £1
for costs." '-'
(e) The question is, whether a gate on certain land, the property of
which is in dispute, was repaired by A.
An account by a deceased steward, in which he charges A with the
expense of repairing the gate, is deemed to be irrelevant, though it
would have been deemed to be relevant if it had appeared that A
admitted the charge.3
(d) The question is, whether A received rent for certain land.
A deceased steward's account, charging himself with the receipt of
such rent for A, is deemed to be relevant, although the balance of the
whole account is in favor of the steward.4
(e) The question is, whether certain repairs were done at A's ex-
pense.
A bill for doing them, receipted by a deceased carpenter, is deemed
to be k . , ' c > there being no other evidence either that the
( irrelevant,'' )
repairs were done or that the money was paid.
1 Higham v. Ridgway, 2 S. L. C. 318, 7th ed.
2 Stead v. Heaton, 4 T. R. 669.
3 Doe v. Bcviss, 7 C. B. 456.
4 Williams v. Graves, 8 C. & P. 592.
1 A\ v. Heyford, note to Higham v. Ridgway, 2 S. L. C. 333, 7th ed.
iDoev. Vowles, 1 Mo. & Ro. 261, In Taylors. IVitham, 3 Ch. Diy,
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 99
(/) The question is, whether A (deceased) gained a settlement in
the parish of B by renting a tenement.
A statement made by A, whilst in possession of a house, that he
had paid rent for it, is deemed to be relevant, because it reduces the
interest which would otherwise be inferred from the fact of A's pos-
session.1
(g) The question is, whether there is a right of common over a
certain field.
A statement by A, a deceased tenant for a term of the land in ques-
tion, that he had no such right, is deemed to be relevant as against
his successors in the term, but not as against the owner of the field.2
(h) The question is, whether A was lawfully married to B.
A statement by a deceased clergyman that he performed the
marriage under circumstances which would have rendered him liable
to a criminal prosecution is not deemed to be relevant as a statement
against interest.3
lRTICLe 29.
declarations by testators as to contents of will.
The declarations of a deceased testator as to his testa-
mentary intentions, and as to the contents of his will, are
deemed to be relevant
when his will has been lost, and when there is a ques-
tion as to what were its contents ; 4 and
605, Jessel, M. R., followed R. v. Heyford, and dissented from Doe
v. Vowles.
1 R. v. Exeter, L. R. 4 Q. B. 341.
2 Papendick v. Bridgewater, 5 E. & B. 166. [See Lyoti v. Richer, 141
N. Y. 225 ; Lamar v. Pearre, 90 Ga. 377.]
3 Sussex Peerage Case, 11 C. & F. 108.
4 [In re Page, 118 111. 576; Southworth v. Adams, 11 Biss. 256;
McDonald v. McDonald, 142 Ind. 55; In re Lambie, 97 Mich. 49;
Valentine's Will, 93 Wis. 45 ; Pickens v. Davis, 134 Mass. 252 ; In re
Johnson's Will, 40 Ct. 587 ; Collagan v. Bums, 57 Me. 449 ; Behrens
v. Behrens, 47 O. St. 323 ; Byers v. Hoppe, 61 Md. 206 ; Apperson v.
Dowdy, 82 Va. 776 ; Harris v. Knight, L. R. 15 P. D. 170 ; cf. Mutual
Life Bis. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U. S. 285, 298 ; Gardner v. Gardner, 177
Pa. 2i&. It is provided in New York by statute that in an action to
A DIGEST OF [Part I.
when the question is whether an existing will is genu-
ine or was improperly obtained ; ' and
when the question is whether any and which of more
existing documents than one constitute his will.'1
In all these cases it is immaterial whether the declara-
tions were made before or after the making or loss of the
will.3
Article 30.*
declarations as to public and general rights.
Declarations are deemed to be relevant (subject to the
third condition mentioned in the next Article) when they
* See Note XX. [Appendix]. Also see Weeks v. Sparke, 1 M. &
S. 679; Crease v. Barrett, I C. M. & R. 917. Article 5 has much in
common with this Article. Lord Blackburn's judgment in Neillv.
Duke of Devonshire, 8 App. Cas. 186-7, especially explains the law.
establish a lost or destroyed will, or in an application to have it
admitted to probate, its provisions must be proved by at least two
credible witnesses, a correct copy or draft being equal to one witness
(Code Civ. Pro. §§ 1865, 2621 ; Everitt v. Everitt, 41 Barb. 385). That
evidence of the testator's declarations as to its contents may be re-
ceived in such cases, see Hatch v. Sigman, 1 Demarest, 519. But in
certain proceedings of other kinds it is held that proof by one witness
is sufficient. Harris v. Harris, 26 N. Y. 433 ; Upton v. Bernstein, 73
Hun, 516.]
1 [See Art. 11, Illustration {0); Taylor Will Case, 10 Abb. Pr. (N. S.)
300 ; Crispell v. Dubois, 4 Barb. 393 ; Hoppe v. Byers, 60 Md. 381 ; cf.
Beadles v. Alexander, 9 Baxt. 604 ; Boylan v. Meeker, 28 N. J. L. 274.]
8 [Valentine s Will, 93 Wis. 45. In New York it is essential to the
valid execution of a will that the testator declare to the attesting
witnesses that it is his last will and testament (2 R. S. * 63, s. 38). This
is called the " publication " of the will. Evidence of such declarations
is accordingly receivable upon a proceeding for the admission of the
will to probate. Or his assent to such declarations, when made for
him by others in his presence, may be enough {Gilbert v. Knox, 52
N. Y. 125 ; Lane v. Lane, 95 N. Y. 494). And similar evidence is
received in other States. E/kinton v. Brick, 44 N. J. Eq. 154 ; Denny
v. Pinney, 60 Yt. 524 ; Estate of Johnson, 57 Cal. 529.]
3 Sugden v, St. Leonards^ L. R. 1 P, D. (C. A.) 154. [This is cited by
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 101
relate to the existence of any public or general right or
custom or matter of public or general interest.1 But
declarations as to particular facts from which the exist-
ence of any such public or general right or custom or
the author as authority for the whole Article.] In questions between
the heir and the legatee or devisee, such statements would probably be
relevant as admissions by a privy inlaw, estate, or blood ( Gould v.
Lakes, L. R. 6 P. D. i ; Doe v. Palmer, 16 Q. B. 747). The decision in
this last case at p. 757, followed by Quick v. Quick, 3 Sw. & Tr. 442,
is overruled by Sugden v. St. Leonards. [Since the decision of
Sugden v. St. Leonards, it has been questioned in the English House
of Lords whether post-testamentary declarations of a testator as to
the contents of his will should be deemed admissible. Woodward v.
Goulstone, 11 App. Cas. 469 ; cf. Atkinson v. Morris, [1897] P. 40.]
1 [The general doctrine of this Article is fully recognized in this
country (Gr. Ev. i. §§ 127-140, 145; Ellicott v. Pearl, 10 Pet. 412;
Shuttle v. Thompson, 15 Wall. 151 ; McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y. 206,
218; People v. Velarde, 59 Cal. 457 ; Drury v. Midland R. Co., 127
Mass. 571 ; Woostcr v. Butler, 13 Ct. 309 ; Birmingham v. Anderson,
40 Pa. 506 ; Hampson v. Taylor, 15 R. I. 83 ; Young v. Kansas City,
etc. R. Co., 39 Mo. App. 52 ; Mullancy v. Duffy, 145 111. 559). Thus
the boundaries established by the United States surveys are provable
by such evidence of common repute, when the monuments have dis-
appeared (Thoen v. Roche, 57 Minn. 135). But in many States
evidence is also received of the declarations of deceased persons as
to the boundaries of private estates ; but the limitations of this doctrine
are different in different States. In some States such declarations,
if made by one in possession of land owned by him, while he was
pointing out the boundaries on the land itself, are admissible, when
nothing appears to show an interest to deceive or misrepresent ; the
declarations are part of the res gestae {Long v. Colton, 1 16 Mass. 414 ;
Robinson v. Dewhurst, 68 F. R. 336 ; Royal v. Chandler, 83 Me. 150).
In other States the declarations of deceased surveyors', made while
they were surveying the land, or of other deceased persons having
special means of knowledge of the facts stated, made while they
were pointing out t>r describing the boundaries, are deemed compe-
tent, if no interest to misrepresent appears {Kramer v. Goodlander,
98 Pa. 366; Clement v. Packer, 125 U. S. 309; Lemmon v. Hartsook,
80 Mo. 13 ; Powers v. Silsby, 41 Vt. 288 ; Smith v. Forrest, 49 N. H.
230; Kinney v. Farnsivorth, 17 Ct. 355 ; Fry v. Stowers, 92 Va. 13;
Bethea v. Byrd, 95 N. C. 309 ; contra, Chapman v. Twitchell, 37 Me.
59; cf. Jackson v, McCall, 10 Johns. 377); though such declarations
102 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
matter of public or general interest may be inferred, are
deemed to be irrelevant.'
A right is public if it is common to all her Majesty's
subjects,2 and declarations as to public rights are relevant
whoever made them.
A right or custom is general if it is common to any
considerable number of persons, as the inhabitants of a
parish, or the tenants of a manor.
Declarations as to general rights are deemed to be
relevant only when they were made by persons who are
shown, to the satisfaction of the judge, or who appear
from the circumstances of their statement, to have had
competent means of knowledge.
Such declarations may be made in any form and
manner.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether a road is public.
A statement by A (deceased) that it is public is deemed to be rele-
vant.3
relate to "particular facts" showing boundaries, they are still held
admissible in many of these States (Id.; Hinuiicutt v. Peyton, 102 U.S.
333). So ancient deeds, wills, and other solemn instruments are
sometimes deemed competent to prove matters of a private nature,
though evidence of verbal declarations would be excluded (Oldtown
v. Shapleigh, 33 Me. 278 ; Greenfield v. Camden, 74 Me. 56 ; Ward
v. Oxford, 8 Pick. 476 ; see Wright v. Boston, 126 Mass. 161).
When private and public boundaries coincide, evidence of reputa-
tion as to the latter will avail to prove the former. Curtis v. Aaro/isou,
49 N. J. L. 68, 76 ; Muttaney v. Duffy, 145 111. 559.]
x\F{all v. Mayo, 97 Mass. 416; 5. W. School Dist. v. Williams,
48 Ct. 504; Fraser v. Hunter, 5 Cr. C. C. 470. So declarations con-
(lining private rights are, in general, deemed to-be irrelevant (Id.;
Boston, etc. Co. v. Hanlon, 132 Mass. 483; Curtis v. Aaronson, 49
X. J. L. 68); but see last note as to private boundaries.]
2 [Or in this country, to all the citizens of the State ; the " who-
ever" which follows would apply to any such citizen. Gr. Ev. i.
§ 128.]
u Crease v. Barrett, per Parke, B., 1 C. M. & R. 929.
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 103
A statement by A (deceased) that he planted a willow (still stand-
ing) to show where the boundary of the road had been when he was
a boy is deemed to be irrelevant.1
(ad) [The question is, whether certain fences and trees have been
placed by A on his own land or within the limits of the public high-
way.
Old men who lived in the vicinity of the highway fifty years or more
ago may be allowed to state where the line of the highway was re-
puted to be when they were young men.
Extracts from ancient records of the town, showing the boundaries
of the highway when laid out, are deemed to be relevant.]2
(b) The following are instances of the manner in which declara-
tions as to matters of public and general interest may be made: — They
may be made in
Maps prepared by, or by the direction of, persons interested in the
matter ; 3
Copies of court rolls ;4
Deeds and leases between private persons ; 5
Verdicts, judgments, decrees, and orders of courts, and similar
bodies,6 if final.1
Article 31.*
declarations as to pedigree.
A declaration is deemed to be relevant (subject to the
conditions hereinafter mentioned), if it relates to the
existence of any relationship between persons, whether
* See Note XXI. [Appendix].
'/?. v. Bliss, 7 A. & E. 550.
2 [Stale v. Vale Mills, 63 N. H. 4.]
3 Implied in Hammond -v. Bradstreet, 10 Ex. 390, and Bipe v. Ful-
cher, 1 E. & E. in. In each of these cases the map was rejected as
not properly qualified. [Cf. McCansland v. Fleming, 63 Pa. 36;
Smith v. Forrest, 49 N. H. 230; see p. w^^ost, note 2.]
4 Crease v. Barrett, 1 C. M. & R. 928.
6 Flaxton v. Dare, 10 B. & C. 17 ; [Drury v. Midla?id R. Co., 127
Mass. 571.]
6 Duke of Newcastle v. Broxtowe, 4 B. & Ad. 273 ; [ Willey v. Boris-
mouth, 35 N. H. 303.]
1 Pirn v. Cur re II, 6 M. & W. 234, 266.
104 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
living or dead, or to the birth, marriage, or death of
any person, by which such relationship was constituted,
or to the time or place at which any such fact occurred,
or to any fact immediately connected with its occur-
rence.1
Such declarations may express either the personal
knowledge of the declarant, or information given to him
by other persons qualified to be declarants, but not in-
formation collected by him from persons not qualified to
be declarants.2 They may be made in any form and in
1 Illustration (a). [Eisenlord v. Clum, 126 N. Y. 552; Jackson v.
King, 5 Cow. 237 ; Haddock v. B. &> M. R. Co., 3 Allen, 298 ; Fulker-
son v. Holmes, 1 17 U. S. 389 ; Pickens 's Estate, 163 Pa. 14 ; Shorten v.
Jitdd, 56 Kan. 43 ; Robbs Estate, 37 S. Car. 19 ; Jackson v. Jackson, 80
.M<1. 176; Weaver v. Leiman, 52 Md. 708; Van Sickle v. Gibson, 40
Mich. 170 ; Cuddy v. Brown, 78 111. 415 ; Morrill v. Foster, 33 N. H.
379 ; Eaton v. Tallmadge, 24 Wis. 217 ; Dawson v. May all, 45 Minn.
408. The declarant must be dead (Id.; Mooers v. Bunker, 29 N. H. 420).
But such evidence is not generally received in this country to show
the place, though it is deemed competent to show the time, of birth,
marriage, or death {Ada/us v. Swansea, 1 16 Mass. 591, 596 ; McCarty
v. Terry, 7 Lans.^36 ; Union v. Plainfield, 39 Ct. 563 ; Greenfield v.
Camden, 74 Me. 56; Tylerv.Elanders, 57 N. H. 618; Swink v. French,
11 Lea, 78; but see Byers v. Wallace, 87 Tex. 503, 511 ; Wise v.
Wytin, 59 Miss. 588 ; Jackson v. Jackson, 80 Md. 176). A person's
age may be a question of pedigree ( Watson v. Brewster, 1 Pa. 381 ;
Conn. Life Ins. Co. v. Schweuk, 94 U. S. 593, 598), and he may testify
to his own age, stating what he learned thereon from deceased parents,
from family tradition, etc. (Slate v. Marshall, 137 Mo. 463; Covmi. v.
Stevenson, 142 Mass. 466 ; State v. McClain, 49 Kan. 730 ; Morrison
v. Emslcy, 53 Mich. 564 ; People v. Rats, 1 15 Cal. 132 ; Holton v. Man-
teujfel,%\ Minn. 185; Stevenson v. Kaiser, 29 N. Y. S. 1122); some-
times his testimony has been received, though his parents were still
living ( West Virginia v. Cain, 9 W. Va. 559 ; Pearce v. Kyzer, 16 Lea,
521 ; cf. Krcitz v. Behrensmeyer, 125 111. 141). The personal appear-
ance of the person whose age is in question may also be considered
by the jury. Hermann v. State, 73 Wis. 248 ; Comm. v. Phillips, 162
Mass. 504.]
8 Davies v. Lowndes, 6 M. & G. 527. [Jewell's Lessee v. Jewell,
I How. (U. S.) 219, 231 ; Eisenlordv. Clum, 126 N. Y. 552, 565.]
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 105
any document or upon anything in which statements as
to relationship are commonly made.1
The conditions above referred to are as follows —
( 1 ) Such declarations are deemed to be relevant only
in cases in' which the pedigree to which they relate is in
issue, and not to cases in which it is only relevant to the
issue ; 2
(2) They must be made by a declarant shown to be
legitimately related by blood to the person to whom they
relate ; or by the husband or wife of such a person.3
1 Illustration (c).
2 Illustration (b). \Comm. v. Felch, 132 Mass. 22; but see North
Brookpeld v. Warren, 16 Gray, 174. Thus birth, marriage, and death
cannot be proved by such evidence in cases in which pedigree is not
in issue. Blaisdell v. Bickum, 139 Mass. 250 ; Eisenlord v. Clum,
126 N. Y. 552, 566 ; Ross v. Loomis, 64 la. 432.]
3 Shrewsbury Peerage Case, 7 H. L. C. 26. For Scotch law, see
Laziderdale Peerage Case, 10 App. Cas. 692 ; also Lovat Peerage
Case, Id. 763. In In re Turner, Glenister v. Harding, 29 Ch. Div.
985, a declaration by a deceased reputed father of his daughter's
illegitimacy was admitted on grounds not very clear to me, and on the
authority of two Nisi Prius cases, Morris v. Davies, 3 C. & P. 215, and
1 Mo. & Ro. 269. See note to Art. 34. [The rule generally stated in
American cases is that the pedigree of a person may be shown by the
declarations of deceased persons related to him by blood or marriage
(Gr. Ev. i. § 103 ; Northrop v. Hale, 76 Me. 306 ; Haddock v. B. &*M.R.
Co., 3 Allen, 298 ; Sitter v. Gehr, 105 Pa. 577 ; Conn. Life Ins. Co. v.
Schwenk, 94 U. S. 593, 598). But whether all relatives by marriage,
both near and remote, are competent to make such declarations is
undetermined (see People v. Fulton Fire Ins. Co., 25 Wend. 205). In
Jewell ' s Lessee v. Jewell, 1 How. (U. S.) 219, the declarations of a
deceased husband, that the parents of his wife were not married, were
received. So the declarations or conduct of deceased persons may
be shown to prove their children or grandchildren illegitimate {Had-
dock v. B. &> M. R. Co., 3 Allen, 298 ; Barnum v. Barnum, 42 Md.
251 ; but see Flora v. Anderson, 75 F. R. 217), or to prove legitimacy
(Kenyon v. Ashbridge, 35 Pa. 157; cf. Alexander v. Chamberlain, 1
T. & C. 600). The declarations of a deceased woman have been
received to show her sister's son to be illegitimate {Northrop v. Hale,
76 Me. 306). But the relationship of the declarant must in any case
106 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
(3) They must be made before the question in relation
to which they are to be proved has arisen ; but they do
not cease to be deemed to be relevant because they were
made for the purpose of preventing the question from
arising.1
This condition applies also to statements as to public
and general rights or customs and matters of public and
general interest.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, which, of three sons (Fortunatus, Stephanus, and
Achaicus) born at a birth is the eldest.
The fact that the father said that Achaicus was the youngest, and
he took their names from St. Paul's Epistles (see 1 Cor. xvi. 17), and
the fact that a relation present at the birth said that she tied a string
round the second child's arm to distinguish it, are relevant.2
(b) The question is, whether A, sued for the price of horses and
pleading infancy, was on a given day an infant or not.
The fact that his father stated in an affidavit in a chancery suit, to
be shown by other evidence than the declarations themselves (Black-
burn v. Crawfords, 3 Wall. 175; Lamoreaux v.Att'y General, 89 Mich.
146; Thompson v. Wool/, 8 Or. 454); it is said, however, that onl>
slight proof of such relationship will be required (Fulkerson v. Holmes,
117 U. S. 389 ; see Northrop v. Hale, 76 Me. 306, 309).
The declarations of deceased neighbors, acquaintances, servants, or
other strangers are not competent evidence. In re Seabtiry, 1 App.
Div. (N. Y.) 231 ; Chapman v. Chapman, 2 Ct. 347 ; Cames v. Cran-
dall, 10 la. 377 ; De Haven v. De Haven, 77 Ind. 236; and cases supra;
contra, Carter \. Montgomery, 2 Tenn. Ch. 216.]
1 Berkeley Peerage Case, 4 Camp. 401-417 ; and see lovat Peerage
Case, 10 App. Cas. 797. [The form in which this rule is usually stated
is that the declarations must have been made ante litem mota?n, i. e.,
before a controversy arose about the matter. People v. Fulton Fire
Ins. Co., 25 Wend. 205 ; Stein v. Bowman, 13 Pet. 209; Chapman v.
Chapman, 2 Ct. 347 ; Northrop v. Hale, 76 Me. 306 ; Metheny v. Bohn,
160 111. 263 ; Comm. v. Fetch, 132 Mass. 23 ; Barnttm v. Barnum, 42
Md. 251, 304 ; Caujolle v. Ferric", 23 N. Y. 90, 104.]
2 Vin. Abr, tit. Evidence, T.b.91. The report calls the son Achicus.
(map. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 107
which the plaintiff was not a party, that A was born on a certain day,
is irrelevant.1
(c) The question is, whether one of the cestuis que vie in a lease for
lives is living.
The fact that he was believed in his family to be dead is deemed to
be irrelevant, as the question is not one of pedigree.2
{d) The following are instances of the ways in which statements as
to pedigree may be made : By family conduct or correspondence ; in
books used as family registers ; in deeds and wills ; in inscriptions on
tombstones, or portraits ; in pedigrees, so far as they state the
relationship of living persons kgibwn to the compiler.3
/•/ ''Article 32.*
evidence given in former proceeding, when relevant.
Evidence given by a witness in a previous action is
relevant for the purpose of proving the matter stated in
a subsequent proceeding, or in a later stage of the same
* See Note XXII. [Appendix].
1 Guthrie v. Haines, 13 O. B. D. 818 (1884). In this case all the
authorities on this point are fully considered.
2 Whittuck v. Walters, 4 C. & P. 375. [For cases in which death
has been deemed a question of pedigree, see Cochrane v. Libby, 18
Me. 39 ; Webb v. Richardson, 42 Vt. 465 ; Clark v. Owens, 18 N. Y.
434-]
3 In 1 Ph.Ev. 203-215, and T. E. ss. 583-7, these and many other forms
of statement of the same sort are mentioned ; and see Davies v.
Lowndes, 6 M. & G. 527. [See Bassom v. Forsyth, 32 N. J. Eq. 277,
note. The following are instances : family conduct or reputation
{Eaton v. Tallmadge, 24 Wis. 217; Clark v. Owens, 18 N. Y. 434;
Harland v. Eastman, 107 111. 535 ; Pickens's Estate, 163 Pa. 14), at
least, if the reputation be based upon declarations of deceased mem-
bers of the family {Hurlbut's Estate, 68 Vt. 366) ; family Bible {Green-
leaf v. Dubuque, etc. R. Co., 30 la. 301 ; Himt v. Johnson, 19 N. Y. 279,
286) ; will {Pearson v. Pearson, 46 Cal. 610) ; parchment pedigree and
inscription on tombstone {North Brookficld \. Warren, 16 Gray, 171 ;
McClaskey v. Parr, 54 F. R. 781) ; a soldier's private record book of
pedigree {Hunt v. Order of Chosen Friends, 64 Mich. 671) ; deeds
{Scharffv. Keener, 64 Pa. 376 ; Fulkerson v. Holmes, 117 U. S. 389).
The persons executing such instruments must have been relatives
{Sitlerv. Gehr, 105 Pa. 577); as to the testimony of a witness who
ioS A : OF [Part I.
proceeding', when the witness is dead,1 or is mad,2 or so
ill that he will probably never be able to travel,3 or is
kept out of the way by the adverse party,4 or in civil, but
not, it seems, in criminal, cases, is out of the jurisdiction
of the court,5 or, perhaps, in civil, but not in criminal,
cases, when he cannot be found.6
derives his information from documents, etc., of these kinds, see
Eastman v. Martin, 19 N. H. 152.]
1 Mayor of Doncaster v. Day, 3 Tau. 262.
2 R. v. Eriswell, 3 T. R. 720.
3 R. v. Hogg, 6 C. & P. 176.
4 R. v. Scaife, 17 Q. B. 238, 243.
* Fry v. Wood, 1 Atk. 444 ; R. v. Scaife, 17 Q. B. 243.
6 Godbolt, p. 326, case 418 ; R. v. Scaife, ij Q. B. 243. [The death
of the witness will in all States admit his former testimony. Insanity,
also, is generally deemed a sufficient ground ( Whitaker v. Marsh, 62
N. H. 477; Stein v. Swensen, 46 Minn. 360; Howard v. Patrick, 38
Mich. 795 ; Morehouse v. Morehouse, 17 Abb. N. C. 407). As to other
disabilities, there is much difference of doctrine. Thus, in civil cases,
the New York rule is that absence from the jurisdiction, or the fact that
the witness cannot be found, is not enough ( Weeks \.Lowerre,Z Barb.
530 ; Mutual Life his. Co. v. Anthony, 50 Hun, 101).. In Pennsylvania
such evidence is received, if the witness has died, has become insane,
is sick and unable to attend, has lost his memory through disease or
old age, is out of the jurisdiction, cannot be found, or has become in-
competent to testify by reason of the death of the opposite party to
the suit ( Walbridge v. Knippcr, 96 Pa. 48 ; Ballman v. Heron, 169 Pa.
510; Thornton v. Britton, 144 Pa. 126). In Illinois, death, insanity, or
the keeping of the witness away by the adverse party, is sufficient {Stout
v. Cook, 47 111. 530; cf. Cassadayx. Trustees, 105 111. 560). Absence from
the jurisdiction is held sufficient in California, Nebraska, Michigan, and
Iowa {Benson v. Shotwell, 103 Cal. 163; Young v. Sage, 42 Neb. 38;
Hudson v. Roos, 76 Mich. 173; cf. Kellogg v. Secord, 42 Mich. 318;
Fleming v. Shenandoah, 71 la. 456; cf. Bank of Monroe v. Gifford,
79 la. 300) ; but not in New Jersey {Berney v. Mitchell, 34 N. J. L. 337,
and that, too, even though he cannot be found, Id.) ; nor in Missis-
sippi {Gastrch l\. Phillips, 64 Miss. 473); in Minnesota, if a witness
resides beyond the jurisdiction of the court, his former testimony may
be proved {Minneapolis Mill Co. v. Minn. etc. R. Co., 51 Minn. 304;
S. P. Dunbar v. McGill, 69 Mich. 297). Sickness which renders the
witness unable to attend is sometimes held sufficient {Chase v. Spring-
vale Mills Co., 75 Me. 156 ; Scoville v. Hannibal, etc. R. Co., 04 Mo.
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 109
Provided in all cases —
(1) That the person against whom the evidence is to
84 ; cf. Central R. Co. v. Murray, 97 Ga. 326 ; Bemey v. Mitchell, 34
N- J- L. 337,341).
In criminal cases, death of the witness is deemed sufficient {Mattox
v. U. S., 156 U. S. 237 ; Bass v. State, 136 Ind. 165 ; State v. Elliott,
90 Mo. 350; State v. George, 60 Minn. 503 ; Bar.nett v. People, 54 111.
325 ; People v. Dowdigan, 67 Mich. 95 ; Jackson v. Slate, 81 Wis. 127;
State v. Fitzgerald, 63 la. 268) ; but not his absence from the juris-
diction (U. S. v. Angell, 11 F. R. 34 ; Brogy v. Comm., 10 Gratt.
722 ; People v. Newman, 5 Hill, 295 ; People v. Gordon, 99 Cal. 227;
Pittman v. State, 92 Ga. 480 ; Owens v. State, 63 Miss. 450 ; contra,
McNamara v. Sfa/i, 60 Ark. 400 ; Thompson v. State, 106 Ala. 67, if
the absence be permanent or indefinite); nor his illness {Comm. v.
McKenna, 158 Mass. 207; State v. Staples, 47 N. H. 113). But if the
witness is wrongfully kept" away by the defendant, the former evidence
against such defendant has been received {Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S.
145 ; Stale v. tlouser, 26 Mo. 431 ; contra, Bergen v. State, 17 111. 426).
And now, in some States, by statute, depositions given on a prelimi-
nary examination before a magistrate may be read in evidence on the
trial, if the witness is dead, or insane, or cannot with due diligence be
found {People v. Fish, 125 N. Y. 137 ; People v. Gardner, 98 Cal. 127 ;
State v. King , 86 N. C. 603 ; cf . Mattox v. U. S., 1 56 U. S. 237 ; the
rule in Pennsylvania is broader still, Comm. v. Cleary, 148 Pa. 26).
The constitutional provision that the defendant shall be confronted
with the witnesses against him is generally held not to exclude this
kind of evidence {People v. Sligh, 48 Mich. 54 ; see all the cases in
this paragraph).
The former testimony maybe proved by any witness who heard and
remembers it, if he can state the substance of the whole of it ( Woods
v. Keyes, 14 Allen, 236 ; Hcplcr v. Mt. Carmel Bk., 97 Pa. 420 ; Har-
rison v. Charlton, 42 la. 573 ; Black v. Woodrow, 39 Md. 194 ; German
Nat. Bk. v. Leonard, 40 Neb. 677 ; Fmery v. Fowler, 39 Me. 326).
He need only state the substance of such testimony, not its precise
language ; nor need his language be even substantially the same
(Gr. Ev. i. § 165 ; Ruch v. Rock Island, 97 U. S. 693 ; Hepler v. Mt.
Carmel Bk., 97 Pa. 420 ; U. S. v. Macomb, 5 McL. 286 ; State v. Able,
65 Mo. 357; Summons v. Slate, 5 O. St. 325; Lime Rock Bk. v. Hewett,
52 Me. 531 ; State v. O 'Brien, 81 la. 88). But in Massachusetts sub-
stantially the original language must be given {Costigan v. Lunt, 127
Mass. 354). The New York cases seem to support the former rule,
but they do not appear to be entirely in accord {Crawford v. Loper,
no A DIGEST OF [Pari j
be given had the right and opportunity to cross-examine
the declarant when he was examined as a witness;1
(2) That the questions in issue were substantially the
same in the first as in the second proceeding- ; '
25 Barb. 449; Martin v. Cope, 3 Abb. Dec. 182; Clark v. Vorce, 15
Wend. 193 ; Wilbur v. Selden, 6 Cow. 162). In Mclntyre v. N. Y. C.
R. Co., 27 N. Y. 287, 291, a witness, who took minutes of the deceased
witness's former testimony, said : — " I designed to take the substance
of the testimony as given by the witness, and presume I have ; I
have no recollection of the testimony aside from what I have here ;
should judge that it was not possible for me to take the whole testi-
mony verbatim; did not aim to take more than the substance." On
this basis the testimony of the deceased witness was allowed to be
proved.
Such former testimony may be proved by a stenographer from
memory {Moore v. Moore, 39 la. 461)1 or by using his minutes to
refresh recollection {Sage v. State, 127 Ind. 15 ; State v. George, 60
Minn. 503) ; by a juror who heard it (Huichings v. Corgan, 59 111. 70);
by an attorney (Earl v. Tapper, 45 Vt. 275; Costigan v. Lunt, 127
Mass. 354, who may refresh his recollection by his minutes, Id.) ; by
the judge's minutes, duly authenticated by him as to completeness
and accuracy (Martin v. Cope, 3 Abb. Dec. 182 ; Whitcher v. Morey,
39 Vt. 459) ; by the minutes of stenographers, counsel, masters in
chancery, etc., if they are duly shown to have been taken correctly
(Luctgcrt v. / 'olker, 153 111. 385 ; Labar v. Crajie, 56 Mich. 585 ; Jack-
son v. State, 81 Wis. 127; Qiiinn v. Halbert, 57 Vt. 178; Rhine v.
Robinson, 27 Pa. 30; Yale v. Conistock, 112 Mass. 267); by a bill of
exceptions or "case," duly authenticated as containing the evidence
fully and accurately (Davis v. Kline, 96 Mo. 401 ; Slingerlainl v.
Slingerland, 46 Minn. 100; Wilson v. Noonan, 35 Wis. 321 ; cf. Solo-
mon R. Co. v. Jones, 34 Kan. 443 ; contra, Stem v. People, 102 111. 540);
and by other like methods.
These rules apply also to the former testimony of a deceased party.
But by statute in some States, if this testimony is not proved on the
second trial, the surviving party cannot be a witness to testify against
the decedent's representatives (Emerson v. Bleakley, 2 Abb. Dec. 22 ;
Bradley v. Mirick,^\ N. Y. 293 ; Stewart v. First Nat. Bk., 43 Mich.
257 ; see Blair v. Ellsworth, 55 Vt. 415).
Former testimony given before arbitrators may be proved. Wal-
bridge v. Knipper, 96 Pa. 48 ; Bailey v. Woods, 17 N. H. 365 ; contra,
Jessup v. Cook, 6 N. J. L. 434 ; cf. Jackson v. Bailey, 2 Johns. 17.]
1 [See p. in, note 1, and cases cited.]
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. in
Provided also —
(3) That the proceeding, if civil, was between the same
parties or their representatives in interest ; '
(4) That, in criminal cases, the same person is accused
upon the same facts.2
If evidence is reduced to the form of a deposition, the
provisions of Article 90 apply to the proof of the fact that
it was given.3
The conditions under which depositions may be used
as evidence are stated in Articles 140-142.
1 Doe v. Tat ham, 1 A. & E. 319; Doe v. Derby, 1 A. & E. 783, 785,
789. See, as a late illustration, as to privies in estate, Hanover v.
Honifray, 19 Ch. D. 224. In this case the first set of proceedings
was between lords of the same manor and tenants of the same manor
as the parties to the second suit. [Osborn v. Pell, 5 Den. 370 ; Jackson
v. Crissey, 3 Wend. 251 ; Chase v. Springvale Mills Co., 75 Me. 156;
Walbridge v. Knipper, 96 Pa. 48, 5 1 ; Marshall v. Hancock, 80 Cal.
82 ; Lane v. Brainerd, 30 Ct. 565 ; Orr v. Hadley, 36 N. H. 575 ; and
cases supra. It is enough that the opportunity for cross-examination
exist, though it is not exercised (Bradley v. Mirick, 91 N. Y. 293).
Privies in blood, in law, or in estate, are "representatives in interest"
within this rule (Jackson v. Lawson, 15 Johns. 539; Yale v. Comstock,
1 12 Mass. 267). So the plaintiffs in one suit may be defendants in the
other. And if the parties to the second suit were all parties to the
first, the evidence is admissible, though there were additional parties
to the first suit (Allen v. Chouteau, 102 Mo. 309) ; aliter, if new parties
are introduced into the second suit (Orr v. Hadley, 36 N. H. 575).
The testimony of a deceased witness is, however, inadmissible, unless
he would, if living, have been a competent witness in the second suit
(Eaton v. Alger, 47 N. Y. 345). The testimony of a witness given at
a coroner's inquest is not admissible in an action to recover damages
for causing the death of the deceased, though the witness has since
died (Cook v. N. Y. Central R. Co., 5 Lans. 401 ; Pittsburgh, etc. R.
Co. v. McGrath, 115 111. 172 ; cf. McLain v. Comm., 99 Pa. 86 ; U. S.
Life Ins. Co. v. Vocke, 129 111. 557). The inquest is not an action or
judicial proceeding between the parties.]
'2 Bcestons Case, Dears. 405. [See the criminal cases cited in note
on p. 109, ante.]
3 [See Chase v. Springvale Mills Co., 75 Me. 156; People v. Pish,
125 N.Y. 136.]
ii2 A DIGEST OF [Part
SECTION II.
STATEMENTS IN BOOKS, DOCUMENTS, AND
RECORDS, WHEN RELEVANT.
Article $$.
recitals of public facts in statutes and proclamations.1
When any act of state or any fact of a public nature is
in issue or is, or is deemed to be, relevant to the issue,
any statement of it made in a recital contained in any
public Act of Parliament, or in any royal proclamation
or speech of the Sovereign in opening Parliament, or in
any address to the Crown of either House of Parliament,
is deemed to be a relevant fact.3
Article 34.
relevancy of entry in public record made in perform-
ance of duty.
An entry in any record, official book, or register kept in
any of Her Majesty's dominions3 or at sea, or in any
1 [This Article may be adapted to American law by making it read
as follows : When any act of state or any fact of a public nature is in
issue, or is, or is deemed to be, relevant to the issue, any statement of
it made in a recital contained in any public statute, or in any procla-
mation of the Executive, or in state papers communicated by the
Executive to the Legislature, or published under public authority, or
in legislative journals or resolutions, is deemed to be a relevant fact
(Gr. Ev. i.§49i ; McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y. 206 ; Radcliffv. United
Ins. Co., 7 Johns. 38, 51 ; Root v. King, 7 Cow. 613 ; Spongier v.
Jacoby, 14 111. 297 ; Whiton v. Albany, etc., Ins. Co., 109 Mass. 24, and
cases cited ; Worcester v. Northborough, 140 Mass. 397 ; Clemens v.
Meyer, 44 La. Ann. 390 ; see Armstrongs. U. S., 13 Wall. 154). So
of recitals in the official precept of a governor (Comm. v. Hall, 9
Gray, 262). As to the effect of recitals in private statutes, see McKin-
non v. Bliss, supra.]
2 R. v. Francklin, 17 S. T. 636 ; R. v. Sutton, 4 M. & S. 532.
3 [For this country this should read, " in any State or Territory or the
District of Columbia."]
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 113
foreign country, stating, for the purpose of being referred
to by the public, a fact in issue or relevant or deemed to
be relevant thereto, and made in proper time by any
person in the discharge of any duty imposed upon him by
the law of the place in which such record, book, or register
is kept, is itself deemed to be a relevant fact.1
1 Sturla v. Freccia, 5 App. Cas. 623 ; see especially pp. 633-4 and
643-4; Lyell v. Kennedy, 14 App. Cas. 437; T. E. (from Greenleaf)
ss. 1429, 1432. See also Queen s Proctor v. Fry, L. R. 4 P. D. 230. In
hi re Turner, Glenislerv. Harding, 29 Ch. D. 990, Chitty, J., in a pedi-
gree case, held, though with some hesitation, and though it was not
necessary to the decision of the case, that a statement of age in a bap-
tismal register, made under 52 Geo. III. c. 146, might be looked at in a
question of legitimacy. His authorities were Morris v. Davies, 3 C.
& P. 215, and Cope v. Cope, 1 M. & R. 269. These are only Nisi Prius
decisions, though spoken of by Chitty, J., as binding on him. See note
to Article 31. [Gr. Ev. i. §§483-485, 493-495 ; Evanston v. Gunn, 99
U. S. 660 ; Sandy White v. United States, 164 U. S. 100 ; Gurney v.
Howe, 9 Gray, 404 ; Pells v. Webquish, 129 Mass. 469 ; Gait v. Gallo-
ways Pet. 332 ; Cassaday v. Trustees, 105 111. 560; Bell v. Kendrick,
25 Fla. 778 ; Succession of Justus, 48 La. Ann. 1096 ; Jacobi v. Order
of Germania, 73 Hun, 602 ; Bissell v. Hamblin, 6 Duer, 512 ; People
v. Zeyst, 23 N. Y. 140 ; cf. Tessma?tn v. United Friends, 103 Mich. 185;
see Art. 27, Illustration (e), ante. Thus records of the weather kept
by officers of the United States Signal Service are admissible {Evans-
ton v. Gunn, supra ; Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Trayes, 17 111. App. 136 ;
cf. People v. Dow, 64 Mich. 717).
This rule is limited to such statements in official documents as the
officers make in the regular course of official duty (Id.; United States
v. Corwin, 129 U. S. 381 ; Rindge v. Walker, 61 N. H. 58 ; Erwin v.
English, 61 Ct. 502).
The books of a private corporation are of the nature of public books
as between the members (Gr. Ev. i. § 493). When they are duly kept in
the regular course of business, they are, in general, competent to show
the acts and proceedings of the corporation ( Wctherbee v. Baker,
35 N. J. Eq. 501 ; Ten Eyck v. Railroad Co., 74 Mich. 226 ; Hubbellv.
Meigs, 50 N. Y. 480; Turnpike Co. v. M'Kcan, 10 Johns. 154; see
Angell & Ames on Corp. §§ 679, 681). So they are evidence in favor
of the corporation, to show that it was properly organized {McFarlan
v. Triton Ins. Co., 4 Den. 392). But they are not generally competent
evidence in favor cf the corporation against a stranger (Graville v.
ii4 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
Article 35.
relevancy of statements in works of history, maps,
charts, and plans.
Statements as to matters of general public history made
in accredited historical books are deemed to be relevant,
when the occurrence of any such matter is in issue or is,
or is deemed to be, relevant to the issue ; but statements
in such works as to private rights or customs are deemed
to be irrelevant.1
(Submitted) Statements of facts in issue, or relevant or
deemed to be relevant to the issue, made in published
maps or charts generally offered for public sale as to
matters of public notoriety, such as the relative position
of towns and countries, and such as are usually repre-
sented or stated in such maps or charts, are themselves
N. Y. C. R. Co., 34 Hun, 224 ; Railroad Co. v. Cutinington, 39 O. St.
327 ; Chase v. Sycamore, etc. R. Co., 38 111. 215); nor even against a
member or director, of his contracts or private dealings with the
company, for in that respect he is to be deemed a stranger (Haynes v.
Brown, 36 N. H. 545 ; Ruddv. Robinson, 126 N. Y. 113).
The stock books of a corporation are prima facie evidence to show
who are its stockholders ( Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U. S. 418 ; Vattder-
iverken v. Glenn, 85 Ya. 9 ; Lehman v. Glenn, 87 Ala. 618). The right
of a stockholder to inspect the books may be enforced by mandamus
in proper cases (Phoenix Iron Co. v. Commonwealth, 113 Pa. 563 ;
People v. Pacific Mail Co., 50 Barb. 280).
As to entries in other books of a private or guasi-offycia.] character,
see Art. 27, ante.]
1 See cases in 2 Ph. Ev. 155-6, and Read v. Bishop of Lincoln,
[1892] A. C. 644, at pp. 652-4. [McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y. 206, 216;
Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Sandf. Ch. 633; Crillx. Rome, 47 How.
Pr. 400 ; Morris v. Manner, 7 Pet. 554 ; State v. Wagner, 61 Ale. 178,
188 ; Spalding v. Hedges, 1 Pa. 240, 243. These cases favor the view
that if the author is living, he should be called as a witness to be exam-
ined as to the sources and accuracy of his knowledge. Mere local
tries arc nut admitted in evidence. Roe v. St/vug, 107 X. Y. 350.]
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 115
deemed to be relevant facts;1 but such statements are
irrelevant2 if they relate to matters of private concern, or
1 In P. v. Orton, maps of Australia were given in evidence to show
the situation of various places at which the defendant said he had
lived.
8 E.g., a line in a tithe commutation map, purporting to denote the
boundaries of A's property, is irrelevant in a question between A and
B as to the position of the boundaries : Wilberforce v. Hearfield, 5
Ch. Div. 705, and see Hammond \. , 10 Ex. 390. [As a general
rule, maps, surveys, and plans of land are not competent evidence,
unless their accuracy is shown by other evidence in the case {Johnston
\. Jones, 1 Black, 209 ; Donohue v. Whitney, 133 N. Y. 178 ; Comm. v.
Switzer, 134 Pa. 383 ; Burwell v. Sneed, 104 N. C. 118 ; Wilkinson v.
State, 106 Ala. 23 ; Rowland v. McCoivn, 20 Or. 538 ; Whitehouse v.
Bickford, 29 N. H. 471), as e. g., by the- testimony of the surveyors who
prepared them (Curtiss v. Ayrault, 3 Hun, 487). But a map of public
land, made by a public surveyor, and duly certified and filed in a
public office, as prescribed by statute, is admissible perse {People v.
Denison, 17 Wend. 312 ; S. P. Comm. v. King, 150 Mass. 221 ; Henry
v. Dulle, 74 Mo. 443 ; Galvin v. Palmer, 113 Cal. 46). Ancient maps,,
duly authenticated as genuine, are admissible, to show matters of
public and general right {Lawrence v. Tennant, 64 N. H. 532 ; Mc-
Cattslandv. Fleming, 63 Pa. 36 ; cf. Missouriv. Kentucky, II Wall. 395 ;
see Art 30, ante) ; or, in some States, to establish private boundaries
{Gibson v. Poor, 21 N. H. 440; Whitmans. Shaw, 166 Mass. 451)
But an ancient map of partition, showing the division of land among
private owners, is not evidence of title {Jackson v. Witter, 2 Johns. 180).
Where a plan or map of land is prepared, and is referred to in
making conveyances of such land, it is evidence to show boundary or
location, or to explain the contract {Clark v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 64 X. V.
33; Kingslandv. Chittenden, 6 Lans. 15 ; Crawford V. Loper, 25 Barb.
449). So in dedicating land to the public {Derby v. Ailing, 40 Ct. 410).
But if made by a stranger without authority, it cannot be received to
vary or contradict a title under a previous deed {Marble v. McMinn,
57 Barb. 610 ; ct. Jackson v. Frost, 5 Cow. 346). Sometimes maps are
admissible by statute, as e.g., maps of the public canals of New York
{Carpenter v. Co hoes, 81 N. Y. 21).
Some other rules as to the admissibility of books, papers, etc., may
here be noticed. Thus it is generally held that a medical or other
scientific treatise is not competent evidence to prove the truth of
matters stated therein {Comm. v. Sturtivant, 117 Mass. 122; Harris
n6 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
matters not likely to be accurately stated in such docu-
ments.
v. Panama R. Co., 3 Bos. 7 ; Fox v. Peninsular, etc. Works, 84 Mich.
676; Gallagher v. Market St. R. Co., 67 Cal. 13 ; Epps v. State, 102
Ind. 539; Boyle v. State, 57 Wis. 472 ; contra, Bales v. State, 63 Ala.
30 ; Burg v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 90 la. 106 [by statute]) ; nor can such
books be read in argument to the jury ( Washburn v. Cuddihy, 8 Gray,
430; Boyle v. State, supra; People v. Wheeler, 60 Cal. 581 ; but see
Richmond's Appeal, 59 Ct. 226), nor given in evidence to sustain or
contradict the opinion of a witness [Davis v. State, 38 Aid. 15 ; Knoll
v. State, 55 Wis. 249) ; nor is it proper to examine a witness in such a
way as to get the contents of such books before the jury ( Waterman
v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 82 Wis. 613 ; Lilley v. Parkinson, 91 Cal. 655 ;
Marshall v. Brown, 50 Mich. 148). But such a book may be read to
discredit a witness when he has referred to it as supporting his state-
ments (Pinney v. Cahill, 48 Mich. 584 ; Ripon v. Bittel, 30 Wis. 614 ;
N. J. Zi)ic, etc. Co. v. Lehigh, etc. Zinc Co., 59 N. J. L. 189 ; Blooming-
ton v. Shrock, 1 10 111. 219 ; Hess v. Lowrey, 122 Ind. 225). An engrav-
ing in a medical book is not competent evidence {Ordway v. Haynes,
50 N. H. 159). So counsel should not in general be allowed to read to
the jury extracts from other books or from newspapers {Baldwin v.
Bricker, 86 Ind. 221 ; Williams v. Brooklyn Elev. R. Co., 126 N. Y. 96).
The reading of law books by counsel to the jury is sanctioned in some
States (N. &> W. R. Co. v. Harmon's .ldmr.,83 Va. 553 ; Hannah v.
Slate, 11 Lea, 201), prohibited in others [Yarbrough v. State, 105 Ala.
45 ; Lendberg v. Iron Mining Co., 75 Mich. 84 ; Steffenson v. Chicago,
etc. R. Co., 48 Minn. 285), but in many States is subject to the discre-
tion of the trial court, which may permit or refuse or limit the privilege
(Comm. v. Hill, 145 Mass. 305; State v. Fitzgerald, 130 Mo. 407;
Gregory v. Ohio Riv. R. Co., 37 W. Va. 606 ; Blum v. Jones, 86 Tex.
492 ; People v. Anderso?i, 44 Cal. 65 ; Curtis v. Stale, 36 Ark. 284 ; cf.
Williams v. Brooklyn Elev. R. Co., 126 N. Y. 96). In some States,
moreover, where the jury are, in criminal cases, judges of the law as
well as of the facts, such reading of lawbooks is matter cf right in
criminal cases, but not permissible in civil cases ( Wohlford v. People,
148 111. 296 ; Stout v. State, 96 Ind. 407 ; Johnson v. Culver, 1 16 Ind.
278 ; State v. Whitmore, 53 Kan. 343 ; Hudson v. Hudson, 90 Ga. 582;
Powell v. State, 65 Ga. 707).
A price current list, if shown by extrinsic evidence to be reliable, is
competent to prove market value {Cliquofs Champagne, 3 Wall. 114;
Whelan v. Lynch, 60 X. Y. 469; Seligman v. Rogers, 113 Mo. 642 ;
see Whitney v. Thacher, 117 Mass. 523 ; Peter v. Thickstun, 51 Mich.
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.
Articles 36, 37, 38.
entries in bankers' books.1
5^Art
Article 39.*
JUDGMENT.
The word "judgment " in Articles 40-47 means any final
judgment, order, or decree of any court.
The provisions of Articles 40-45, inclusive, are all sub-
ject to the provisions of Article 46.
Article 40.
all judgments conclusive proof of their legal effect.
All judgments whatever are conclusive proof as against
all persons of the existence of that state of things which
* See Note XXIII. [Appendix].
589); standard life and annuity tables, as the Northampton or Carlisle
tables, to show expectancy of life ( Vicksburg, etc. R. Co. v. Putnam, 1 1 8
U. S. 545 ; Sauter v. N. Y. C R. Co., 66 N. Y. 50 ; Steinbrunner v. Pitts-
burgh, etc. R. Co., 146 Pa. 504 ; De7iman v. Johnston, 85 Mich. 387;
Joliet v. Blower, 155 111. 414); an almanac to show time of sunrise, etc.
{State v. Morris, 47 Ct. 179; Munshower v. State, 55 Md. 11). So
market reports. have been received (Aulls v. Young, 98 Mich. 231 ; cf.
Vogt v. Cope, 66 Cal. 31), and a weather record kept at a State asylum
{De Armondv. Neasmith, 32 Mich. 231). But a gazetteer is not ad-
missible to prove relative distances of places {Spalding v. Hedges, 2
Pa. 240), nor an encyclopaedia to prove facts of recent occurrence
stated therein ( IVhiton v. Albany, etc. Bis. Co., 109 Mass. 24 ; cf. Wor-
den v. Humeston, etc. R. Co., 76 la. 310); nor are law reports of for-
merly decided cases competent to prove the facts of those cases
{Mackay v. Easton, 19 Wall. 619), nor to prove a local custom of
trade. Iron Cliffs Co. v. Buhl, 42 Mich. 86.]
1 [Articles 36, 37, and 38 state the provisions of special English
statutes relating to entries in bankers' books. As they are peculiar
to English law, they are not retained here in the text, but will be
found in the Appendix, Note XLIX. As to the admissibility of corpo-
ration books in this country, see Articles 27 and 34, ante, and notes.]
n8 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
they actually effect, when the existence of the state of
things so effected is a fact in issue or is, or is deemed to
be, relevant to the issue.1 The existence of the judgment
effecting it may be proved in the manner prescribed in
Part II.
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A has been damaged by the negligence
of his servant B in injuring C's horse.
A judgment in an action, in which C recovered damages against A,
is conclusive proof as against B, that C did recover damages against
A in that action.2
(/;) The question is, whether A, a shipowner, is entitled to recover as
for a loss by capture against B, an underwriter.
A judgment of a competent French prize court, condemning the ship
and cargo as prize, is conclusive proof that the ship and cargo were
lost to A by capture.3
(c) The question is, whether A can recover damages from B for a
malicious prosecution.
The judgment of a court by which A was acquitted is conclusive
proof that A was acquitted by that court.4
(d) A, as executor to B, sues C for a debt due from C to B.
1 [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 527, 538, 539 ; Dorrellv. State, 83 Ind. 357 ; Chamber-
lain v. Carlisle, 26 X. H. 540 ; Wadsworth v. Sharpsteen, 8 N. Y. 388 ;
Spencer v. Dearth, 43 Vt. 98, 105 ; Harrington v. Wadsworth, 63
N. H. 400; Aron v. Chaffe, 72 Miss. 159; Smith v. Chapin, 31 Ct.
530. Thus when a judgment forms a muniment of title or a link in
a chain of title, it is competent evidence, not only as against parties
and privies, but also as against strangers. Gage v. Goudy, 141 111.
215 ; Murray v. Deyo, 10 Hun, 3 ; Railroad Equipment Co. v. Blair,
1 15 X. Y. 607.]
3 Green v. New River Company, 4 T. R. 590. See Article 44, Illus-
tration (a). [See Kip v. Brigham, 7 Johns. 168 ; Dubois v. Hermance,
56 X. Y. 673 ; Masser v. Strickland, 17 S. & R. 354 ; and post, Art. 44,
Illustration (ad).]
: Involved in Geyer v. Aguilar, 7 T. R. 681 ; [cf. Rose v. Himely, 4
Cr. 241.]
4 Leggatt x. Tollervey, 14 Ex. 301 ; and see Caddy v. Barlow, 1
Man. & R. 277. [See Sayles v. Briggs, 4 Met. 421 ; Burt v. Place, 4
Wend. 59I.]
Chap. IV.] . THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 119
The grant of probate to A is conclusive proof as against C, that A is
B's executor.1
(e) A is deprived of his living by the sentence of an ecclesiastical
court.
The sentence is conclusive proof of the fact of deprivation in all
cases.2
(/) A and B are divorced a vinculo matrimonii by a sentence of
the Divorce Court.
The sentence is conclusive proof of the divorce in all cases.3
1 Allan v. Dundas, 3 T. R. 125-130. In this case the will to which
probate had been obtained was forged. [Kelly v.lVest, 80 N. Y. 139 ;
N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. § 2591 ; Emery v.Hildrelh, 2 Gray, 228 ; Day v.
Floyd, 130 Mass. 488 ; Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tisdale, 91 U. S. 238, 243 ;
Steen v. Bennett, 24 Yt. 303 ; Quidort v. Pergeaux, 18 N. J. Eq. 472.
So as to guardian (Farrar v. Olmstead, 24 Vt. 123); or receiver
( Whittlesey v. Frantz, 74 N. Y. 456); or trustee (Basselt v. Crafts, 129
Mass. 513). But the grant of administration upon the estate of a
living person is wholly void for lack of jurisdiction (Stevenson v.
Superior Ct., 62 Cal. 60 ; Jochumsen v. Suffolk Sav. Bk., 3 Allen, 87;
Melia v. Simmons, 45 Wis. 334; Springer \. Shavender, 118 N. C.
33; Thomas v. People, 107 111. 517; Devlin v. Comm., 101 Pa. 273;
Lavin v. Emigrant Sav. Bk., 18 Blatch. 1, 36 ; cf. Plume v. Howard
Sav. Inst., 46 N. J. L. 211). But in New York, by statute, the deter-
mination by the surrogate of the fact of death is deemed conclusive,
so far as to render the acts of the administrator valid until his
authority is revoked (Roderigas v. East River Sav. Inst., 63 N. Y.
460); but this power of the surrogate does not extend to his clerk
(S. C. 76 N. Y. 316; cf. Bolton v. Schriever, 135 N. Y. 65 ; Davis v.
Greve, 32 La. Ann. 420). The U. S. Supreme Court, however, holds
that a State law declaring a judicial determination that a man is dead
conclusive upon him, though he was not served with process, and
vesting his property in his administrator, is void, as depriving him of
his property without due process of law. Scott v. McNeal, 154 U.
S. 34-]
* Judgment of Lord Holt in Philips v. Bury, 2 T. R. 346, 351 ; [cf.
Boulditi v. Alexander, 15 Wall. 131.]
3 Assumed in Needham v ■. Bremner, L. R. 1 C. P. 582. [Hood v.
Hood, no Mass. 463 ; Burlenv. Shannon, 3 Gray, 387 ; Hunt v. Hunt,
72 N. Y. 217; In re Eickhoff, 101 Cal. 600; as to impeaching the
judgment for lack of jurisdiction, see People v. Baker, 76 N. Y. 78 ;
Adams v. Adams, 154 Mass. 290. 1
120 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
(.£") [The question is, whether A, an alien born, is a citizen of the
United States.
The record of a judgment of a competent court admitting him to
become a citizen and reciting the facts which entitled him to such
judgment is conclusive proof of his citizenship.]1
JUDGMENTS CONCLUSIVE AS BETWEEN PARTIES AND PRIVIES OF
FACTS FORMING GROUND OF JUDGMENT.
Every judgment is conclusive proof as against parties
and privies of facts directly in issue in the case, actually
decided by the court, and appearing2 from the judgment
1 [McCarthy v. Marsh, 5 N. Y. 263 ; Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tisdale, 91
U. S. 238, 245 ; People v. McGowan, 77 111. 644 ; State v. Macdonald,
24 Minn. 48 ; see Behrensmeyer v. Kreitz, 135 111. 591,630.]
2 [Gr. Ev. i. § 528 et seq. ; Shaw v. Broadbent, 129 N. Y. 114; Mar-
stellerv. Marsteller, 132 Pa. 517; Orthwein v. Thomas, 127 111. 554;
Sanderson v. Peabody, 58 N. H. 116. But it is generally held in this
country that a judgment is conclusive between parties and privies as
to facts actually decided, whether these do or do not appear upon the
record ; such as do not so appear may be shown by parol evidence to
have been litigated and determined {Campbell v. Ra?ikin, 99 U.S.
261 ; Bowe v. Wilkins, 105 N. Y. 322 ; Stone v. St. Louis Stamping Co.,
155 Mass. 267 ; Title Co. v. Shallcross, 147 Pa. 485 ; Harding v. Bader,
75 Mich. 323 ; Pahner v. Sanger, 143 111. 34 ; Perkins v. Brazos, 66 Ct.
248 ; Stale v. Waterman, 87 la. 255 ; see Art. 44, Illustration (cc)).
But such evidence must not contradict the record ( Wilson's Excr. v.
Deen, 121 U. S. 525; Lorillard v. Clyde, 122 N. Y. 41 ; Embden v.
Lisherness, 89 Me. 578). A judgment binds one who is a real party
in interest, even if he is not a party of record {Marsh v. Smith, 73 la.
295 ; Cheney v.Patton, 144 111. 373 ; Claflin v. Fletcher, 10 Biss. 281).
A judgment ts said to be conclusive not only as to matters which
were, but also as to those which, under the issues, might have been,
litigated and determined in the action {Pray v. Hegeman, 98 N. Y.
351 ; Huntley v. Holt, 59 Ct. 102 ; Wright v. Anderson, 1 17 Ind. 315 ;
Bassett v. Ct. Riv. R. Co., 150 Mass. 178 ; Diamond State Iroti Co. v.
Rarig, 93 Ya. 595 ; Pctersine v. Thomas, 28 O. St. 596). Thus, if part
of a single cause of action be sued on and judgment recovered, it bars
(map. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 121
itself to be the ground on which it was based ; unless
an action for the residue (Illustrations (<?), {g), (h) ; Secor v. Sturgis,
16 N. Y. 548 ; Baird v. U. S., 96 U. S. 430 ; Bennett v. Hood, 1 Allen,
47 ; Buck v. Wilson, 113 Pa. 423). So a judgment is conclusive as to
the grounds of recovery or defence which, under the issues, might
have been but were not presented (Illustration (_/") ; Beloit v. Morgan,
7 Wall. 619 ; Harmon v. Auditor, 123 111. 122; Lieb v. Lichtenstein,
121 Ind. 483) ; if, therefore, judgment goes against a defendant, this
will bar any subsequent action by him, based on a ground of defence
which he might have interposed in the former suit (Illustrations (/),
(/) ; White v. Merritt, 7 N. Y. 352 ; Homer v. Fish, 1 Pick. 435 ;
Gleason v. Knapp, 56 Mich. 291 ; Johnson Co. v. Wharton, 152 U. S.
252 ; Malkmey v. Horan, 49 N. Y. in ; Reich v. Cochran, 151 N. Y.
122). But matters of set-off and recoupment (and sometimes other
matters), though not set up by the defendant in actions where they
might be so pleaded, may still be sued on independently, unless a
recovery upon them would be inconsistent with what was decided by
the former judgment {Brown v. Gallaudet, 80 N. Y. 413 ; Malloney
v. Horan, 49 N. Y. m ; Yates v. Fassett, 5 Den. 21 ; Bascovi v. Man-
ning, 52 N. H. 132; Fiske v. Steele, 152 Mass. 260; Mimnangh v.
Partlin, 67 Mich. 391) ; if, however, such matters are pleaded and
determined by way of counterclaim, the judgment will bar any sub-
sequent action upon them {Howe v. Lewis, 121 Ind. no; Patrick v.
Shaffer, 94 N. Y. 423).
When a second suit is upon a differe7it cause of action, though be-
tween the same parties, the former judgment is a bar only as to the
matters which actually were, and not as to those which might have
been, litigated and determined {Nesbitt v. Riverside Dist., 144 U. S.
610 ; Foye v. Patch, 132 Mass. 105 ; Metcalfv. Gilmore, 63 N. H. 174 ;
City of Paterson v. Baker, 51 N. J. Eq. 49 ; Bond v. A/arkstrum, 102
Mich. 11 ; Hixson v. Ogg, 53 O. St. 361 ; Wright v. Griffey, 147 111.
496).
Some additional rules of importance concerning judgments are the
following : {a) A judgment, in order to conclude parties and privies,
must be a final decision on the merits (Gr. Ev. i. §§ 529, 530 ; Webb v.
Buckelew, 82 N. Y. 555). Thus a judgment of nonsuit or of dismissal
of the complaint in an action at law does not bar another action {Smith
v. McNeal, 109 U. S. 426 ; Wheeler v. Ruckman, 51 N. Y. 391), though
a dismissal in equity on the merits will have that effect {Lyon v. Perin
Mfg. Co., 125 U. S. 698 ; Edgar v. Buck, 65 Mich. 356; aliter, if not
on the merits, Hughes v. U. S., 4 Wall. 232 ; Henninger v. Heald, 51
N. J. Eq. 74 ; see N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. § 1209). So if there be a dis-
122 A DIGEST Of [Par*
evidence was admitted in the action in which the judg-
continuance {Loeb v. Willis, ioo N. Y. 231), or the action be prema-
turely brought {Rose v. Hawley, 141 N. Y. 366 ; Brackett v. People, 115
111. 29), or a plea in abatement be sustained {Atkins v. Anderson, 63
la. 139), judgment for such causes is no bar. A verdict without judg-
ment entered is no bar {Springer v. Bien, 128 N. Y. 99 ; Smith v. Mc-
Cool, 16 Wall. 560). {b) Judgment on demurrer, rendered for defend-
ant on the merits, is a bar to another action on substantially the same
complaint ; but not to an action on a new complaint founded on the
same transaction but containing new or amended averments so as to
present a good cause of action {Gould v. Evansville R. Co., 91 U. S.
533 I Wiggins Co. v. Ohio, etc. R. Co., 142 U. S. 396 ; Rodman v. Mich.
Cent. R. Co., 59 Mich. 395 ; Slowellv. Chamberlain, 60 N. Y. 272;
Detrick v. Sharrar, 95 Pa. 521 ; but see Lamb v. McConkcy, 76 la. 47).
{c) Judgment by confession or default is a bar {Town v. Smith, 14
Mich. 348 ; Goebel v. Iffla, in N. Y. 170 ; Last Chance Mining Co. v.
Tyler Co., 157 U. S. 683 ; Spring Run Co. v. Tosier, 102 Pa. 342); so is
judgment by retraxit {U. S. v. Parker, 120 U. S. 89), and judgment
entered upon an offer made by the adverse party and accepted {Shep-
herd'v. Moodhe, 150 N. Y. 183). {d) An interlocutory order is not, in
general, conclusive between parties ( Webb v. Buckelew, 82 N. Y. 555 ;
Riggs v. Pursell, 74 N. Y. 380 ; Selz v. Presburger, 49 N. J. L. 396 ;
Allison v. Whittier, 101 N. C. 490 ; Heidelv. Be7iedict, 61 Minn. 170;
Miami Nat. Bk. v. Barkalow, 53 Kan. 68 ; but see Commrs. of Wil-
son Co. v. Mcintosh, 30 Kan. 234); aliter, as to final orders on the mer-
its in special proceedings, where there are opposing parties who have
full opportunity to be heard (Id. ; Culrose v. Gibbons, 130 N. Y. 447 ;
Spitley v. Frost, 15 F. R. 299 ; cf. Prauenlhal's Appeal, 100 Pa. 290).
{e) A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, whether of law,
equity, admiralty, etc., will bar an action on the same ground in an-
other court whose jurisdiction is of a different nature ( Westcott v. Ed-
munds, 68 Pa. 34 ; Powers v. Chelsea Sav. Bk., 129 Mass. 44 ; Good-
rich v. City, 5 Wall. 566 ; People v. Rickert, 159 111. 496). Thus if one
sues on a contract at law as it is, and judgment is rendered against
him, he cannot afterwards sue in equity to reform the contract
{Steinbach v. Relief his. Co., 77 N. Y. 498).
Special rules apply to particular actions or proceedings : {a) In
an action of ejectment, at common law, one judgment does not bar
repeated actions between the same parties {Small v. Mitchell, 143 U.
S. 99 ; Stevens v. Hughes, 31 Pa. 381, 384 ; Sutton v. Dameron, 100
Mo. 141); but by statute in some States concurrent judgments in two
successive actions will be a bar {Rlanchard v. Brown, 3 Wall. 245 ; X.
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 123
ment was delivered which is excluded in the action in
which that judgment is intended to be proved.1
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether C, a pauper, is settled in parish A or
parish B.
D is the mother and E the father of C. D, E, and several of their
children were removed from A to B before the question as- to C's
settlement arose, by an order unappealed against, which order de-
scribed D as the wife of E.
The statement in the order that D was the wife of E is conclusive
as between A and B.2
{b) A and B each claim administration to the goods of C, deceased.
Administration is granted to B, the judgment declaring that, as far
as appears by the evidence, B has proved himself next of kin.
Afterwards there is a suit between A and B for the distribution of
the effects of C. The declaration in the first suit is in the second suit
conclusive proof as against A that B is nearer of kin to C than A.3
Y. Code Civ. Pro. § 1525 ; Britton v. Thornton, 112 U. S. 526), while
in other States one judgment is a bar {Sturdy v. Jackaway, 4 Wall.
174). (b) A judgment for damages for a nuisance or trespass will not
bar an action for a continuance of the injury ; but if the act complained
of is permanent in its nature, prospective damages are recoverable in
the first action, and the first judgment will therefore be a bar {Schlitz
Brewing Co. v. Compton, 142 111. 511 ; Ulinev.N. Y. Cent. R. Co.,
101 N. Y. 98; Bizerv. Ottumwa Co.,yo la. 145). (c) A decision upon
one writ of habeas corpus, refusing to discharge a prisoner, does not
bar the issuing of another writ by another court or officer {Bradley v.
Beetle, 153 Mass. 154 ; In re Snell, 31 Minn, no ; People v. Brady, 56
N. Y. 182); aliter,a.s to a decision discharging the prisoner on the same
state of facts ( Weir v. Marley, 99 Mo. 484 ; McConologue's Case, 107
Mass. 154), and as to a decision determining the right to the custody
of an infant child. Mercein v. People, 25 Wend. 64 ; State v. Bechdel,
37 Minn. 360.]
XR. v. Hutchins, 5 Q. B. D. 353, supplies a recent illustration of this
principle. [Cf. Putnam v. Clark, 34 X. J. Eq. 532 ; Maybee v. Avery,
18 Johns. 352 ; Quinn v. Quinn, 16 Vt. 426.]
2 R. v. Hartington Middle Quarter, 4 E. & B. 780 ; and see Flitters
v. Allfrey, L. R. 10 C. P. 29 ; and contrast Dover v. Child, 1 Ex. D.
172 ; [see Bethlehem v. Watertown, 47 Ct. 237.]
3 Barrs v. Jackson, 1 Phi 11. 582, 587, 588 ; [see Caujollev. Ferrie, 13
Wall. 465 ; White v. Weatherbee, 126 Mass. 450.]
124 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
(c) A company sues A for unpaid premium and calls. A special
case being stated in the Court of Common Pleas, A obtains judgment
on the ground that he never was a shareholder.
The company being wound up in the Court of Chancery, A applies
for the repayment of the sum he had paid for premium and calls.
The decision that he never was a shareholder is conclusive as between
him and the company that he never was a shareholder, and he is
therefore entitled to recover the sums he paid.1
(d) A obtains a decree of judicial separation from her husband B,
on the ground of cruelty and desertion, proved by her own evidence.
Afterwards B sues A for dissolution of marriage on the ground of
adultery, in which suit neither B nor A can give evidence. A charges
B with cruelty and desertion. The decree in the first suit is deemed
to be irrelevant in the second.2
(e) [A sues B to recover damages for the conversion of some bed-
quilts and obtains judgment.
This judgment defeats a recovery in a subsequent action for the
conversion of a bed which was taken by B at the same time with the
quilts.]3
{/) [A sues B for the conversion of a derrick and by mistake omits
to allege and claim certain special damages which resulted from the
conversion. He recovers judgment for the value of the derrick.
This judgment bars a subsequent action by A to recover these
special damages.] 4
(g) [B owes A, upon a running account for meat bought from time
to time during ten months, $160. A sues B for gioo and recovers
judgment.
This judgment bars a subsequent action by A for the remaining
$60.] 5
1 Bank of Hindustan, etc., Allison s Case, L. R. 9 Ch. App. 24.
2 Stoate v. Stoate, 2 S. & T. 223 ; both would now be competent wit-
nesses in each suit. [See Woodruff \. Woodruff, 11 Me. 475 ; Bradley
v. Bradley, id. 367.]
3[Farrington v. Payne, 15 Johns. 432; S. P. McCaffrey v. Carter,
125 Mass. 330; Funk v. Funk, 35 Mo. App. 246; cf. Brunsden v.
Humphrey, 14 Q. B. D. 141 ; Bliss v. Ar. Y. Cent. R. Co., 160 Mass.
447. 455-1
4 [Sullivan v. Baxter, 150 Mass. 261.]
6 \Memmer v. Carey, 30 Minn. 458 ; Coal Co. v. Brick Co., 52 Kan.
747 ; Stevens v. Lockwood, 13 Wend. 614 ; contra, Badger v. Titcofnb,
15 Pick. 409 ; cf. Secor v. Sturgis, 16 X. Y. 548.]
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 125
(//) [B, A's tenant, has agreed to pay rent monthly in advance.
When twenty-five months' rent ^s in arrear, A brings one action
against B for the rent of the first twenty-four months, and another
action for that of the last month. This action for a month's rent is
tried first and A recovers judgment.
This judgment bars the maintenance of the action for the twenty-
four months' rent.] '
(z) [A, a physician, sues B, his patient, in a justice's court to recover
the value of his medical services, and upon B's default to appear and
contest the action, recovers judgment.
B afterwards sues A in a superior court to recover damages for
malpractice in rendering said services. The former judgment is con-
clusive in bar of the action. The alleged malpractice being incon-
sistent with the claim that the physician's services were of any value,
it follows that the former judgment, determining that they did have
value, bars the action for malpractice. B might have proved the
malpractice in the first suit to prevent the recovery of judgment by
the physician.] '2
00 [A sues B on a promissory note, and the suit not being defended,
enters judgment for its full face value, without crediting B with a
payment already made thereon. This judgment bars a subsequent
action by B to recover the amount of said payment.] 3
{k) [A sues B, his wife, for divorce on the ground of desertion.
Upon a prior petition by B against A for separate maintenance, it was
decreed that B's living apart from A was for justifiable cause.
This decree bars the action for divorce.]4
1 \Burritt v. Belfy, 47 Ct. 323 ; see Whitaker v. Haivley, 30 Kan.
317 ; Reformed Dutch Church v. Brown, 54 Barb. 191. The authori-
ties are not in accord as to whether a judgment for an instalment of
interest upon a note, after the principal is due, bars a subsequent ac-
tion for the principal. Dulancy v. Payne, 101 111. 325.]
2 [Blair v. Bartlett, 75 N. Y. 150 ; Bell v. Merrifield, 109 N. Y. 202,
210 ; S. P. Dunham v. Bower, JJ N. Y. 76 ; contra, Ressequie v. Byers,
52 Wis. 650 ; Sykes v. Bonner, 1 Cine. (O.) 464 ; see Goble v. Dillon,
86 Ind. 327 ; Lawson v. Conaway, 37 W. Va. 159 ; Howell v. Goodrich,
69 111. 556 ; Haynes v. Ordway, 58 X. H. 167 ; Schopen v. Baldwin, 83
Hun, 234.]
3[Binck v. Wood, 43 Barb. 315 ; Greenabaimi v. Elliott, 60 Mo. 25 ;
Fuller v. Shattuck, 13 Gray, 70 ; Litch v. Clinch, 136 111. 410 ; but see
Lent v. N. Y. £-= M. R. Co., 130 N. Y. 504.]
4 [Miller v. Miller, 150 Mass. in.]
126 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
(/) [An assignee in bankruptcy sued several defendants to de-
termine the title to certain goods, and it was adjudged that the title
was in him. One of these defendants, who claimed title in himself
and had put it in issue in this suit, afterwards sued another of them to
recover the same goods.
The judgment in the first suit is conclusive against the right to re-
cover in the second.] x
(/;/) [A sues B for the conversion of goods which are a part of those
included in a certain bill of sale given by C to B, and A recovers
judgment on the ground that the bill of sale is fraudulent and void.
B afterwards sues A for the residue of the goods covered by the bill
of sale.
The former judgment is deemed conclusive upon the question of
fraud, and defeats B's recovery.]2
(n) [A sues B to recover the price of goods sold and obtains judg-
ment.
Afterwards A sues B to recover damages for fraud in obtaining a
credit for the goods. The former judgment defeats recovery.] 3
Article 42.
statements in judgments irrelevant as between strangers,
except in admiralty cases.
Statements contained in judgments as to the facts upon
which the judgment is based are deemed to be irrelevant
as between strangers, or as between a party or privy and
a stranger,4 except5 in the case of judgments of courts of
1 \Tuska v. O'Brien, 68 N. Y. 446.]
■ [Doty v. Brown, 4 N. Y. 71; see Wilson's Excr. v. Deen, 121 U. S.
525 ; Strauss v. Meertief, 64 Ala. 299.]
a [Cay /us v. N. Y. etc. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 609. It is a general rule that
a prior recovery will bar a subsequent action for the same claim, though
the forms of action be entirely different. Gr. Ev. i. §§ 532, 533 ; Walsh
v. Chesapeake, etc. R. Co., 59 Md. 423 ; Rendall v. School Dist., 75 Me.
358 ; Bradley v. Brigham, 149 Mass. 141.]
4 [Campbell v. Hall, 16 N. Y. 575 ; Railroad Co. v. Nat. Bk., 102 U.
S. 14 ; Jones v. Vert, 121 Ind. 140 ; Wing v. Bishop, 3 Allen, 456.]
5 [This exception is treated by Lord Eldon as an objectionable anom-
aly in Lothian v. Henderson, 3 B. & P. 545- See, too, Castrique v.
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 127
admiralty condemning a ship as prize.1 In such cases the
judgment is conclusive proof as against all persons of the
fact on which the condemnation proceeded, where such
fact is plainly stated upon the face of the sentence.
Illustrations,
(a) The question between A and B is, whether certain lands in Kent
had been disgavelled. A special verdict on a feigned issue between
C and D (strangers to A and B), finding that in the 2d Edw. VI. a dis-
gavelling act was passed in words set out in the verdict, is deemed to
be irrelevant.2
Imrie, L. R. 4 E. & I. App. 434-5. [See Brigham v. Fayerweather,
140 Mass. 411.]
1 [A judgment of a court of admiralty condemning a ship as prize,
or of any competent court condemning property under laws of forfeit-
ure, belongs to the class of judgments commonly called judgments
in rem. It is a general rule that such judgments are conclusive, not
only as to parties and privies, but even as to all the world (Gelston v.
Hoyt, 13 Johns. 561, 3 Wheat. 246; Shores v. Hooper, 153 Mass. 228,
233 ; Brigham v. Fayerweather, 140 Mass. 411, 413 ; Risley v. Phenix
Bk., 83 N. Y. 318, 332). Decisions as to personal status, viz., marriage,
divorce, bastardy, etc., are often included in the same category (Gr.
Ev. i. §§ 525, 541-546; McClurgv. Terry, 21 N. J. Eq. 225 ; see Art.
40, Illustration (/), ante). But an adjudication as to personal status
may, in some cases, only be effectual within the limits of the State
in which the decision is rendered {People v. Baker, 76 N. Y. 78 ; Wh.
Ev. ii. §§ 815-818; cf. Bishop, M. D. & S. ii. §§ 150-158). So attach-
ment suits against non-residents are in the nature of actions in rem,
the property attached being the res {Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 ;
McKinncy v. Collins, 88 N. Y. 216). This general doctrine as to judg-
ments in rem is virtually included in Article 40, supra. See Appendix,
Note XXIII.
The English rule stated in this Article, that the judgment of con-
demnation is conclusive, not only as to title but also as to the grounds
of condemnation stated therein, is upheld also in some American
courts (Croudson v. Leonard, 4 Cr. 434 ; Baxter v. New Fug. /us. Co.,
6 Mass. 277 ; see Citshing v. Laird, 107 U. S. 69, 80 ; Brigham v.
Fayerweather, 140 Mass. 411,413). But in New York it is only prima
facie evidence of such facts, and in a collateral action such evidence
may be rebutted. Dnrant v. Abendroth, 97 N. Y. 132, 141.]
- Doe v. Brydges, 6 M. & G. 282.
128 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
{b) The question is, whether A committed bigamy by marrying B
during the lifetime of her former husband C.
A decree in a suit of jactitation of marriage, forbidding C to claim
to be the husband of A, on the ground that he was not her husband,
is deemed to be irrelevant.1
(c) The question is, whether A, a shipowner, has broken a warranty
to B, an underwriter, that the cargo of the ship whose freight was in-
sured by A was neutral property.
The sentence of a French prize court condemning ship and cargo,
on the ground that the cargo was enemy's property, is conclusive proof
in favor of B that the cargo was enemy's property', (though on the facts
the court thought it was not).2
(d) [The question is, whether A or C is rightfully entitled to hold a
public office.
A judgment in a previous action between A and B to determine the
title to the same office, in which it was declared that A had the rightful
title, is deemed to be irrelevant as against C] 3
Article 43.
effect of judgment not pleaded as an estoppel.
If a judgment is not pleaded by way of estoppel, it is as
between parties and privies deemed to be a relevant fact,
whenever any matter which was or might have been de-
cided 4 in the action in which it was given is in issue, or
is or is deemed to be relevant to the issue, in any sub-
sequent proceeding.
Such a judgment is conclusive proof of the facts which
it decides, or might have decided,4 if the party who gives
evidence of it had no opportunity of pleading it as an
estoppel.5
1 Duchess oj Kingston s Case, 2S. L.C.760; [see William s\. Williams,
3 Barb. Ch. 628.]
2 Geyer v. Aguilar, 7 T. R. 681 ; [see p. 127, note 1, ante.']
3 [People v. Murray, 73 N. Y. 535.]
* [That a judgment is conclusive as to what "might have been de-
cided," see p. 120, note 2, ante.]
5 [It is held in a number of the States of this country that a judg-
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 129
Illustrations.
(a) A sues B for deepening the channel of a stream, whereby the
flow of water to A's mill was diminished.
A verdict recovered by B in a previous action for substantially the
same cause, and which might have been pleaded as an estoppel, is
deemed to be relevant, but not conclusive in B's favor.1
(b) A sues B for breaking and entering A's land, and building
thereon a wall and a cornice. B pleads that the land was his, and.
obtains a verdict in his favor on that plea.
Afterward B's devisee sues A's wife (who on the trial admitted that
she claimed through A) for pulling down the wall and cornice. As
the first judgment could not be pleaded as an estoppel (the wife's
right not appearing on the pleadings), it is conclusive in B's favor
that the land was his.-
ment is equally conclusive when given in evidence, as if pleaded,
even though there was an opportunity to plead it {Chamberlain v.
Carlisle, 26 N. H. 540 ; Westcott v. Edmunds, 68 Pa. 34 ; Tray hem v.
Colburn, 66 Md. 277 ; So. Pac. R. Co. v. U. S., 168 U. S. 1 ; see Foye v.
Patch, 132 Mass. 105 ; Plain v. Plain, 45 Vt. 538 ; Sheldon v. Patterson,
55 111= 507) ; so also as to a foreign judgment ( Whiting v. Purge/; 78
Me. 287). But in many States a statutory rule requires that special
defences (under which the defence of " estoppel by former recovery"
is ordinarily included) be specially pleaded, if there is an opportunity
so to do, in order that evidence thereof shall be admissible ; when so
pleaded and proved the judgment is conclusive ; so also if it is proved
in cases where there was no opportunity to plead it (Panning v. Hiber-
nia Ins. Co., 37 O. St. 344 ; Meiss v. Gill, 44 O. St. 253 ; Piercy v.
Sabin, 10 Cal. 22 ; IVixson v. Devine, 67 Cal. 341 ; Howe v. Minnesota
Milk Ci?.,44Minn. 460 ; Pays v. Trulsgn,2$ Or. 109; Prazillx. Isham,
12 N. Y. 9; Gregory x. Kcnyon, 34 Neb. 640; Porter v. Leache, 56
Mich. 40). But where a judgment is sought to be used, not by way of
estoppel or bar to the action, but as evidence of a material fact in
issue, it may be given in evidence without being specially pleaded.
Krekeler v. Ritter, 62 N. Y. 372 ; Swank v. St. Paul R. Co., 61 Minn.
423-]
1 Vooght x. Winch, 2 B. & A. 662 ; and see Feversham x. Emerson,
11 Ex. 391. [See Plate v. X. Y. C. R. Co., 37 N. Y. 472 ; Powyer v.
Schofield, 1 Abb. Dec. 177; Newell x. Carpenter, 118 Mass. 411.]
• JVhitaker v. Jackson, 2 H. & C. 9?* This hari previously been
doubted. See 2 Ph. Ev. 24, note 4.
i3o A DIGEST OF [Part I.
Article 44.
judgments generally deemed to be irrelevant as
BETWEEN STRANGERS.
Judgments are not deemed to be relevant as rendering
probable facts which may be inferred from their existence,
but which they neither state nor decide —
as between strangers ; '
as between parties and privies in suits where the issue
is different, even though they relate to the same occur-
rence or subject-matter ;2
or in favor of strangers against parties or privies.3
1 [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 522, 523 ; Bartlett v. Boston Gas Co., 122 Mass. 209;
Schrauth v. Dry Dock Bk., 86 N. Y. 390 ; see p. 126, note 4, ante.]
2 [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 532, 533 ; Bell v. Merrifield, 109 N. Y. 202 ; Coleman s
Appeal, 62 Pa. 252 ; Russell v. Place, 94 U. S. 606 ; Norton v. Huxley,
13 Gray, 285 ; see Illustrations (ca), {cb). So a judgment is not binding
on the parties as to matters not passed upon, though they are stated
in the complaint {Sweety. Tuttle, 14 N. Y. 465), or are given in evi-
dence (see Illustration (cc) ; Belden v. State, 103 N. Y. 1), or are im-
properly set up by way of counterclaim {People v. Denison, 84 N. Y.
272); nor as to matters which the judgment does affirm, but which are
immaterial to the issue and not actually in controversy ( Whitney v.
Marshall, 138 Ind. 472 ; House v. Lockzuood, 137 N. Y.259 ; Concha v.
Concha, 1 1 App. Cas. 541 ; Munday v. / 'ail, 34 N. J. L. 418); nor as to
matters which are only incidentally cognizable, or to be inferred by
argument from the judgment (Gr. Ev. i. § 528 ; Hopkins v. Lee, 6
Wheat. 109 ; Schwan v. Kelly, 173 Pa. 65 ; Kitson v. Farwell, 132 111.
527 ; Burlen v. Shannon, 99 Mass. 200) ; nor is a judgment against a
party as an individual binding on him in a suit wherein he appears in
a representative capacity {Collins v. Hydorn, 135 X. Y. 320 ; Lander \.
A mo, 65 Me. 26). A party sought to be bound by a former judgment
must have been a party to both actions in the same character or
capacity (Stale v. Branch, 134 Mo. 592; Fuller v. Metropolitan Ins.
Co. ,68 Ct 55 ; Kitts v. Willson, 140 Ind. 604). A judgment against an
administrator in one State is no evidence of debt in a subsequent ac-
Uon in another State against an administrator of the same decedent.
Johnson v. Powers, 139 U. S. 156; McGarveyv. Darnall, 134 111. 367.]
3 [Burdick v. Norwich, 49 Ct. 225 ; Bissill v. Kellogg, 65 X. Y. 432 ;
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 131
But a judgment is deemed to be relevant as between
strangers :
(1) if it is an admission,1 or
(2) if it relates to a matter of public or general interest,
so as to be a statement under Article 30.*
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A has sustained loss by the negligence
of B, nis servant, who has injured C's horse.
A judgment recovered by C against A for the injury, though con-
clusive as against B as to the fact that C recovered a sum of money
from A, is deemed to be irrelevant to the question whether this was
caused by B's negligence.3
(ab) [B unlawfully creates an obstruction in the street of a city, and
A, being injured thereby, sues the city for damages. The city gives
notice to B to defend the action, and that he will be liable for the
Stamp v. Franklin, 144 N. Y. 607 ; see Phillips v. Jamieson, 51 Mich.
153. But a judgment against one of two or more joint tortfeasors, if
followed by satisfaction (not otherwise), is available to bar a suit against
another (Knapp v. Roche, 94 N. Y. 329 ; Roodhouse v. Christian, 158
111. 137 ; The Beaconsfield, 158 U. S. 303 ; Cleveland v. Bangor, 87 Me.
259 ; Savage v. Stevens, 128 Mass. 254 ; Seilherv. Phila. Traction Co.,
125 Pa. 397); and the rule is the same as to a judgment against one of
two or more persons jointly and severally liable on contract (Sawyer
v. White, 19 Vt. 40); but judgment against one of two or more joint
contractors bars an action against the others, unless they were out of
the jurisdiction so that they could not be served with process. Kings-
ley v. Davis, 104 Mass. 178 ; Russell v. McCall, 141 N. Y. 437, 450;
Yoho v. McGovern, 42 O. St. 11; Kendall v. Hamilton, 4 App. Cas.
504; cf. IVegg Prosserx. Evans, [1895] 1 Q. B. 108.]
1 [Gr. Ev. i. § 527 a ; Rudolph v. Landwerlen, 92 Ind. 34 ; St. Louis
Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 69 Mo. 72 ; Parks v. Mosher, ji Me. 304, holding
it open to explanation ; sec Clark v. Dillon, 97 N. Y. 370.]
- [See Patterson v. Games, 6 How. (U. S.) 550, 599 ; People v. Buck-
laud, 13 Wend. 594.]
3 Green v. New River Company, 4 T. R. 589. [Bank 0/ Oswego v.
Babcock, 5 Hill, 152 ; Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Latham, 63 Me. 177;
Oceanic Nav. Co. v. Compania, 134 N. Y. ^61: Drummondv Prest-
man, 12 Wheat. 515 ; see next note.]
132 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
amount recovered. B does not defend the action, and A recovers
judgment.
In a suit afterwards brought by the city against B for indemnity, the
prior judgment is conclusive evidence against B of the city's liability
to A, of the amount of damages recoverable, and that the injury was
not caused by any default on A's part ; but is not competent to prove
that the injury was caused by B's negligence, which must therefore be
shown.] '
1 [City of Rochester-*. Montgomery, ~i X. Y. 65 ; Robbins v. CJiicago,
4 Wall. 657, 2 Black, 418; Brookville v. Arthurs, 130 Pa. 501; St.
Joseph v. Union R. Co., 1 16 Mo. 636 ; Boston v. Worthington, 10 Gray,
496 ; cf. Mayor v. Brady, 151 N Y. 611 ; Portland v. Richardson, 54
Me. 46. The notice need not be express {Village of Port Jervisv.
First Nat. Bk., 96 N. Y. 550).
The same principle applies in other cases where one party is prima-
rily liable, but has a remedy over against another to obtain indemnity
[Heiserv. Hatch, 86 X. Y. 614 ; Carleton v. Lombard, 149 X. Y. 137,
152 ; Hoppaugh v. McGrath, 53 X. J. L. 81 ; Davis v. Smith, 79 Me.
351 ; Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Packet Co., 70 111. 217). As a general
rule, a judgment against a principal is not binding upon his surety
(though it may be used to prove the fact of its recovery), unless the
latter agreed to indemnify against the results of the suit, or unless he
had notice and opportunity to defend {Thomas v. Hubbcll, 15 X. Y.
405 ; Grammes v. St. Paul Trust Co., 147 111. 634 ; Ball v. Chancellor,
47 X. J. L. 125 ; cf. Giltinan v. Strong, 64 Pa. 242). But sureties upon
official bonds, as administrators' bonds, sheriffs' bonds, etc., are often
held- concluded by such judgments (in the absence of fraud or collu-
sion), though they had no notice, such being deemed the obligation
of their contracts (Harrison v. Clark, 87 X. Y. 572 ; Wheeler v. Sweet,
137 X. Y. 435 ; Tute v. James, 50 \'t. 124 ; McMicken x. Comm., 58 Pa.
213 ; Stovall v. Banks, 10 Wall. 583 ; Nevitt v. Woodburn, 160 111. 203;
'Tracy v. Goodwin, 5 Allen, 409 ; cf. New Haven x. Chidsey, 68 Ct.
397). In some States, however, a judgment against a principal in an
official bond is only prima facie evidence against the sureties (Beau-
chaine x. McKinnon, 55 Minn. 318; Norris x. Mersereau, 74 Mich. 687;
Stephens v. Shafer, 48 Wis. 54 ; cf. Moses x. United Stales, 166 U. S.
571). As to the different kinds of indemnity contracts and the neces-
sity of giving notice, see Bridgeport Bis. Co. v. Wilson, 34 X. Y. 275,
280 ; cf. Konitsky x. Meyer, 49 X. Y. 571.
A judgment recovered by the holder of a bill or note against an
indorser does not, unless it has been satisfied, bar an action against
the acceptor or maker. Gilmore v. Ca*~~** Ma?" ,7i; Ra*'lr~id Co.
x. Xat. Bk., 102 U. S. 14. ]
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 133
(b) The question whether a bill of exchange is forged arises in an
action on the bill. The fact that A was convicted of forging the bill
is deemed to be irrelevant.1
(c) A collision takes place between two ships, A and B, each of
which is damaged by the other.
The owner of A sues the owner of B, and recovers damages on the
ground that the collision was the fault of B's captain. This judgment
is not conclusive in an action by the owner of B against the owner of
A, for the damage done to B.2 {Semble, it is deemed to be irrelevant.) ::
(ca) [A recovers damages from B for a wrongful dismissal from B's
employment before the term of service had expired.
This judgment does not preclude a recovery by A in a subsequent
action of the sum due for wages during the time he was actually em-
ployed, and payable before the dismissal.] 4
(cb) [The will of A is duly admitted to probate by a surrogate's court
having competent jurisdiction.
A's widow afterwards brings action for the admeasurement of her
dower.
The surrogate's record of probate of A's will is not deemed to be
relevant to prove A's death.] 5
(cc) [A sues B to recover the value of board furnished to B's wife,
and recovers judgment; but the judgment does not state whether it is
rendered (1) because B's wife had left him on account of his cruelty,
or (2) because she was absent from him on his credit by his consent.
Evidence to support both grounds was given on the trial.
A afterwards sues B to recover board for a subsequent period, and
1 Per Blackburn, J., in Castrique v. Imrie, L. R. 4 E. & I. App. 434.
[Gr. Ev. i. § 537 ; Corbley v.Wilson, 71 111. 209 ; People v. Kenyon, 93
Mich. 19 ; State v. Bradnack, 69 Ct. 212 ; see Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tis-
dale, 91 U. S. 238, 244 ; Willson v. Manhattan R. Co., 2 Misc. 127, 144
N. Y. 632 ; Harger v. Thomas, 44 Pa. 128.]
2 The Calypso, 1 Swab. Ad. 28.
3 On the general principle in Duchess of Kingston's Case, 2 S. L. C.
813.
4 [Perry v. Bickerson,Ss N. Y. 345; cf. Ohnstead v. Bach.jS Md.
I32-]
"[Carroll v. Carroll, 60 N. Y. 121; S. P. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tisdale,
91 U. S. 238 ; cf. Matter of Patteson, 146 N. Y. 327 ; Pick v. Strong, 26
Minn. 303 ; Kearne^ v. Venn, 15 Wall. 51 : Bn>ham v. Faverisjeat^"r^
140 Mass. 41 1.1
134 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
sues now expressly on the ground that B's wife had left him for his
cruelty. The former judgment is conclusive evidence that B's wife
was absent from him during the prior period for some justifiable cause,
but not that that cause was his cruelty, unless the jury find, from parol
evidence submitted to show what was proved in the former trial, that
the former jury gave their verdict on the ground of cruelty.] '
{d) A is prosecuted and convicted as a principal felon.
B is afterwards prosecuted as an accessory to the felony committer
by A.
The judgment against A is deemed to be irrelevant as against B,
though A's guilt must be proved as against B.2
(<?) A sues B, a carrier, for goods delivered by A to B.
A judgment recovered by B against a person to whom he had deliv-
ered the goods, is deemed to be relevant as an admission by B that he
had them.3
(/) A sues B for trespass on land.
A judgment, convicting A for a nuisance by obstructing a highway
on the place said to have been trespassed on, is (at least) deemed to
be relevant to the question whether the place was a public highway
(and is possibly conclusive).4
Article 45.
judgments conclusive in favor of judge.
When any action is brought against any person for
anything done by him in a judicial capacity, the judg-
ment delivered, and the proceedings antecedent thereto,
1 \Thtrlcn v. Shannon, 14 Gray, 433 ; cf. Lewis v. Ocean Nav. Co.,
125 N. V. 341.]
'•' Semble from R. v. Turner, 1 Moo. C. C. 347. [In this country it is
generally held that the judgment against A is admissible in such a
case, and is prima facie evidence of A's guilt, but not conclusive. B
may, therefore, controvert it. Levy v. People, 80 N. Y. 327 ; State v.
Mosley, 31 Kan. 355 ; Anderson v. State, 63 Ga. 675 ; State v. Glcim,
17 Mont. 17 ; Bishop, New Cr. Pro. ii. § 12 ; cf. Comm. v. Elisha, 3
Gray, 460 ; Jones v. People, 20 Hun, 545, 81 N. Y. 637.]
3 Buller, N. P. 242, b.
4 Petrie v. Nutlall, 1 1 Ex. 569.
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 135
are conclusive proof of the facts therein stated, whether
they are or are not necessary to give the defendant juris-
diction, if, assuming them to be true, they show that he
had jurisdiction.
Illustration.
A sues B (a justice of the peace) for taking from him a vessel and
500 lbs. of gunpowder thereon. B produces a conviction before him-
self of A for having gunpowder in a boat on the Thames (against 2
Geo. III. c. 28).
The conviction is conclusive proof for B, that the thing called a boat
was a boat.1
Article 46.
fraud, collusion, or want of jurisdiction may be proved.
Whenever any judgment is offered as evidence under
any of the Articles hereinbefore contained, the party
1 Brittain v. Kinnaird, 1 B. & B. 432. [People v. House of Mercy,
133 N. Y. 207 ; People v. N. Y. Protectory, 106 N. Y. 604 ; see Harman
v. Brotherson, 1 Den. 537 ; People v. Collins, 19 Wend. 56, 62 ; Udells
v. Stevens, 2 Gray, 115,1 19. It is stated as a general rule (not limited
to actions against judges) that when the jurisdiction of a court depends
upon a fact which the court is required to ascertain and determine in
its decision, such decision is final, until reversed or vacated in a diiect
proceeding for that purpose (Otis v. The Rio Grande, 1 Woods, 279;
Cotton v. Beardsley, 38 Barb. 29, 51 ; Ex parte Sternes, 77 Cal. 156;
Dyckman v. Mayor of N. Y., 5 N. Y. 434, 440 ; see Austin v. Vrooman,
128 N. Y. 229 ; Bolton v. Shriever, 135 N. Y. 65), and will protect all
persons acting upon it in good faith. But in other cases in which some
fact must exist to give jurisdiction, a court or judicial officer cannot
acquire jurisdiction simply by deciding that such fact exists ; the
proceeding is a nullity, and its invalidity maybe shown in a collateral
proceeding (Roderigas v. East River Sav. Inst., 63 N. Y. 460, 464 ;
Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34 ; People v. Bd. of Health, 140 N. Y. 1 ;
Miller v. Amsterdam, 149 N. Y. 288; see McLean v. Jephson, 123
N. Y. 142). The distinction between the two classes of cases is con-
sidered in People s Sav. Bk. v. Wilcox, 15 R. I. 258, and Noble v.
Union Riv. R. Co., 147 U. S. 165, 173.]
136 A DIGEST OF [Part 1.
against whom it is so offered may prove that the court
which gave it had no jurisdiction,1 or that it has been
1 [On the ground that " a record imports absolute verity," it is a gen-
erally received common law doctrine in this country that while the
judgment of a domestic court of general jurisdiction, acting in the
scope of its general powers, may be avoided by a party or privy in a
collateral proceeding for lack of jurisdiction apparent on the face of
the record itself, yet that it cannot be so impeached when the recitals
of the record show that the court had jurisdiction (Blaisdell v. Pray,
68 Me. 269 ; Finneran v. Leonard, 7 Allen, 54 ; Cuh'er's Appeal, 48
Ct. 165, 173; McCahill v. Equitable Assur. Soc, 26 N. J. Eq. 531
Frankel v. Satterfield, 9 Houst. 201 ; Adams v. Cowles, 95 Mo. 501
Sandwich Co. v. Earl, 56 Minn. 390 ; Hill v. City Cab Co., 79 Cal. 188
People v. Seelye, 146 111. 189; Harman v. Moore, 112 Ind. 221 ; Wall
v. Wall, 123 Pa 545) ; nor when the record fails to recite facts show-
ing jurisdiction, for then, as to such courts, jurisdiction is presumed
(Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall. 350; Bateman v. Miller, 118 Ind. 345;
McClanahan v. West, too Mo. 309; In re Eickhoff, 101 Cal. 600).
But there has been much diversity of opinion as to the doctrine that
such a record cannot be impeached collaterally when its recitals
show jurisdiction or are silent on the point {Ferguson v. Crawford, 70
N. Y. 253, 86 N. Y. 609 ; Martin v. Gray, 19 Kan. 458 ; In re Watson,
30 Kan. 753 ; Frankel v. Satterfield, supra). Judgments of inferior
courts, or of courts of limited jurisdiction, or even of courts of general
jurisdiction acting in the exercise of special statutory powers not ac-
cording to the course of the common law, may, however, be attacked
collaterally, as a general rule, for lack of jurisdiction ; the jurisdiction
of such courts is not presumed, but must be affirmatively made to
appear (Id.; Coit v. Haven, 30 Ct. 190 ; Galpin v. Page, supra ; People
v. Warden, 100 N. Y. 20; Fahey v. Mottu, 67 Md. 250; Richardson
v. Seevers, 84 Ya. 259 ; Furgeson v. Jones, 17 Or. 204 ; Smith v. Claus-
tneier, 136 Ind. 120; State v. Mobile, etc. R. Co., 108 Ala. 31 ; but see
Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391). The States differ, however, to some
extent, in classifying courts as superior or inferior under these rules.
Thus generally a court of a justice of the peace is ranked as an inferior
court ( Turner v. Roby, 3 N. Y. 193; Fahey v. Mottu, 67 Md. 250; Clay-
born v. Tompkins, 141 Ind. 19), but in some States it is classed with
the superior courts {Hendrick v. Whittemore, 105 Mass. 23, 28). So
probate courts or orphans' courts are of limited jurisdiction in some
States {Fowle v. Coe, 63 Me. 245; Peoples Sav. Bk. v. Wilcox, 15
R. I. 258; Sears v. Terry, 26 Ct. 273; cf. Smith v. Wild man, 178 Pa.
245), but in others of superior jurisdiction (J/accyv. Stark, 116 Mo.
Chap. IV.] , THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 137
reversed,1 or, if he is a stranger to it, that it was obtained
by any fraud or collusion,2 to which neither he nor any
person to whom he is privy was a party.3
If an action is brought in an English court to enforce
the judgment of a foreign court, and probably if an action
481 ; State v. Mobile, etc. R. Co., 108 Ala. 29, 39 ; Bolton v. Schriever,
135 N. Y. 65 ; Clark v. Costello, 59 N. J. L. 234).
These rules as to questioning jurisdiction are subject to the limita-
tion set forth in Article 45, note 1 {Noble v. Union Riv. R. Co., 147
U. S. 165).
In some States, however, in which equitable defences are allowed
in legal actions, fraud in acquiring jurisdiction may be interposed as
a defence against the judgments of even the higher courts, notwith-
standing this contradicts the record {Ferguson v. Crawford, supra-;
Clark v. Little, 41 la. 497 ; Hogg v. Link, 90 Ind. 346 ; see Morrill v.
Morrill, 20 Or. 96).
As to all courts, it is a general rule that their judgments cannot be
impeached collaterally by parties or privies for error or irregularity.
Comstock v. Crawford, 3 Wall. 396 ; Weiss v. Guerinean, 109 Ind.
438; Caulfeldv. Sullivan, 85 N. Y. 153.]
1 [Smit/i v. Frankfield, jj N. Y. 414 ; Clodfelter v. Hulett, 92 Ind.
426. While an appeal from a judgment is pending, the judgment
still operates as an estoppel {Parkhurst v. Berdell, no N. Y. 386;
Smith v. Schreiner, 86 Wis. 19 ; Moore v. Williams, 132 111. 589).
But in some States the .contrary rule prevails. Harris v. Barnhart,
97 Cal. 546 ; Sherman v. Dilley, 3 Nev. 21.]
2 [A stranger but not a party, may avoid a judgment collaterally for
fraud {Ogle v. Baker, 137 Pa. 378 ; /;/ re Burdick, 162 111. 48 ; Davis
v. Davis, 61 Me. 395). So a stranger may impeach a judgment col-
laterally for lack of jurisdiction {Buffum v. Ramsdell, 55 Me. 252 ;
Fall River v. Riley, 140 Mass. 488). But as a party may in a proper
case bring suit in equity to avoid a judgment procured by fraud [Mar-
shall v. Holmes, 141 U. S. 589 ; Mayor v. Brady, 1 15 N. Y. 599), so in
some States he may set up such fraud as an equitable defence {Man-
deville v. Reynolds, 68 N. Y. 543-546 ; Ferguson v. Crawford, 70 N. Y.
253 ; Stowell v. Eld?-ed, 26 Wis. 504 ; Hallack v. Loft, 19 Col. 74 ; see
Duringer \ . Moschino, 93 Ind. 495). And when the fraud is in acquir-
ing jurisdiction, the rules in note 1, p. 136, supra, apply; see Bollingv.
Speller, 96 Ala. 269.]
3 Cases collected in T. E. ss. 1 524-1 525, s. 1530. See, too, 2 Ph. Ev.
35, and Ochsenbein v. Papelier, L. R. 8 Ch. 695.
138 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
is brought in an English court to enforce the judgment
of another English court, any such matter as aforesaid
may be proved by the defendant, even if the matter
alleged as fraud was alleged by way of defence in the
foreign court and was not believed by them to exist.1
Illustration,
(a) [Judgment is rendered against A in a common law action for
damages in a domestic court of general jurisdiction. He has never
been served with process in the action nor has he authorized any
attorney to appear for him and thus give the court jurisdiction over
his person. In fact, however, B, a duly admitted attorney of the court,
has appeared for A in the action and the recitals of the record show
such appearance. A cannot impeach the judgment collaterally on
the ground that B had no authority to appear for him. He may, how-
ever, attack the judgment by a direct proceeding for that purpose, as
by a motion in the original action to vacate it.] 2
Article 47.
foreign judgments.
The provisions of Articles 40-46 apply to such of the
judgments of courts of foreign countries as can by law
1 Abouloff v. Oppenheimer, 10 Q. B. D. 295. [It was held in this
case that fraud in procuring a judgment in a foreign court was a good
defence to an action upon the judgment, though the fact whether such
fraud existed had been investigated in the foreign court. To the same
effect is Vadala v. Lawes, 25 Q. B. D. 310. As to the American law
on this question, see Art. 47, note.]
2 [Vilas v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co., 123 N. Y. 440 ; Mutual Life Ins.
Co. v. Pinner, 43 N. J. Eq. 52 ; Bradley v. Welch, 100 Mo. 258 ; Cor-
bitt v. Timmerman, 95 Mich. 581 ; Reynolds v. Fleming, 30 Kan. 106 ,
Cleveland v. Hopkins, 55 Wis. 387 ; Denton v. Roddy, 34 Ark. 642.
By some authorities, also, an action for damages will lie against the
attorney, if any loss has been sustained by his unauthorized act
{Everett v. Warner Bk., 58 N. H. 340; Hackett v. McMillan, 112
N. C. 513). In Ferguson v. Crawford, 70 N. Y. 253, where there was
Chap. IV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 139
be enforced in this country, and so far as they can be so
enforced.1
what purported to be an attorney's appearance, but this was a forgery,
this fraud was held available by way of equitable defence to impeach
the judgment. Some States allow judgments entered upon an un-
authorized appearance to be collaterally attacked. Bruschke v. N.
Chicago Verein, 145 111. 433 ; cf. Shelton v. Tiffiii, 6 How. (U. S.) 163.]
1 The cases on this subject are collected in the note on the Duchess
of Kingston s Case, 2 S. L. C. 813-845. A list of the cases will be found
in R. N. P. 221-3. The last leading cases on the subject are Godard
v. Gray, L. R. 6 Q. B. 139, and Castrique v. Imrie, L. R. 4 E. & I. App.
414. See, too, Schisby v. Westenholz, L. R. 6 Q. B. 155 ; Rousillon v.
Rousillon, 14 Ch. D. 370 ; and Nonvion v. Freeman, 15 App. Cas. 1.
[The judgments of sister States are in this country ranked as foreign
judgments within this rule. The U. S. Constitution (Art. 4, §1) de-
clares that " full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the
public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State,"
and Congress has enacted that " the said records shall have such faith
and credit given to them in every court within the United States as
they have by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they
are taken " (U. S. Rev. St. §905 ; see Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S.
657; Harrington v. Harrington, 154 Mass. 517; Dow v. Blake, 148
111. 76 ; Fairchild v. Fairchild, 53 N. J. Eq. 678). Nevertheless, such
judgments may be avoided collaterally for lack of jurisdiction, even
in contradiction of recitals in the record showing jurisdiction ( Thomp-
son v. Whitman, 18 Wall. 457 ; Graham v. Spencer, 14 F. R. 603 ;
Gregory v. Gregory, 78 Me. 187 ; Cross v. Cross, 108 N. Y. 628 ; Royal
Arcanum v. Carley, 52 N. J. Eq. 642 ; Price v. Schaeffler, 161 Pa. 530 ;
Gree7tzweig v. Sterlinger, 103 Cal. 278 ; Napton v. Leatt>n, 71 Mo. 358 ;
People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 247 ; Pennywit v. Foote, 27 O. St. 600 ;
Gilman v. Gilman, 126 Mass. 26); so they may be avoided for fraud
in acquiring jurisdiction over the person {Stanton v. Crosby, 9 Hun,
370 ; Toof v. Fooley, 87 la. 8 ; cf. Brown v. Eaton, 98 Ind. 591). So
fraud otherwise committed in procuring the judgment (if the party
was debarred, without fault on his part, from availing himself of such
fraud as a defence in the original suit), would be a sufficient ground
in equity to have the judgment set aside {Doughty v. Doughty, 27 N. J.
Eq. 315 ; Payne v. O' Shea, 84 Mo. 129 ; cf. Davis v. Cornice, 151 N. Y.
172), and may be set up in some States as an equitable defence to the
judgment {Dobso?i v. Pearce, 12 N. Y. 156 ; Rogers v. Gwinn, 21 la.
58 ; Keeler v. Elston, 22 Neb. 310 ; see Hunt v. Hunt, 72 N. Y. 217).
Except in equity, however, fraud in obtaining such a judgment is not
i4o A DIGEST OF [Part
a sufficient defence to an action upon it {Simmons v. Suit/, 138 I . S.
439,459; Allison v. Chapman, [9 F. R. 488; see Mooney v. /finds,
160 Mass. 469; Ambler x. Whipple, 139 111. 311). Such judgments are,
moreover, not impeachable upon the merits for error or for irregu-
larity {Pringie v. Woodworth, 90 N. Y. 502 ; Christmas v. Russell, 5
Wall. 290 ; Harryman v. Roberts, 52 Md. 64 ; National Bk. v. Wallis,
59 N. J. L. 46 ; see Nichols v. Nichols, 25 N. J. Eq. 60).
Similar principles apply to foreign judgments. They may be im-
peached for lack of jurisdiction, but are generally held to be conclu-
sive upon the merits {Ritchie v. McMullen, 159 U. S. 235 ; Dunstan v.
Higgins, 138 N. Y. 20; Shepardv. Wright, 113 N. Y. 582 ; Lazier v.
Westcott, 26 N. Y. 146; Fisher v. Fielding, 67 Ct. 91; McEwan v.
Zimmer, 38 Mich. 765; Smith v. Grady, 68 Wis. 215; Rischcff v.
Wethcrel, 9 Wall. 812 ; 7fo//* v. /fo///, 104 111. 35). It is also generally
declared that they are impeachable for fraud (see cases supra ; Baker
v. Palmer, 83 111. 568), but for what forms of fraud or under what cir-
cumstances is wholly unsettled in this country {Hilton v. Guyot, 159
U. S. 1 13, 206, 207). An important decision of the U. S. Supreme Court
holds, however, that a judgment rendered in a foreign country, as
France, which does not regard our own judgments as conclusive, will
not be deemed conclusive in our courts, but only prima facie evidence
of the justice of the claim upon which the judgment was recovered
{Hilton v. Guyot, supra).
As to the effect of a judgment in another State obtained by default
upon service of process by publication on a non-resident or foreign
corporation and an attachment of defendant's property, see Pennoyer
v.Neff,^ U. S. 714; Fitzsimons v. Marks, 66 Barb. 333; Gil man v.
Gilman, 126 Mass. 26. Such judgment only avails as quasi in rem to
reach the property attached, but is not valid, either in the State where
rendered or in other States, as a judgment in personam (Id.; St. Clair
v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350 ; National Bk. v. Peabody, 55 Vt. 492 ; Needham
v. Thayer, 147 Mass. 536; Eastman v. Dearborn, 63 N. H.364; Ward v.
Boyce, 152 N. Y. 191); see generally as to judgments in rem, Durant
f. Abendroth,g7 N.Y. 132.]
Chap. V.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 141
CHAPTER V.*
OPINIONS, J J 'HEX RELE VA NT A ND WHEN NO T.
Article 48.
opinion generally irrelevant.
The fact that any person is of opinion that a fact in issue,
or relevant or deemed to be relevant to the issue, does or
does not exist is deemed to be irrelevant to the existence
of such fact,1 except in the cases specified in this chapter.2
* See Note XXIV. [Appendix].
1 [It is a general rule that witnesses must give evidence oi facts, not
of opinions (Conn. Ins. Co. v. Lathrop, in U. S. 612, 618; Graham
v. Pa. Co., 139 Pa. 149 ; Coatcs v. Burlington, etc. R. Co., 62 la. 486;
Chamberlain v. Piatt, 68 Ct. 126; Teerpenningw. Corn Ex. Ins. Co.,
43 N. Y. 279). This is especially true of opinions relating directly to
the questions of law or fact at issue in the action. These are ques-
tions to be determined by court or jury from the facts in evidence.
Id.; Bitffum v. Jones, 144 Mass. 29; Cannon v. People, 141 111. 270;
Insley v. Shire, 54 Kan. 793 ; see Illustrations (b) and (c).]
2 [Besides the exceptions stated by the author, the following are
recognized: (1) The subscribing witnesses to a will may state their
opinions as to the testator's sanity at the time of executing the will
{Egbert v. Egbert, 78 Pa. 326 ; Williams v. Spender, 150 Mass. 346 ;
Hewlett v. Wood, 55 N. Y. 634). (2) In many States, witnesses who
are not experts may state their opinion as to a person's sanity or in-
sanity, in connection with a statement of the facts within their personal
knowledge and observation, upon which that opinion is based (Conn.
Ins. Co. v. Lathrop, in U. S. 612 ; Hardy v. Merrill, 56 N. H. 227 ;
Foster s Excrs. v. Dickerson, 64 Yt. 233 ; Kimberlys Appeal, 68 Ct.
428 ; Genz v. State, 58 N. J. L. 482 ; Elcessor v. Elcessor, 146 Pa. 359 ;
Stumph v. Muller, 142 Ind. 442 ; Denning v. Butcher, 91 la. 425 ;
N. Y. etc. R. Co. v. Luebeck, 157 111. 595; Holland v. Zollner, 102 Cal.
633 ; Chase v. Winans, 59 Md. 475 ; Fishburne v. Ferguson, 84 Va. 87;
Newcomb v. Newcomb, 96 Ky. 120 ; Prentis v. Bates, 93 Mich. 234;
U2 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
Illustrations,
(a) The question is, whether A, a deceased testator, was sane or not
when he made his will. His friends' opinions as to his sanity, as ex-
State v. Williamson, 106 Mo. 162 ; Baughman v. Baughman, 32 Kan.
538). In New York this is not permissible, but the witness may testify
to acts and declarations known or observed by him, and characterize
them as rational or irrational acts or declarations (Holcomb v. Hol-
comb, 95 N. Y. 316 ; People v. Strait, 148 N. Y. 566). And so in Massa-
chusetts testimony of opinion as to general soundness or unsoundness
of mind is not received from non-experts, but still it has been held
permissible to ask such a witness whether he ever observed any fact
which led him to infer that there was any derangement of intellect,
or whether a person had failed mentally within a given time {May v.
Bradlee, 127 Mass. 414 ; Clark v. Clark, 168 Mass. 523). (3) So gen-
erally the opinions of non-experts, when based upon facts known and
observed by them, are admissible as to many matters upon which men
in general, without expert training, are competent to form a reliable
opinion. An important reason for this rule is that if only the facts
upon which such opinions were based could be stated to the jury, such
facts could not usually be described so perfectly as to enable the' jury
to form a just and satisfactory conclusion from them {Koccis v. State,
56 N. J. L. 44 ; Shelby v. Clagett, 46 O. St. 549 ; Laughlin v. Street A'.
Co., 62 Mich. 220 ; State v. Rainsbarger, 71 la. 746). Such testimony
of opinion is received as to a person's identity (State v. Dickson, 78
Mo. 438; People v. Rolfe, 61 Cal. 540); a person's age (Comm. v.
O'Brien, 134 Mass. 198 ; Eisner v. Supreme Lodge, 98 Mo. 640) ; a
person's appearance or state of health (Cartilage Turnpike Co. v.
Andrews, 102 Ind. 138; Chicago R. Co. v. Van Vleck, 143 111. 480;
Smalley v. Appleton, 70 Wis. 3401 ; whether a person was drunk or
sober (Felska v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 152 X. Y. 339 ; Cook v. Bis. Co., 84
Mich. 12 ; Castner v. Sliker, 33 N. J. L. 507) ; sick or well (Elliott v.
Van Buren, 33 Mich. 49; Robinson v. Exempt Fire Co., 103 Cal. 1 ;
Higbie v. Life Ins. Co., 53 N. Y. 603 ; but not as to the nature of a
sickness, Shawneetown v. Mason, 82 111. 337) ; nervous, or calm, or
excited, or angry (Dimiel; v. Downs, 82 111. 570; White v. Beatty, 64
la. 333) ; that a person had good eyesight (Adams v. People, 63 N. Y.
621) ; that a horse was frightened or tired (Darling v. Westmoreland,
52 X. H. 401 ; State v. Ward, 61 \'t. 153) ; that a highway was in good
repair or was dangerous (A'elleher v. Keokuk, 60 la. 473; Ryan v.
Bristol, 63 Ct. 26) ; and many like matters. See many illustrations
given in Sydleman v. Beckwith, 43 Ct. 9 ; Hardy v. Merrill, 56 X. H.
227; Comm. v. Sturtivant, 117 Mass. 122; McKillop \ . Duluth R. Co.,
53 Minn. 532 ; see Illustrations (d) and (e).]
Chap. V.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 143
pressed by the letters which they addressed to him in his lifetime, are
deemed to be irrelevant.1
(b) [An action is brought to recover damages for a tort or breach of
contract, or compensation is sought for land taken by eminent domain.
The opinions of witnesses as to the amount of damage sustained by
the plaintiff from the act complained of are deemed to be irrelevant.
The jury are to estimate the damages from the facts proved.]2
1 Wright v. Doe d. Tat ham, 7 A. & E. 313; [as to this case, see
Conn. Ins. Co. v. Lathrop, m U. S. 612, 622 ; People v. Montgomery,
13 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 207, 249.]
2 {Morehouse v. Mathews, 2 N. Y. 514 ; Roberts v. N. Y. El. R. Co.,
128 N. Y. 455; Bain v. Cushman, 60 Vt. 343; Railway Co. v. Gardner,
45 O. St. 309; Hartley v. Keokuk, etc. R. Co., 85 la. 455 ; Spencer v.
Metropolitan R. Co., 120 Mo. 154 ; Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Wilkinson,
55 Kan. 83 ; Jameson v. Kent, 42 Neb. 412 ; but in some States such
testimony is admissible {Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Nix, 137 III. 141 ;
Portland, etc. R. Co. v. Deering, 78 Me. 61 ; Shattuck v. Stoneham R.
Co., 6 Allen, 115).
It is a general rule, however, that evidence of opinion as to the value
of houses, lands, chattels, medical, legal, or other services, etc., will
be received from persons having special knowledge and experience
concerning such matters (Hills v. Home Ins. Co., 129 Mass. 345 ; Shea
v. Hudson, 165 Mass. 43 ; Montana R. Co. v. Warren, 137 U. S. 348;
McElhenyv. Bridge Co., 153 Pa. 108; Wallace v. Schaub, 81 Md. 594;
Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Wallace, 136 111. 87 ; Edgecomb v. Buckhout,
146 N. Y. 332 ; Whiton v. Snyder, 88 N. Y. 299; Reynolds v. Robinson,
64 N. Y. 589). This is in the nature of expert testimony, though it is
not necessary that a witness as to the value of property should be a
skilled expert, in the strict sense of that term (Kelley v. Richardson,
69 Mich. 430 ; Erickson v. Draskowski, 94 id. 551 ; Latham v. Brown,
48 Kan. 190) ; thus not only real estate brokers or appraisers, but also
other persons conversant with land values in a certain locality, may
testify as to the value of a particular lot or farm there situated {Clark
v. Baird, 9 N. Y. 183 ; Blake v. Griswold, 103 N. Y. 429 ; Lyman v.
Boston, 164 Mass. 99 ; Lee v. Springfield Co., 176 Pa. 223 ; Mayor of
Baltimore v. Smith, 80 Md. 458; Pike v. Chicago, 155 111. 656; Kansas
City R. Co. v. Eh ret, 41 Kan. 22 ; but see Laing v. United N. J. R.
Co., 54 N. J. L. 576). But such opinion evidence is not necessarily
controlling upon the judgment of the jury (Head v. Hargrave, 105
U. S. 45)-
Evidence of opinion has been received as to the value of land both
[44 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
(c) [The question is, which of two deeds conveys a greater right. A
witness cannot be examined as to his opinion upon this point.]1
(d) [In an action for breach of promise of marriage, the question is
whether the plaintiff was sincerely attached to the defendant.
Witnesses who lived with the plaintiff during the courtship and ob-
served her deportment may give in evidence their opinions upon this
question.]2
(e) [The question is, upon a trial for murder, whether certain hairs
are human hairs and like the hair of the deceased.
Witnesses, who knew the deceased, may state their opinions on this
point, though they are not experts.] 3
Article 49.
opinions of experts on points of science or art.
When there is a question as to any point of science or
art, the opinions upon that point of persons specially
skilled in any such matter are deemed to be relevant
facts.
Such persons are hereinafter called experts.
The words "science or art" include all subjects on
which a course of special study or experience is neces-
sary to the formation of an opinion,4 and amongst others
the examination of handwriting.
before and after an injury thereto, or before and after a part thereof
has been taken by eminent domain {Sexton v. N. Bridgewater, 116
Mass. 200; Carter v. Thurston, 58 N. H. 104 ; Lewis v. Springfield
Co., 176 Pa. 230). This is not only allowed in States which receive
opinion evidence as to damages (Id.; Snow v. B. &* M. R. Co., 65
Me. 230), but also in States which reject such evidence. Yost v. Con-
roy, 92 Ind. 464 ; Cleveland, etc. R. Co. v. Ball, 5 O. St. 568 ; Roberts
v. N. Y El. R. Co., 128 N. Y. 455, 467.]
1 [Bennett v. Clenicnce, 6 Allen, 10.]
2 \McKee v. Nelson, 4 Cow. 355 ; see Vanderpool v. Richardson, 52
Mich. 336; State v. Stackhonse, 24 Kan. 445.]
z[Comm. v. Dorsey, 103 Mass. 412.]
4 1 S. L. C. 555, 7th ed. (note to Carter v. Bochin); 28 Vict. c. 18, s.
18. [Gr. Ev. i. § 440 ; Spring Co. v. Edgar, 99 U. S. 645, 657 ; Jones v.
Chap. V.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 145
When there is a question as to a foreign law, the opin-
ions of experts who in their profession are acquainted
with such law are the only admissible evidence thereof,
though such experts may produce to the court books
which they declare to be works of authority upon the
foreign law in question, which books the court, having
received all necessary explanations from the expert, may
construe for itself.1
Tucker, 41 N. H. 546 ; Coyle v. Comm., 104 Pa. 1 17 ; Muldowney v. ///.
Cent. R. Co., 36 la. 462 ; Ferguson v. Hubbell, 97 N. Y. 507. An expert
may not only testify to opinions, but may state general facts which
are the result of scientific knowledge {Emerson v. Lowell Gas Co., 6
Allen, 146) ; or may testify as to the natural and reasonably probable
future consequences of a certain state of facts concerning which his
special knowledge qualifies him to judge (Slrohm v. A7. Y. etc. R. Co.,
96 N. Y. 305 ; Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Lucas, 119 Ind. 583 ; Clason v.
Milwaukee, 30 Wis. 316; cf. Turner v. Newburgh, 109 N. Y. 301).
But the opinions of experts are not admissible upon matters of com-
mon knowledge ; as these are within common observation and ex-
perience, the jurors are deemed qualified to judge without expert aid
{Ferguson v. Hubbell, supra ; Milwaukee R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. S.
469; N.J: Traction Co. v. Brabban, 57 N. J. L. 691 ; Hughes v. Richter,
161 111. 409; Stumore v. Shaw, 68 Md. 11 ; Doonerx. Canal Co., 164
Pa. 17 ; Knoll v. State, 55 Wis. 249; see Illustrations £■ and h). Nor,
in general, is expert testimony received as to the very point in issue
in the case (Illustration (7); Seymour v. Fellows, 77 N. Y. 180; Buxton
v. Somerset Works, 121 Mass. 446; Noonanv. Stale, 55 Wis. 258 ; ///.
Cent. R. Co. v. People, 143 111. 434); though this is sometimes permis-
sible, when the jury need such aid to properly decide the question.
Transportation Line v. Hope, 95 U. S. 297 ; Van Wycklen v. Brook-
lyn, 118 N. Y. 424 ; Quinn v. N. Y. etc. R. Co., 56 Ct. 44.]
1 Baron de Bodes Case, 8 Q. B. 250-267 ; Di Sora v. Phillipps, 10 H.
L. 624 ; Castrique v. Lmrie, L. R. 4 E. & I. App. 434 ; see, too, Pictons
Case, 30 S. T. 510-51 1. [That the unwritten or common law of other
States or countries may be proved by expert testimony is well settled
in this country (Mowry v. Chase, 100 Mass. 79; Funis v. Smith, 14
How. (U. S.) 400 ; Jenne v. Harrisville, 63 N. H. 405 ; In re Roberts'
Will, 8 Pai. 446), and is often declared in statutes, which also gener-
ally provide that in proving the common law of another State or Ter-
ritory in the United States, the books of reports of cases may be given
i46 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
It is the duty of the judge to decide, subject to the
opinion of the court above, whether the skill of any per-
son in the matter on which evidence of his opinion is
in evidence (see e.g., N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. § 942 ; Maine Rev. St. c. 82,
ss. 108, 109; Mass. Pub. St. c. 169, ss. 72, 73; 1 N. J. Rev. p. 381 ; 2 How.
St. (Mich.) §§ 7508, 7509). Sometimes the latter provision is also ex-
tended to the law of foreign countries (Id. ; see The Pawashick, 2
Lowell, 142).
In proof of foreign written law, expert evidence is deemed admis-
sible in some States, either with or without a copy of such law {Bar-
rows v. Downs, 9 R. I. 446 ; Hall v. Costello, 48 X. H. 176 ; see Hen-
nessy v. Farrelly, 13 Daly, 468); but sometimes statutes provide that
such evidence may be rejected, unless accompanied by such a copy
{Pierce v'.Indseth, 106 U. S. 546 ; see statutes supra). But other modes
of proof are also in common use, as by an officially printed volume of
the law or a duly authenticated copy (see Art. 84, post). This is the
generally established mode of proving the statute law of Congress or
of the sister States (see Art. Si, post). An expert or other credible
witness may testify as to the official or authoritative character of the
printed volume, etc. {Pacific Gas Co. v. W'heelock, 80 N. Y. 278;
Hynes v. McDermott, 82 N. Y. 41, 54 ; Spaulding v. Vincent, its, Vt.
501; Dundee Mortgage Co. v. Cooper, 26 F. R. 665). The construc-
tion of a statute of another State by the courts of that State may be
shown by expert testimony or by the law reports of that State or by
both {Bollinger v. Gallagher, 163 Pa. 245, 170 Pa. 84).
The expert is usually a lawyer of the State or country whose law is
to be proved, but the testimony of other persons acquainted with the
law may be received in proper cases ( Vander Donct v. Thellusson, 8
C. B. 812; Pickardv. Bailey, 26 N. H. 152; American Life Ins. Co.
v. Rosenagle, 77 Pa. 507).
Evidence of the foreign law must be first introduced in the trial
court, not in the appellate court. The question what the foreign law
is is usually deemed a question of fact, unless it involves merely the
construction of a written statute or judicial opinion, when it is a ques-
tion of law {Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S. 1; UJfordx. Spaulding,
156 Mass. 65 ; Molsons Bk. v. Boardman, 47 Hun, 135 ; Alexanders.
Pennsylvania Co., 48 O. St. 623). In the absence of proof of the for-
eign law or that of another State, the law of the forum is applied (Me-
Intyre v. B. <S^ M. R. Co., 163 Mass. 189 ; Musser v. Staujffer, 178 Pa.
99; Slaughter v. Bernards, 88 Wis. in). In this country, when the
law of a sister State is not proved, it is the common law of the forum,
Chap. V.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 147
offered is sufficient to entitle him to be considered as an
expert.1
The opinion of an expert as to the existence of the
and not the statute law, which is generally held applicable {Carpenter
v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 72 Me. 388 ; O'Reilly v. N. Y. etc. R. Co., 16
R. I.389; Kelley v. Kelley, 161 Mass. n 1; Lane v. Wheelwright, 69
Hun, 180, 143 N. Y. 634 ; Jackson v. Pittsburgh, etc. R. Co., 140 Ind.
241 ; Rice v. Rankans, 101 Mich. 380, note ; Mohr v. Miesen, 47 Minn.
228 ; Burdict v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 123 Mo. 221 ; Kahl v. Memphis, etc.
R. Co., 95 Ala. 337 ; Thorn v. IVeatherly, 50 Ark. 237 ; Pattillo v.
Alexander, 96 Ga. 60 ; see Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 532, 544), except
when the sister State (as e. g., Texas) derived its system of law from
some other source than the English law, in which case the general
law of the forum, both written and unwritten, is applied (Hurley v.
Mo. Pac. R. Co., 57 Mo. App. 675 ; Buchanan v. Hubbard, 119 Ind.
187 ; Brown v. Wright, 58 Ark. 20 ; Davison v. Gibson, 56 F. R. 443 ;
so as to a foreign country, Savage v. O 'Neil, 44 N. Y. 298). In some
States, however, the general law of the forum is applied in all cases
when the law of the other State or country is not proved. Cavallaro
v. Texas, etc. R. Co., 1 10 Cal. 348 ; Bennett v. Cadwell ' s Excr., 70 Pa.
253 ; Neese v. Fanners' Ins. Co., 55 la. 604 ; Smith v. Mason, 44 Neb.
61 1 ; see p. 163, note 2, post.]
1 Bristow v. Sequeville, 6 Ex. 275 ; Rowley v. L. &° N. W. Railway,
L. R. 8 Ex. 221 ; hi the Goods of Bonelli, L. R. 1 P. D. 69 ; and see
hi the Goods of Dost Aly Khan, 6 P. D. 6. [Slocovich v. Orient Ins.
Co., 108 N. Y. 56; Stillwell, etc. Co. v. Phelps, 130 U. S. 520 ; Struthers
v. Phila. etc. R. Co., 174 Pa. 291 ; Perkins v. Stickney, 132 Mass. 217.
The decision of the trial judge on this point will be deemed conclusive,
unless clearly shown to be erroneous (Id.; Marston v. Dinghy, 88 Me.
546 ; N. J. Zinc Co. v. Lehigh Zinc Co., 59 N. J. L. 189 ; Stevens
v. Minneapolis, 42 Minn. 136). The witness need not be still in the
practice of his profession, etc. (Roberts v. Johnson, 58 N. Y. 613; cf.
Seckingerv. Mfg Co., 129 Mo. 590).
The opinion of an expert is admissible though he has no personal
knowledge of the facts of the case. But in the question asking his
opinion, the facts, as counsel claim them to exist, should then be
stated in hypothetical form ; and in framing the question, counsel may
assume such a state of facts as the evidence fairly tends to justify
(Steams v. Field, 90 N. Y. 640 ; Jewell v. Brooks, 134 Mass. 505 ;
Barber s Appeal, 63 Ct. 393 ; Meeker v. Meeker, 74 la. 352 ; Hicks v.
Citizens' R. Co., 124 Mo. 115); but in cross-examination counsel need
148 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
facts on which his opinion is to be given is irrelevant,
unless he perceived them himself.1
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by poison.
The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison
by which A is supposed to have died, are deemed to be relevant.4
not be so restricted {People v. Augsbury, g7 N. Y. 501). This rule that
a hypothetical question must be asked applies even though the witness
has heard the evidence of the facts as given by prior witnesses, if the
facts are controverted or doubtful {Guiterman v ■. Liverpool, etc. St.
Co., 83 N. Y. 358; People v. McElvaine, 121 N. Y. 250; Dexter v.
Hall, 15 Wall. 9; Coy lev. Comm., 104 Pa. 117; Stoddard v. Win-
chester, 157 Mass. 567 ; Pylev. Pyle, 158 111. 289 ; Bennett v. State, 57
Wis. 69). But in some cases, as where the facts are not in dispute, or
the evidence heard is clear and plain and hot difficult to bear in mind,
the expert, having heard the evidence in the case, may be asked his
opinion thereon, without a full hypothetical statement of the facts
{Seymour v. Fellows, 77 N. Y. 178 ; People v. Theobald, 92 Hun, 182 ;
State v. Watson, 81 la. 380 ; Gates M.Fleischer, 67 Wis. 504 ; Huntw.
Lowell Gas Co., 8 Allen, 169 ; State v. Klinger, 46 Mo. 224 ; State v.
Hayden, 51 Vt. 296). And where the expert bases his opinion upon
his knowledge of the facts, a hypothetical case need not be stated
{Mercer \. Vose, 67 N. Y. 56 ; Niendorffv. Manhattan R. Co., 4 App.
Div. (N. Y.) 46 ; Bellefontaine, etc. R. Co. v. Bailey, 1 1 O. St. 333). A
medical expert may testify as to the mental condition of a person who
has been his patient, or whom he has personally examined, without
first disclosing the facts on which his opinion is based. People v.
Youngs, 151 N. Y. 210 ; Crockett v. Davis, 81 Aid. 134 ; cf. People v.
Nino, 149 N. Y. 317.]
1 1 Ph. Ev. 507 ; T. E. s. 1278. [Carpenter v. Eastern Trans. Co., 71
X. Y. 574. So his opinion is not received as to the effect of the evidence
in establishing controverted facts {Hunt v. Lowell Gas Co., 8 Allen,
169 ; People v. Barber, 115 N. Y. 475 ; see Priest v. Groton, 103 Mass.
530). Nor is a witness's opinion received as to a matter of legal or
moral obligation. Gr. Ev. i. § 441 ; Milwaukee, etc., R. Co. v. Kellogg,
99 U. S. 469, 473 ; Seliger v. Bastian, 66 Wis. 521 ; McKean v. R. Co.,
55 la. 192 ; cf. Cochrane v. Little, 71 Md. 323 ; Monroe v. Lattin, 25
Kan. 351.]
8 R. v. Palmer {passim). See my History of Crim. Law, iii. 389
[Stephens v. People, 4 Park. Cr. 396.]
Chap. V.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 149
(b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act,
was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the na-
ture of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or con-
trary to law.
The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms
exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether
such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of know-
ing the nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they
do is either wrong or contrary to law, are deemed to be relevant.1
(c) The question is, whether a certain document was written by A.
Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have
been written by A.
The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents
were written by the same person, or by different persons, are deemed
to be relevant.2
(d) The opinions of experts on the questions, whether, in Illustra-
tion (a), A's death was in fact attended by certain symptoms ; whether,
in Illustration (b), the symptoms from which they infer that A was of
unsound mind existed ; whether, in Illustration (c), either or both of
the documents were written by A, are deemed to be irrelevant.3
(e) [The question is, whether certain blood-stains have been caused
by human blood or by the blood of animals.
The opinion of an expert that some of the stains are of the one sort
and some of the other is deemed to be relevant.4
But a non-expert may give evidence that stains recently made are
caused by blood.]5
(f) [The question is, whether certain circumstances affecting prop-
erty insured are material to the risk.
1 R. v. Dove (passim). History Crim. Law, iii. 426. [See People v.
Tuczkewitz, 149 N. Y. 240 ; U. S. v. Guiteau, 1 Mackey, 498 ; State v.
Hay den, 51 Vt. 296.]
2 28 Vict. c. 18, s. 8 ; [see Art. 52, and note; Ludlow v. Warshing,
108 N. Y. 520.]
3 [But that an expert may testify that the disputed document was
written by A, see Costello v. Crowell, 133 Mass. 352 ; see Art. 52.]
4 \Linsday v. People, 63 N. Y. 143, 147, 156.]
5 {Greenfield v. People, 85 N. Y. 75 ; State v. Welch, 36 W. Va. 690 ;
State Y.Robinson, 117 Mo. 649. In McLain v. Comm., 99 Pa. 86, it was
even held that a non-expert might testify that stains were made by
human blood, and that, too, though the stains were not freshly made.]
150 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
The opinions of experts upon the materiality of these circumstances
are deemed to be relevant, except in cases where the question is
within the scope of common knowledge and observation, so that jurors
may be deemed capable of determining it without expert aid.]1
(g) [The question is, whether a railway train stopped long enough
at a station to enable passengers to get off.
The opinion of an expert upon this question is deemed to be irrele-
vant.] s
(h) [The question is, on a trial for murder, whether a certain piece
of paper has the appearance of wadding shot from a gun.
The opinion of an expert upon this point is deemed to be irrele-
vant.] 3
(/) [The question is, whether B, who, while engaged in constructing
a railroad, built brush fires, took proper precautions to prevent their
spreading to the adjacent land of A. X, a railroad engineer, experi-
enced in railroad construction, is called as an expert to testify on this
question. His testimony is inadmissible, since this is a matter which
men of ordinary experience and intelligence could determine without
such aid.]4
(j) [A, an employee in B's machine shop, was injured by the break-
ing of a belt used to move machinery. The belt was fastened with a
belt-fastener which gave way. A sued B for damages for this injury,
alleging negligence. At the trial experts in the use of belts and
fasteners were asked to state their opinion as to the safety and fitness
of the kind of belt-fastener which caused A's injury. This evidence
was deemed to be irrelevant. The main question at issue was,
whether the fastener was suitable and safe, and this should be deter-
mined by the jury, not by the opinions of experts.]5
1 [Cornish v. Farm, etc. Ins. Co., 74 N. Y. 295 ; Schenck v. Mercer
Co. Ins. Co., 24 N. J. L. 447; Russell v. Cedar Ins. Co., 78 la. 216;
Franklin Ins. Co. v. Gruver, 100 Pa. 266. But the cases are not en-
tirely agreed as to what questions are appropriate for expert testimony
under this rule ; see Luce v. Dorchester Ins. Co., 105 Mass. 297 ;
Thayer v. Providence Ins. Co., 70 Me. 531 ; Kent's Comm., iii. 285.]
-' {Keller v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 2 Abb. Dec. 480 ; Madden v. Mo. Pac.
R. Co., 50 Mo. App. 666 ; cf. a Neil v. Dry Dock, etc. R. Co., 129 N. Y.
125 ; I? 1 land Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 139 U. S. 551.]
*[Manke v. People, 17 Hun, 410, 78 N. Y. 611.]
1 I Pulsifer v. Berry, 87 Me. 405 ; Ferguson v. Hubbell, 97 N. Y. 507.]
' \Harley v. Buffalo Car Co., 142 N, Y. 31.]
Chap. V.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 151
Article 50.*
facts bearing upon opinions of experts.
Facts, not otherwise relevant, have in some cases been
permitted to be proved, as supporting or being incon-
sistent with the opinions of experts.1
Illustrations.
(a) The question was, whether A was poisoned by a certain poison.
The fact that other persons, who were poisoned by that poison, ex-
hibited certain symptoms alleged to be the symptoms of that poison,
was deemed to be relevant.'2
{b) The question is, whether an obstruction to a harbor is caused by
a certain bank. An expert gives his opinion that it is not.
The fact that other harbors similarly situated in other respects, but
where there were no such banks,3 began to be obstructed at about the
same time, is deemed to be relevant.
Article 51.
opinion as to handwriting, when deemed to be relevant.
When there is a question as to the person by whom any
document was written or signed, the opinion of any per-
* I have altered the wording of this Article, so as to make it less
absolute than it was in earlier editions. The admission of such evi-
dence is rare and exceptional, and must obviously be kept within
narrow limits. At the time of Palmer's trial only two or three cases
of poisoning by strychnine had occurred.
1 \Comm. v. Leach, 156 Mass. 99; Lincoln v. Taunton Mf'g Co., 9
Allen, 181 ; Tilton v. Miller, 66 Pa. 388 ; cf. Doyle v. N. Y. Infirmary,
80 N. Y. 631; Olmsted v. Gere, 100 Pa. 127.]
2 R. v. Palmer, printed trial, p. 124, etc. History Crim. Law, iii.
389. In this case (tried in 1856) evidence was given of the symptoms
attending the deaths of Agnes Senet, poisoned by strychnine in 1845,
Mrs. Serjeantson Smith, similarly poisoned in 1848, and Mrs. Dove,
murdered by the same poison subsequently to the death of Cook, for
whose murder Palmer was tried.
3 Folkes v. Chadd, 3 Doug. 157; [cf. Hawks v. Charlemont, no
Mass. no.]
152 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
son acquainted with the handwriting of the supposed
writer that it was or was not written or signed by him, is
deemed to be a relevant fact.1
A person is deemed to be acquainted with the hand-
writing of another person when he has at any time seen
that person write,5 or when he has received documents
purporting to be written by that person in answer to
documents written by himself or under his authority, and
addressed to that person,3 or when, in the ordinary course
of business, documents purporting to be written by that
person have been habitually submitted to him.4
1 [For a valuable article on this subject, see Am. Law Rev. xvi. 569.]
2 [Comm. v. Hall, 164 Mass. 152; State v. Harvey, 131 Mo. 339;
Karr v. State, 106 Ala. 1 ; State v. Farrington, 90 la. 673. Having
seen him write once is enough; this affects the weight, not the com-
petency, of the testimony {Hammond v. Varian, 54 N. Y. 398 ; Comm.
v. Nefus, 135 Mass. 533 ; McNairv. Comm., 26 Pa. 388 ; State v. Stair,
87 Mo. 268 ; Diggings Estate, 68 Vt. 198). So a person's mark, having
some distinctive peculiarity, may be proved in this way (Strong's
Excrs. v. Brewer, 17 Ala. 706; Fogg v. Dennis, 3 Humph. 47 ; Jack-
son v. Van Ditscn, 5 Johns. 144; George v. Surrey, 1 M. & M. 516;
contra, Shinkle v. Crock, 17 Pa. 159). But a person who sees another
write, or examines his handwriting, expressly for the purpose of being
able to testify, is, in general, an incompetent witness (Reese v. Reese,
90 Pa. 89 ; Board of Trustees v. Misenhciincr, 78 111. 22 ; Hynes v. J/c-
Dermott, 82 N. Y. 41, 53). A witness may testify as to handwriting
who cannot read or write himself. Foye v. Patch, 132 Mass. 105.]
3 [Chaffee v. Taylor, 3 Allen, 598; Clark v. Freema7i, 25 Pa. 133;
Thomas v. State, 103 Ind. 419; Riggs v. Powell, 142 111. 453 ; Cun-
ningham v. Hudson River Bk., 21 Wend. 557; Empire M/'g Co. v.
Stuart, 46 Mich. 482. So if the witness has received letters or other
writings of a person, who has afterwards, by words or acts, acknowl-
edged their genuineness (Gr. Ev. i. § 577 ; Johnson v. Daverne, 19
Johns. 134; Snyder v. McKeever, 10 111. App. 188 ; Flowers v. Fletcher,
40 \V. Va. 103 ; Pinkham v. Cockell, 77 Mich. 265, 272 ; Violet v. Rose,
39 Neb. 660 ; White v. Tolliver, 1 10 Ala. 300); but not if he has only
seen letters to strangers, purporting to be those of the person in ques-
tion. Phila. etc. R. Co. v. Hickman, 28 Pa. 318; Gibson v. Trow-
bridge Co., 96 Ala. 357 ; Nunes v. Perry, 113 Mass. 274.]
4 See Illustration. [Berg v. Peterson, 49 Minn. 420 ; Tit/ordv. Knott,
Chap. V.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 153
Illustration.
The question is, whether a given letter is in the handwriting of A,
a merchant in Calcutta.
B is a merchant in London, who has written letters addressed to A,
and received in answer letters purporting to be written by him. C is
B's clerk, whose duty it was to examine and file B's correspondence.
D is B's broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purport-
ing to be written by A for the purpose of advising with him thereon.
The opinions of B, C, and D on the question whether the letter is
in the handwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C, nor D ever
saw A write.1
The opinion of E, who saw A write once twenty years ago, is also
relevant.'2
Article 52.
comparison of handwritings.
Comparison of a disputed handwriting with any writ-,
ing proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine
is permitted to be made by witnesses, and such writings,
and the evidence of witnesses respecting the same, may
be submitted to the court and jury as evidence of the
genuineness or otherwise of the writing in dispute. This
paragraph applies to all courts of judicature, criminal
2 Johns. Cas. 211 ; Comm. v. Smith, 6 S. & R. 568. Thus public
officers who have seen many official documents filed in their office,
having the signature of a certain justice, may testify as to an alleged
signature of his {Rogers v. Ritter, 12 Wall. 317 ; Amherst Bk. v. Root,
2 Met. 522 ; Burdell v. Taylor, 89 Cal. 613). As to signatures upon
ancient writings, a person may testify who has gained his knowledge
by inspecting other ancient authentic documents bearing the same
signature. Jackson v. Brooks, 8 Wend. 426, 15 id. 111.]
1 Doe v. Sucker more, 5 A. & E. 705 (Coleridge, J.) ; 730 (Patteson,
J«); 739-40 (Denman, C. J.).
2 R. v. Home Tooke, 25 S. T. 71-2. [In Wilson v. Van Leer, 127 Pa.
371, the witness had seen the person whose signature was in question
write his nam* twice, thirty-two years before ; and once, twenty-three
years before ; see also Brachman v. Hall, 1 Disney, 539.]
154 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
or civil, and to all persons having by law, or by consent
of parties, authority to hear, receive, and examine evi-
dence.1
' 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 27 ; 28 Vict. c. 18, s. 8. [There are diverse
rules on this subject in different States. A rule substantially like the
English rule prevails in all the New England States, in New York,
New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi,
Ohio, Iowa, Kansas, California, Colorado, Oregon, and Nebraska
(State v. Thompson, 80 Me. 194; State v. Hastings, 53 N. H. 452;
Powell v. Fuller, 59 Vt. 688 ; Costelo v. Crowell, 139 Mass. 588 ; Pub.
St. R. I. c. 214, s. 542 ; State v. Griswold, 67 Ct. 290 ; People v. Corey,
148 N. Y. 476 ; Laws of 1888, N. Y. c. 555 ; N. J. Rev. p. 381 ; Laws of
Md. 1888, c. 545 ; Hanriot v. Sherwood, 82 Va. 1 ; Andrews v.
Hay den's Admr, 88 Ky. 455 ; Powers v. McKenzie, 90 Tenn. 167 ;
Wilson v. Beanchamp, 50 Miss. 24 ; Koons v. State, 36 O. St. 195 ;
Sankey v. Cook, 82 la. 125 ; State v. Zimmerman, 47 Kan. 242 ; Mar-
shall v. Hancock, 80 Cal. 82 ; Laws of 1893, Col. c. 88 ; Holmes v.
Goldsmith, 147 U. S. 150; First Nat. Bk. v. Carson, 48 Neb. 764).
But in many States, collateral and irrelevant writings cannot be
introduced for comparison (Snidery. Burks, 84 Ala. 53 ; People v.
Parker, 67 Mich. 222 ; State v. Thompson, 132 Mo. 301 ; Him rod v.
Oilman, 147 111. 293 ; Hazleton v. Union Bank, 32 Wis. 34 ; cf. State
v. Koontz, 31 W. Va. 127 ; Tunstall v. Cobb, 109 N. C. 316 ; Smyth v.
Caswell, 67 Tex. 567) ; so in the Federal courts (Stokes v. U. S.,\ 57 U. S.
187) ; generally, however, in these States genuine writings which are
properly in evidence in the case for other purposes may be used for
comparison by the jury, and in a number of them such comparison
may be made by experts to aid the jury (Id.; see Kirksey v. Kirksey,
41 Ala. 626 ; Vinton v. Peck, 14 Mich. 287 ; Williams v. Conger, 125
U. S. 397). In Indiana and Minnesota comparison maybe made with
writings already in evidence in the case and also, by experts with
other writings which, though not relevant, are admitted to be genuine
(McDonald v. McDonald, 142 Ind. 55, 69; Morrison v. Porter, 35
Minn. 425 ; cf. Dietz v. Fourth Nat. Bk., 69 Mich. 287). In Pennsyl-
vania comparison with writings proved to be genuine may be made
by the jury as corroborative evidence, but not by experts (Rockeys
Estate, 155 Pa. 453). See this general subject fully treated in Am.
Law Rev. xvii. 21 ; Gr. Ev. i. §§ 576-582.
A person's signature or other writing made by him in court at the
trial will not generally be allowed to be used for comparison (Cotnm. v.
Allen, 128 Mass. 46; Hickory v. U. S., 151 U. S. 303; Gilbertv. Simpson,
6 Daly, 29; Williams v. State, 61 Ala. 33). But this is sometimes per-
Chap. V.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 155
(m~>
Article 53.
OPINION AS TO EXISTENCE OF MARRIAGE, WHEN RELEVANT.
When there is a question whether two persons are or
are not married, the facts that they cohabited and were
treated by others as man and wife are deemed to be rele-
vant facts, and to raise a presumption that they were
lawfully married, and that any act necessary to the va-
lidity of any form of marriage which may have passed
between them was done ; but such facts are not sufficient
to prove a marriage in a prosecution for bigamy or in
proceedings for a divorce, or in a petition for damages
against an adulterer.1
mitted upon cross-examination of the person whose signature, etc., is
in question, or when the writing is made at the request of the opposite
party who offers it for comparison {Chandler v. LeBarron, 45 Me. 534 ;
People v. De Kroyft, 49 Hun, 71 ; U. S. v. Mullaney, 32 F. R. 370;
Bradford v. People, 22 Col. 157; King v. Donahue, no Mass. 155).
Nor may a person's signature, counterfeited by another, be submitted
to expert witnesses on cross-examination, to test their capacity as
experts or their knowledge of the person's handwriting {Gaunt v.
Harkness, 53 Kan. 405 ; Rose v. First Nat. Bk., 91 Mo. 399).
Letterpress copies cannot be used for comparison {Cohen v. Teller,
93 Pa. 123 ; Co/n/11. v. Eastman, 1 Cus'h. 189). But photographic
copies may be, when the originals are also before the court {Hynes v.
McDermott, 82 N. Y. 41 ; Marcy v. Barnes, 16 Gray, 161 ; but see
To?ne v. Parkersburgh, etc. R. Co., 39 Md. 36).
Experts in handwriting may also testify to other matters ; as e.g.,
whether a writing is forged or altered, when a writing was probably
made, whether all its parts are in the same handwriting, what certain
words, difficult to decipher, really are, etc. Travis v. Brown, 43 Pa.
9; Witheev. Rowe, 45 Me. 571; Dreslerv. Hard, 127 N. Y. 235;
Pearson v. Hardin, 95 Mich. 360 ; Eisfieldx. Dill, 71 la. 442.]
1 Morris v. Miller, 4 Burr. 2057 ; Birt v. Barlow, 1 Doug. 170 ; and
see Calherwoodv. Caslon, 13 M. & W. 261. Compare R. v. Main-
waring, D. & B. 132. See, too, De Thoren v. A. G., 1 App. Cas.
686 ; Piers v. Piers, 2 H. & C. 331. Some of the references in the
report of De Thoren v. A. G. are incorrect. This Article was not ex-
pressed strongly enough in the former editions. [Gall v. Gall, 114
156 A DIGEST OF [Part 1.
Article 54.
grounds of opinion, when deemed to be relevant.
Whenever the opinion of any living person is deemed
to be relevant, the grounds on which such opinion is
based are also deemed to be relevant.1
Illustratio7i.
An expert may give an account of experiments performed by him
for the purpose of forming his opinion.2
N. Y. 109 ; Greenawalt v. McEnelley, 85 Pa. 352 ; Maryland v. Bald-
win, 1 12 U. S. 490 ; Wallaces Case, 49 N. J. Eq. 530 ; Peet v. Peet, 52
Mich. 464 ; White v. White, 82 Cal. 427 ; Jackson v. Jackson, 80 Md.
176, 82 Md. 17 ; Mass. Pub. St. c. 145, s. 31. Cohabitation and repute
do not, however, constitute marriage ; they are only evidence of mar-
riage, and the presumption of marriage arising therefrom may be
rebutted (Collins v. Voorhees, 47 N. J. Eq. 555 ; Grimm's Estate, 131
Pa. 199 ; Clayton v. War dell, 4 N. Y. 230).
Such evidence of repute, etc., has been deemed sufficient to prove a
marriage in bastardy proceedings (State v.Worthingham, 23 Minn.
528), but not in criminal prosecutions for bigamy, incest, adultery,
loose and lascivious cohabitation, nor in actions fur criminal conver-
sation (Hayes v. People, 25 N. Y. 390 ; Green v. State, 21 Fla. 403 ;
State v. Roswell, 6 Ct. 446 ; State v. Hodgskins, 19 Me. 155 ; Dann v.
Kingdom, 1 T. & C. 492 ; Co7nm. v. Littlejohn, 15 Mass. 163 ; Hutch-
ins v. Kimmell, 31 Mich. 126 ; Hilcr v. Peojle, 156 111. 511; cf. State
v. Sherwood, 68 Vt. 414 ; State v. Cooper, 103 Mo. 266). But in some
States it is deemed sufficient in divorce suits (Bishop, M. D. & S. ii.
§§ 746-758 ; see Collins v. Collins, 80 N. Y. 10).
A marriage may generally be proved by admissions either in civil
or criminal cases (Miles v. State, 103 U. S. 304 ; Womack v. Tankersley,
78 \'a. 242 ; State v. Wylde, no N. C. 500 ; but see Eisenlord v. Clum,
126 N. Y. 552, 562); especially is this true if evidence of cohabitation
and repute be superadded. Id.; State v. Hughes, 35 Kan. 626.]
1 [Thus the expert may state his reasons for his opinion. Hawkins
v. Fall River, 1 19 Mass. 94 ; Steam Mill Co. v. Water Power Co., 78
Me. 274.]
2 [Eidt v. Cutter, 127 Mass. 522 ; Sullivan v. Comm., 93 Pa. 284 ;
Moore v. State, 96 Tenn. 209 ; Linsday v. People, 63 N. Y. 143, 156 ;
People v. Morrigan, 29 Midi. 5. So an expert may be permitted to
Chap. V.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 157
perform experiments before the jury, or make illustrations on a black-
board, to explain his testimony {Leonard v. Southern Pac. Co., 21 Or.
555; AIcKayx. Lasher, 121 N. Y.477; Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Kelly,
1 56 111. 9). Evidence of experiments may, however, be rejected unless
they were performed under conditions like those existing in the case
on trial ( Comni. v. Piper, 120 Mass. 185 ; People v. Slack, go Mich. 448 ;
State v. Fletcher, 24 Or. 295). Experiments performed by jurors, away
from the court-room, have been held sufficient ground for a new trial.
People v. Colliding, in Cal. 616.]
^
158 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
CHAPTER VI *
CHARACTER, WHEN DEEMED TO BE RELEVANT
AND WHEN NOT.
Article 55.
character generally irrelevant.
The fact that a person is of a particular character is
deemed to be irrelevant to any inquiry respecting his
conduct, except in the cases mentioned in this chapter.
Article 56.
. evidence of character in criminal cases.
In criminal proceedings, the fact that the person ac-
cused has a good character, is deemed to be relevant ; '
but the fact that he has a bad character is deemed to be
* See Note XXV. [Appendix].
1 [Edgington v. U. S., 164 U. S. 361; People v. Sweeney, 133 N. Y.
609 ; Co?nm. v. Cleary, 135 Pa. 64 ; People v. Harrison, 93 Mich. 594 ;
Jackson v. State, 81 Wis. 127. It is generally held that the proof must
be of good character in respect to the trait involved in the charge
( People v. Fair, 43 Cal. 137 ; Comm. v. Nagle, 157 Mass. 554 ; Kahlen-
beck v. State, 1 19 Ind. 118; Griffin v. State, 14 O. St. 55 ; State v. King,
78 Mo. 555 ; see Cancemi v. People, 16 N. Y. 501; Gr. Ev. iii. § 25).
Such evidence is now generally received, whether the evidence to
show the prisoner's guilt be direct or circumstantial ; even when it is
direct, evidence of good character may affect its credibility, or tend to
create a doubt as to guilt (Id.; Remsen v. People, 43 N. Y. 6 ; People
v. Jassifio, 100 Mich. 536 ; State v. Keefe, 54 Kan. 197 ; Comm. v.
Leonard, 140 Mass. 473 ; State v. Howell, 100 Mo. 628 ; State v. Rod-
man, 62 la. 456). If defendant fails to offer evidence of his good char-
acter, no presumption arises that he is guilty of the offence charged
or that he is of bad character. People v. Evans, 72 Mich. 367.]
Chap. VI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 159
irrelevant, unless it is itself a fact in issue, or unless evi-
dence has been given that he has a good character, in
which case evidence that he has a bad character is ad-
missible.1
2 In this Article the word "character" means reputation
as distinguished from disposition, and evidence may be
given only of general reputation and not of particular
acts by which reputation or disposition is shown.3
Article 57.
character as affecting damages.4
In civil cases, the fact that a person's general repu-
tation is bad may, it seems, be given in evidence in
reduction of damages ; but evidence of rumors that his
reputation was bad, and evidence of particular facts
1 [People v. White, 14 Wend, in ; State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245 ;
State v. Hull, 18 R. I. 207 ; People v. Fair, 43 Cal. 137. But when de-
fendant becomes a witness in his own behalf, he may be impeached
like any other witness by proof of bad character {State v. Nelson, 98
M-o. 414 ; see post, Art. 133, note). For additional rules in criminal
cases, see Art. 13^, post ; Art. 7, note 3, ante.]
2 [Just before this last paragraph, Mr. Stephen inserts in this Article
certain special statutory rules of the English law. They will be found
in the Appendix, Note L.]
3 R. v. Rowton, 1 L. & C. 520. \_Comm. v. O'Brien, 119 Mass. 342 ;
Snyder v. Covim.,%5 Pa. 519; People v. Sharp, 107 N. Y. 427, 457;
State v. Lapage, 57 N. H. 245 ; McQueen v. State, 108 Ala. 54 ; Ber-
neker v. State, 40 Neb. 810. The reputation of a person must be that
in his own community {C«nkcy v. People, 1 Abb. Dec. 418 ; Cart ha us
v. State, 78 Wis. 560). In Iowa and Minnesota, however, evidence of
"disposition " is received, as well as of "general reputation." State
v. Sterrett, 68 la. 76 ; Stale v. Lee, 22 Minn. 407.] R. v. Turberfield,
1 L. & C. 495, is a case in which the character of a prisoner became
incidentally relevant to a certain limited extent.
4 [Mr. Stephen ends this Article with a paragraph stating a peculiar
rule of the English law in regard to actions for libel and slander. It
will be found in the Appendix, Note L.]
160 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
showing- that his disposition was bad, cannot be given in
evidence.'
1 Scott v. Sampson, 8 Q. B. D. 491, in which all the older cases are
minutely examined in the judgment of Cave, J. [This rule is expressed
too broadly by Mr. Stephen. The case of Scott v. Sampson, upon
which it is based, does not state it as applicable to ail civil cases, but
only to actions for libel ox slander.
Evidence of a party's character is generally incompetent in civil
actions (Gr. Ev. i. § 55 ; Fahey v. Crotty, 63 Mich. 383 ; Vawter v.
Hultz, 112 Mo. 633 ; American Ins. Co. v. Hazen, no Pa. 530). Thus
in an action for assault and battery, the defendant cannot prove the
plaintiff's bad character {Corning v. Cornvig, 6 N. Y. 97 ; Bruce v.
Priest, 5 Allen, 100), nor his own good character {Day v. Ross, 154
Mass. 13 ; Elliott v. Russell, 92 Ind. 526); nor can the plaintiff's bad
repute be shown in an action for the seduction of his daughter {Dain
v.Wyckoff, 18 N. Y. 45); nor that of a party to a note in an action
thereon {Battles v. Laudenslager, 84 Pa. 446); nor the character of
either party for care and prudence in an action for negligence {Mc-
Donald v. Savoy, 1 10 Mass. 49 ; Chase v. Me. Cent. R. Co., 77 Me. 62 ;
Holtzman v. Hoy, 1 18 111. 534 ; Hall v. Rankin, 87 la. 261). So in an
action against a master for the negligence of his servant, evidence of
the servant's good or bad reputation as to carefulness is excluded
{Malcolm v. Fuller, 152 Mass. 160 ; Williams v. Edmunds, 75 Mich.
92), unless the question is as to the master's negligence in employing
an incompetent servant {Monahan v. Worcester, 150 Mass. 439 ; Lake
Shore, etc. R. Co. v. Stupalc, 123 Ind. 210 ; cf. Park v. N. Y. C. R. Co.,
155 N. Y. 215 ; see Art. 10, Illustration (g), ante). So evidence of the
defendant's good character is not admissible in his behalf in a civil
action, even though he be charged with fraud {Gough v. St. John, 16
Wend. 646; Boardman v. Woodman, 47 N. H. 120; Simpson v.
Wcstenberger, 28 Kan. 756 ; Leinkau/v. Brinker, 62 Miss. 255 ; contra,
Werts v. Spearman, 22 S. Car. 200); nor can the good character of a
party to a civil action be shown to rebut a charge of crime made
against him therein by the other party {Stone v. Haivkeye Ins. Co., 68
la- 737 ; Gebhart v. Burkett, 57 Ind. 378 ; but see Lamagdelaine v.
Tremblay, 162 Mass. 339 ; as to libel and slander cases, see cases
infra). Nor generally can the good character of any party or person
interested in the action be shown, except in answer to evidence from
the other side attacking his character ( Pratt v. Andrews, 4 X. Y.403 ;
see Young v. Johnson, 123 X. Y. 226 ; Mosley v. Ins. Co., 55 \'t. 142).
In some cases the question of character is involved in the nature of
the action, and evidence of general reputation is received. Thus in
Chap. VI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. i6r
actions for libel or slander, evidence may be given of the plaintiff's
general bad reputation, in mitigation of damages {Homer v. McFarlin,
4 Den. 509 ; Drown v. Allen, 91 Pa. 393 ; Bathricky. Detroit Post Co.,
50 Mich. 629 ; Nellis v. Cramer, 86 Wis. 337); but not that reports were
in circulation charging him with the act imputed {Kennedy v. Gifford,
19 Wend. 296 ; Pease v. Shippen, 80 Pa. 513 ; Mahoney v. Belford, 132
Mass. 393 ; Sickra v. Small, 87 Me. 493 ; Hanners v. McClelland, 74 la.
318 ; contra, Case v. Marks, 20 Ct. 248), at least if the defendant did
not know of such reports when he made the charge {Hatfield v. Lasher,
81 N. Y. 246 ; Lathrop v. Adams, 133 Mass. 471 ; Larrabee v. Minn.
Tribune Co., 36 Minn. 141 ; cf. Hoboken Printing Co. v.Kahn, 58 N. J.
L. 359); nor can particular acts of misconduct be proved {McLaughlin
v. Cowley, 131 Mass. 70 ; Hallowell v. Guntle, 82 Ind. 554); nor can the
defendant prove his own bad character {Hastings v. Stetson, 130 Mass.
76). In actions for libel and slander, as in other civil actions, the
plaintiff cannot give evidence of his own good character until it has
been assailed by the other side {Hitchcock v. Moore, 70 Mich. 112 ;
Chubb v. Gsell, 34 Pa. 114; Blakeslee v. Hughes, 50 O. St. 490 ; Cooper
v. Phipps, 24 Or. 357); but some States admit such evidence {Adams
v. Lawson, 17 Gratt. 250; Shroyer v. Miller, 3 W. Va. 158), others
admit it when the defendant has charged the plaintiff with crime
{Downey v. Dillon, 52 Ind. 442 ; see Howland v. Blake Mfg. Co., 156
Mass. 543, 568), and it has also been admitted when plaintiff's
character has been expressly put in issue by the pleadings {Stafford
v. Morning Journal Ass n, 142 N. Y. 598 ; contra, Lotto v. Davenport,
50 Minn. 99). In actions for malicious prosecution, plaintiff's general
bad repute may be shown to reduce the damages {Gregory v. Cham-
bers, 78 Mo. 294; Rosenkrans v. Barker, 115 111. 331 ; O'Brien v.
Frasier, 47 N. J. L. 349); and sometimes such evidence is received as
affecting the existence of probable cause {Mclntire v. Levering, 148
Mass. 546 ; Woodworth v. Mills, 61 Wis. 44 ; as to an action for false
imprisonment, see Amer. Express Co. v. Patterson, 73 Ind. 430). In
actions for criminal conversation, seduction, breach of promise of
marriage, and indecent assault, the woman's bad reputation for
chastity maybe proved {Sanborn v. Xcilson, 4 N. H. 501 ; Van Storch
v. Griffin, 71 Pa. 240; White \. Murtland, 71 111. 250 ; Hogau v.
Cregan, 6 Rob. 138 ; Mitchell \. Work, 13 R. I. 645 ; as to proof of
specific acts of unchastity in such cases, see Id.; Art 134, note, post;
Gr. Ev. ii. §§ 56 and 579). As to proving the character of a witness,
see Art. 133, post.
" Character" in this Article and note means general reputation (ex-
cept as otherwise stated) and cannot be shown by proof of specific
acts {Miller \. Curtis, 158 Mass. 127, 131). Usually the reputation
proved concerns the particular trait involved in the cause of action
[62 A DIGEST OF [Part I.
{Warner v. Lockerby, 31 Minn. 421 ; Maxwell \. Kennedy, 50 Wis.
645 ; see, generally, the cases in this note), but sometimes evidence of
general moral character is also received. Clark v. Brown, 116 Mass.
504, slander case ; Duval v. Davey, 32 O. St. 604, 612 ; Post Pub'g
Co. v. Hallam, 59 F. R. 530 ; Sickra v. Small, 87 Me. 493 ; see Root
v. King, 7 Cow. 613, 4 Wend. 113.]
Chap. VII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 163
PART II.
ON PROOF.
CHAPTER VII.
FACTS PROVED OTHERWISE THAN BY EVIDENCE—
JUDICIAL NOTICE. C
Article 58.*
of what facts the court takes judicial notice.
It is the duty of all judges to take judicial notice of the
following facts : —
* See Note XXVI. [Appendix].
[It is the duty of courts in this country to take judicial
notice of the following facts :
(1) The common law and public statute law of their own
State,1 but not the law of any other State or country;'2 but
1 {Shaw v. Tobias, 3 N. Y. 188 ; Unity v. Burrage, 103 U. S. 447. So
of the law merchant {Reed v. Wilson, 41 N. J. L. 29); of the charter of
a municipal corporation, being a public statute (Slier v. Oskaloosa, 41
la. 353 ; Kansas City v. Vineyard, 128 Mo. 75 ; Winooski v. Gokey, 49
Vt. 282 ; in some States all acts of incorporation are public laws, Mass.
Pub. St. c. 169, s. 68 ; State v. McAllister, 24 Me. 139) ; of the laws of
the antecedent government, when there has been a union or division
of states or countries (U. S. v. Perot, 98 U. S. 428 ; Stokes v. Macken,
62 Barb. 145); but not of private statutes (Timlow v. P. &* R. R. Co.,
99 Pa. 284), unless, as often now happens, a special law authorizes it
(Railroad Co. v. Bank of Ashland, 12 Wall. 226 ; Case v Kelly, 133
U. S. 21); nor of municipal ordinances (Porter v. Waring, 69 N. Y.
250 Centrdl Sav. Bk. v. Baltimore, 71 Md. 515 ; St. Louis v. Roche,
128 Mo. 541), except in the courts of the municipality. Ex parte
Davis, 115 Cal. 445 ; Foley v. State, 42 Neb. 233 ; cf. Hankinson v.
Trenton, 51 N. J. L. 495.]
'-' {Liverpool Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 397 ; Monroe v.
[64 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
( i ) All unwritten laws, rules, and principles having the
force of law administered by any court sitting under the
authority of Her Majesty and her successors in England
or Ireland, whatever may be the nature of the jurisdic-
tion thereof.1
(2) All public Acts of Parliament,1 and all Acts of Par-
liament whatever, passed since February 4, 185 1, unless
the contrary is expressly provided in any such Act.2
1 Ph. Ev. 460-1 ; T. E. s. 4, and see 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66 (Judicature
Act of 1873), s- 25-
'2 13 & 14 Vict. c. 21, ss. 7, 8, and see (for date) caption of session of
14 & 15 Vict.
the Federal courts, in the exercise of their original jurisdic-
tion, take notice of the public laws of the several States when
such laws are properly applicable to cases heard before
them,' and, in like manner, general acts of Congress will be
noticed in State courts.2
(2) The existence of the legislature, the time and place of
Douglas, 5 N. Y. 447 ; see p. 145, note 1, ante. But in a few States of
this country it has been held that in giving full faith and credit to the
public acts and records of another State (see Art. 47, note, ante), judi-
cial notice will be taken of the law of that State {Paine v. Ins. Co., 1 1
R. I. 411; Ohio v. Hinchman, 27 Pa. 479 ; cf. Carpenter v. Dexter, 8
Wall. 513; Wilson v. Phoenix Mfg. Co., 40 W. \'a. 413). The great
weight of authority, however, is to the contrary. Hanley v. Donoghue,
116 U. S. 1, 5 ; Sammis v. Wight man, 31 Fla. 10; Osborn v. Black-
burn, 78 Wis. 209.]
1 [Lamar v. Micou, 114 U. S. 218. But the U. S. Supreme Court,
upon writ of error to the highest court of a State, does not take judi-
cial notice of the law of another State, not proved in that court and
made part of the record sent up, unless by the local law that court
takes judicial notice of it. Liverpool Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co.,
129 U. S. 397, 445 ; Lloyd v. Matthews, 155 U. S. 222 ; see last note.]
8 [Kessel v. Albelis, 56 Barb. 362; Bird v. Com///., 21 Gratt. 800;
Schwerdtle v. Placer Co., 108 Cal. 589. So of the decisions of the U.
S. Supreme Court, construing acts of Congress. Southern Pac. R. Co.
v. Painter, 113 Cal. 247.]
Chap. VII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 165
(3) The general course of proceeding and privileges of
Parliament and of each House thereof, and the date and
place of their sittings, but not transactions in their
journals.1
1 Ph. Ev. 460; T. E. s. 5.
its sessions, its usual course of proceeding, and the privileges
of its members,1 but not the transactions in its journals.'2
(3) General customs observed in the transaction of busi-
ness.3
1 [Gr. Ev. i. § 6 ; Coleman v. Dobbins, 8 Ind. 156, 162. Thus the
courts will notice which of two bodies of men is the rightful legisla-
ture, when each claims the right (Opinion of Justices, 70 Me. 609).
The doings of the executive and legislative departments of the gov-
ernment will be noticed. Id.; Prince v. Skillin, 71 Me. 361; Mnllan
v. State, 114 Cal. 578 ; cf. In re Gunn, 50 Kan. 155.]
■[Grob v. Cushman, 45 111. 119; Bnrt v. Winona, etc. R. Co., 31
Minn. 472. This rule is chiefly applied in holding that the courts will
not take notice of such journals in order to impeach the validity of an
enrolled act of the legislature, which has been officially attested by
the presiding officers of both houses and approved by the executive
{Harwood v. Wentivorth, 162 U. S. 547 ; Ex parte Wren, 63 Miss. 512;
Carr v. Coke. 1 16 N. C. 223 ; State v. Denny, 1 18 Ind. 449, 455 ; Weeks
v. Smith, 81 Me. 538). In many States, however, judicial notice will
be taken of the journals, under such circumstances, to determine
whether the statute was duly passed by the legislature {Rode v. Phelps,
80 Mich. 598 ; A/oogv. Randolph, 77 Ala. 597 ; Ate Donald v. State, 80
Wis. 407 ; Stale v. Hocker, 36 Fla. 358 ; Robertson v. People, 20 Col.
279 ; cf. Rumsey v. N. Y. etc. R. Co., 130 N. Y. 88 ; Division of How-
ard Co., 15 Kan. 194 ; see cases collected in Field v. Clark, 143 U. S.
649, 660- It is held also in some cases that the journals may be
judicially noticed for other purposes. Edgar v. Board of Coinmrs.,
70 Ind. 331; ///. Cent. R. Co. v. Wren, 43 111. yj.]
3 [Cameron v. Blackrnan, 39 Mich. 108 ; Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Head-
land, 18 Col. 477 ; Nash v. Classen, 163 111. 409 ; Merchants' Nat. Bank
v. Hall, 83 N. Y. 338. In this last case, the court took notice of the
practice of banks to grant renewals of obligations upon payment of a
new discount. So the general mode of doing banking business, bank-
ing hours, etc., are noticed. State v. Arnold, 140 Ind. 628 ; Hutchin-
son v. Manhattan Co., 150 N. Y. 250 ; American Nat. Bank v. Bushey,
45 Mich. 135.]
166 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
(4) All general customs which have been held to have
the force of law in any division of the High Court of Jus-
tice or by any of the superior courts of law or equity,
and all customs which have been duly certified to and
recorded in any such court.1
(5) The course of proceeding and all rules of practice
1 The old rule was that each court took notice of customs held by or
certified to it to have the force of law. It is submitted that the effect
of the Judicature Act, which fuses all the courts together, must be to
produce the result stated in the text. As to the old law, see Piper v.
Chappell, 14 M. & W. 649-50. Ex parte Powell, hi re Matthews, 1
Ch. D. 505-7, contains some remarks by Lord Justice Mellish as to
proving customs till they come by degrees to be judicially noticed.
(4) The course of proceeding and all rules of practice in
force in the court itself ;' its own record books and entries
therein ;3 the other courts established by law in the same
State, their judges, extent of jurisdiction and course of pro-
ceeding ;3 but appellate courts will not take judicial notice
1 [Wh. Ev. i. § 324. The terms of court are noticed {Kidder v. Blais-
dcll, 45 Me. 461 ; Rodgers v. State, 50 Ala. 102) ; but not the pendency
of another action in the same or another court. Eyster v. Gaff, 91 U.
S. 521 ; State v. Wilson, 39 Mo. App. 114.]
2 [Fellers v. Lee, 2 Barb. 488 ; Robinson v. Brown, 82 111. 279 ; Den-
ney v. State, 144 Ind. 504 ; Hallenbach v. Schnabcl, 101 Cal. 312. A
court will take notice of its own orders or prior proceedings in the
same case {State v. Ulricli, no Mo. 350 ; Jordan v. Circuit Ct., 69 la.
177 ; State v. Stevens, 56 Kan. 720 ; cf. Garrcison v. Fcrrall, 92 la.
728); but not of a former judgment or decree between the same par-
ties in the same or another court. Ralphs v. Jlcnsler, 97 Cal. 296;
McCormick v. Herndon, 67 Wis. 648 ; Schuler v. Israel, 120 U. S. 506,
509; Enix v Miller, 54 la. 551.]
z\Vahle v. Brackenseik, 145 111. 231 ; State v. Wright, 16 R. I. 518 ;
State v. Higgins, 124 Mo. 640 ; Hatcher v. Rocheleau, 18 N. Y. 86, 90;
Kennedy v. Comm., 78 Ky. | (7 ; Kilpatrick v. Com in., 31 Pa. 198. This
last case holds that the superior courts will take notice who are the
judges of the inferior State tribunals, — which by common law was a
doubtful question (see Gr. Ev. i. §6, note). The fact that a judge
has resigned is judicially noticed. People v. M< ( 'onnell, 155 111. 192.]
Chap. VII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 167
in force in the Supreme Court of Justice. Courts of a
limited or inferior jurisdiction take judicial notice of
their own course of procedure and rules of practice, but
not of those of other courts of the same kind, nor does
the Supreme Court of Justice take judicial notice of the
course of procedure and rules of practice of such courts.1
(6) The accession and (scmblc) the sign manual of Her
Majesty and her successors.2
(7) The existence and title of every State and Sover-
eign recognized by Her Majesty and her successors.3
1 1 Ph. Ev. 462-3 ; T. E. s. 19. - 1 Ph. Ev. 458 ; T. E. ss. 16, 12.
3 1 Ph. Ev. 460 ; T. E. s. 3.
of the rules of practice in inferior courts when reviewing
their judgments or decrees.1
(5) The official status and signatures of officers of the court,
as attorneys, clerks of court, etc.2
(6) The political constitution of their own government ; the
accession of the President of the United States or of the
executive of the State, and their signatures ;3 the official
status of the chief public officers of the United States or of
the State, as e. g., cabinet officers, foreign ministers, sen-
1 \Knarr v. Conaivay, 42 Ind. 260 ; Anderson v. McCormick, 129 111.
308 ; Cutter v. Caruthers, 48 Cal. 178 ; Cherry v. Baker, 17 Md. 75 ;
Kindel v. Le Bert, 23 Col. 385 ; but see Oliver v. Palmer, 1 1 G. & J.
426. The Federal courts take judicial notice of the rules and regu-
lations of the Department of the Interior and other departments.
Ca/uzv. U. S., 152 U. S. 211.]
*[Mackinnon v. Barnes, 66 Barb. 91; Hanunann v. Mink, 99 Ind.
279; Buellx. State, 72 Ind. 523 ; Ferris v. Commercial Nat. Bk., 158
111. 237 ; State v. Barrett, 40 Minn. 65 (deputy clerk); State v. Kin-
ney, 81 Mo. 101 ; State v. Myers, 85 Tenn. 203 ; Avery v. Maude, 112
Cal. 565. Thus the signature of an attorney, admitting service of
papers, will be noticed. Ripley v. Burgess, 2 Hill, 360.]
3[Yountv. Howell, 14 Cal. 465 ; Wells v. Company, 47 N. H. 235;
State v. IVilliams, 5 Wis. 308.]
168 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
(8) The accession to office, names, titles, functions, and
when attached to any decree, order, certificate, or other
judicial or official documents, the signatures of all the
judges of the vSupreme Court of Justice.1
(9) The Great Seal, the Privy Seal, the seals of the Su-
perior Courts of Justice,2 and all seals which any court is
1 1 Ph. Ev. 462; T. E. s. 19; and as to latter part, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 2,
as modified by 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66, s. 76 (Judicature Act of 1873).
2 The Judicature Acts confer no seal on the Supreme or High Court
or its divisions.
ators, and the like,1 — also of sheriffs and marshals (and their
signatures),2 but not of their deputies.3
(7) The existence and title of every State and sovereign
recognized by the national government ;4 also their public
seals when attached to public acts, decrees, judgments or
other official documents.5
(8) The law of nations ;6 foreign admiralty and maritime
1 [State v. Myers, 85 Tenn. 203, 208 ; York, etc. R. Co. v. Winans, 17
How. (U. S.) 30 ; see Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37,42. The signatures
of heads of departments will be noticed. Comm. v. Dunlop, 89 Va.
43I-]
! {Thompson v. Haskell, 21 111. 215 ; Ingram v. State, 27 Ala. 17.
Some cases say that notice will be taken of all county officers [Farley
v. McConnell, 7 Lans. 428 ; Himmelntann v. Hoadley, 44 Cal. 213), at
least if the court sits therein (T/iielmann v. Burg, 73 111. 293). Thus
it has been noticed who are notaries public of the county in which the
court is held {Hertig v. People, 159 111. 237). So notice has been taken
of justices and aldermen {Fox v. Comm., 81* Pa. 511), and as to who
were elected officers at a general election. State v. Seibert, 130 Mo.
202.]
3 [Gr. Ev. i.§6 ; Ward v. Henry, 19 Wis. 76 ; contra, under a statute,
Burke v. Lacock, 41 Minn. 250, 255.]
4 [ Jones v. U. S., 137 U. S. 202. The recognition must be by the ex-
ecutive branch of the government, before the courts will take such
judicial notice. Gelston v. Hoyt, 13 Johns. 561, 587, 3 Wheat. 249.]
5 [Lazier v. Westcott, 26 N. Y. 146 ; Griswold v. Pitcaim, 2 Ct. 85 ;
Coit v. Mi '/liken, 1 Den. 376.]
6[7'//e Scotia, 14 Wall. 170.]
Chap. VII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 169
authorized to use by any act of Parliament,1 certain other
seals mentioned in acts of Parliament,1 the seal of the
1 Doe v. Edwards, g A. & E. 555. See a list in T. E. s. 6.
courts and their seals ;' the seals of notaries public ;2 the
seals of their own State and of the United States, and of the
courts thereof which have seals ;3 but not the seals of foreign
municipal courts or of foreign officers.4
(9) Public proclamations by the executive branch of the
government, as of war, peace, amnesty, etc. ;6 treaties made
with foreign countries ;6 executive decrees or messages of a
public nature and ordinances of state ;7 days of general
political elections.8
(10) The extent of territory included within their own State
or within the national domain ;9 the civil divisions of the
1 [ Thompsoti v. Stewart, 3 Ct. 171 ; Mumford v. Bowne, Anth. N. P.
56.]
'2 [Pierce v. Indseth, 106 U. S. 546 ; Johnson v. Brown, 154 Mass. 105 ;
Barky dt v. Alexander, 59 Mo. App. 188.]
3 [Bobinson v. Gilman, 20 Me. 299 ; Delafieldw, Hand, 3 Johns. 310,
314 ; Williams v. Wilkes, 14 Pa. 228. The seal of a Federal court will
be noticed in other Federal courts and in State courts. Turnbull v.
Payson, 95 U. S. 418 ; Adams v. Way, 33 Ct. 419.]
i[DelaJield v. Hand, supra; Vandervoort v. Smith, 2 Cai. 155;
Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cr. 187. These rules are sometimes modified
by statutory provisions, providing how foreign records shall be proved.
See N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §§952-956 ; Hinton v. Life Ins. Co., 116 N. C.
22.]
5 [Armstrong- v. U. S., 13 Wall. 154.]
6 [U. S. v. Bauscher, 119 U. S. 407 ; People v. Stout, 81 Hun, 336.]
1 [ Wells v. Mo. Pac. B. Co., no Mo. 286 ; Turner s Admr. v. Batton,
49 Ala. 406, 410 ; but not the orders of a military commander {Burke
v. Miltenberger, 19 Wall. 519), unless they have become matters of
public history {Holmes v. Kring, 93 Mo. 452 ; Lanfear v. Mestier, 18
La. Ann. 497); nor executive acts of a private nature, affecting per-
sons not citizens. Dole v. Wilson, 16 Minn. 525.]
8 [Mills v. Green, 159 U. S. 651 ; State v. Minnick, 15 la. 123 ; Cope-
land v. State, 126 Ind. 51 ; Jackson Co. v. Arnold, 135 Mo. 207.]
9 [Jones v. U. S., 137 U. S. 202 ; State v. Wagner, 61 Me. 178 ; Slate
v. Ditnwcll, 3 R. I. 127.]
170 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
Corporation of London,1 and the seal of any notary public
in the Queen's dominions.2
(10) The extent of the territories under the dominion
of Her Majesty and her successors ; the territorial and
1 i Ph. Ev. 464 ; T. E. s. 6.
2 Cole v. Sherard, 11 Ex. 482. As to foreign notaries, see Earfs
Trust, 4 K. & J. 300.
country or State, as into States, counties, cities, towns, etc. ;'
the relative positions of such divisions in the State, as that a
city or town is in a certain county ;2 the chief geographical
features of the State ;3 the existence of war against the
United States ;4 other public matters directly concerning the
general government of the State or country ;5 the existence
x\Comm. v. Desmond, 103 Mass. 445; Chapman v.Wilber, 6 Hill,
475 ; Rogers v. Cady, 104 Cal. 288 ; Pitts v. Lewis, 81 la. 51 ; People v.
Waller, 70 Mich. 237 ; State v. Cunningham, 81 Wis. 440.]
'' [People v. Suppiger, 103 111. 434 ; State v. Powers, 25 Ct. 48 ; State
v. Reader, 60 la. 527 ; Bryan v. Scholl, 109 Ind. 367 ; People v. Wood,
131 N. Y. 617. So notice is taken that a certain town is or is not with-
in a certain distance of the place of trial or the seat of government
(Hinckley v. Beckwith, 23 Wis. 328; Benson v. Clark, 151 111. 495;
Hoyt v. Russell, 117 U. S. 401). Such local divisions may be deter-
mined by public statutes and be noticed for that reason. Bronson v.
Gleason, 7 Barb. 472 ; R'ansas City, etc. R. Co. v. Burge, 40 Kan. 736.]
3 [ Wiimipiseogee Lake Co. v. Young, 40 N. H. 420 ; State v. Thonip-
wn, 85 Me. 189 ; People v. Brooks, 101 Mich. 98 ; Note to 10 Abb. N. C.
117. The population of the State or its counties, etc., as shown by the
census is noticed (State v .Wojford, 121 Mo. 61 ; Denneyv. State, 144
Ind. 503 ; People v. McKane, 80 Hun, 322, 143 N. Y. 455 ; Worcester
Nat. Bk. v. Cheney, 94 111. 430); the boundaries of a State or county
(State v. Pennington, 124 Mo. 388); what rivers in the State are navi-
gable (Woodv. Fowler, 26 Kan. 682 ; Comm. v. King, 150 Mass. 221);
but not the width of streets or sidewalks in a city (Porter v. Waring,
69 N. Y. 250). The distance between great cities in different States has
been noticed. Pearce v. Langfit, 101 Pa. 507 ; but see Goodwin v.
Appleton, 22 Me. 453.]
4 [Swinnerton v. Columbian Lns. Co., 37 N. Y. 174.]
b [Opinion of Justices, 70 Me. 6oq ; People v. Snyder, 41 N. Y. 397.]
Chap. VII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 171
political divisions of England and Ireland, but not their
geographical position or the situation of particular places ;
the commencement, continuance, and termination of war
between Her Majesty and any other Sovereign ; and all
of foreign countries and that they have a government and
courts and a system of law like our own.1 The Federal courts
take notice of the ports of the United States in which the
tide ebbs and flows, and of the boundaries of the several
States and judicial districts.2
(11) Matters which must have happened according to the
ordinary course of nature ;3 natural and artificial divisions
of time ■* the ordinary meaning of English words' and com-
mon abbreviations ;5 legal weights and measures and moneys
1 [Lazier y. Westcott, 26 N. Y. 148 ; Morse v. Hewlett, 28 Mich. 481.]
2 [Gr. Ev. i. § 6 ; Thorson v. Peterson, 9 F. R. 517. So of internal
revenue districts. U. S. v. Jackson, 104 U. S. 41.]
3 [ Wood v. Ins. Co., 46 N. Y. 421, 426 ; Djxon v. Niccolls, 39 111. 372 ;
as the time when the sun or moon rises or sets on a certain dav
{People v. Mayer, 113 Cal. 618 ; State v. Morris, 47 Ct. 179 ; Case v.
Perew, 46 Hun, 57); and the succession of the seasons. Ross v. Bos-
well, 60 Ind. 235 ; Garth v. Caldwell, 72 Mo. 622.]
4 [Wh. Ev. i. § 335. Thus notice is taken of the coincidence of days
of the week with days of the month, as e.g., upon what day a par-
ticular date falls {Phila. etc. R. Co. v. Lehman, 56 Md. 209 ; Bank v.
Kingsley, 84 Me. in ; Roberts v. Farmers ', etc. Bk., 136 Ind. 154 ;
Mechanics' Bank v. Gibson, 7 Wend. 460), and, in general, of the
calendar. State v. Harris, 121 Mo. 445.]
5 [Nix v. Hedden, 149 U. S. 304 (meaning of " fruit " and " vegetable ");
Toplits v. Hedden, 146 U. S. 252, 257 ("bonnets"); Cook v. State, no
Ala. 40 ("oleomargarine "); Comm. v. Marzynski, 149 Mass. 68 (that
"cigars" are not drugs); State v. Intoxicating Liquors, 73 Me. 278
("C. O. D."); Moseley v. Mastin, 37 Ala. 216 ("admr."); South Mo.
Co. w.Jeffries, 40 Mo. App. 360. So of the meaning of current ex-
pressions which every one understands {Bailey v. Kalamazoo Pubg
Co., 40 Mich. 251 ; but see Baltimore v. State, 15 Md. 376, 484); but
not of uncommon or extraordinary meanings given to English words
in particular localities {People v. Gastro, 75 Mich. 127). In Accola v.
Chicago, etc. R. Co., 70 la. 185, the court would not notice the mean-
ing of the abbreviation, " C, B. & Q. R. Co.," used in a pleading.]
172
A DIGEST OF [Part II.
other public matters directly concerning the general
government of Her Majesty's dominions.1
(n) The ordinary course of nature, natural and arti
ficial divisions of time, the meaning of English words.2
1 1 Ph. Ev. 466, 460, 458 ; and T. E. ss. 15-16.
2 1 Ph. Ev. 465-6 ; T. E. s. 14.
of the country j1 matters of general public history,2 but not
those of mere private or local history ;3 other matters of such
general and public notoriety that every one may fairly be
presumed to be acquainted with them.4
1 [Gr. Ev. i. § 5 ; Johnston v. Hedden, 2 Jr>hns. Cas. 274.]
2 [Thomas v. Stigers, 5 Pa. 480 ; Mode v. Beasley, 143 Ind. 306 ; Bis-
sing v. Smith, 85 Hun, 564; Mayor of A7. Y. v. Sands, 105 N. Y. 210, 217;
Howard v. Moot, 64 N. Y. 262 ; as e. g., the civil war in this country,
1861-65, and its duration. Cross v. Sabin, 13 F. R. 308 ; Turners
Admr. v. Patton, 49 Ala. 406 ; Swinnerton v. Columbian his. Co., 37
N. Y.174.]
3 [McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y. 206.]
4 [King v. Gallun, 109 U. S. 99 ; Gilbert v. Flint, etc. R. Co., 51
Mich. 488 ; Menomitiee Co. v. Milwaukee, etc. R. Co., 91 Wis. 447 ;
State v. Me. Cent. R. Co., 86 Me. 309 ; as e.g., the ordinary duration
of human life {Johnson v. Hudson R.R. Co., 6 Duer,634); the average
height of the human body {Hunter v. N. Y. etc. R. Co., 116 N. Y. 615);
the usual length of time for a voyage across the Atlantic {Oppenhcim
v. Wolf, 3 Sandf. Ch. 571); the usual time to run trains between
prominent cities {Pearce v. Langfit, 101 Pa. 507 ; contra,, Wiggins v.
Burkham, 10 Wall. 129); the practice of checking baggage in this
country {Isaacson v.N. Y. C.R. Co., 94 N. Y. 278); the, nature and
properties of such things as natural or artificial gas, electricity, gun-
powder, kerosene, tobacco and the like {Jamieson v. Ind. Nat. Gas
Co., 128 Ind. 555 ; In re Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98, 113 ; State v. Hays, 78 Mo.
307; State v. Johnson, 118 Mo. 491 ; Crawfordsville v. Braden, 130
Ind. 149); that whiskey, brandy, gin, ale, and strong beer are in-
toxicating (JUatz v. Rohrbach, 116 N. Y. 450 ; Thomas v. Comm., 90
Va. 92 ; Eagan v. State, 53 Ind. 162); but not that all malt liquors are
intoxicating. Id.; Schlicht v. State, 56 Ind. 188 ; but see Briffit v.
State, 58 Wis. 39.]
Chap. VII. 1 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 173
(12) All other matters which they are directed by any
statute to notice.1
1 E.g., the Articles of War. See sec. 1 of the Mutiny Act.
(12) Matters of general knowledge and experience within
their jurisdiction ;' and matters which they are directed by
any statute to notice.]
Article 59.
as to proof of such facts.
No evidence of any fact of which the court will take
judicial notice need be given by the party alleging- its
existence;2 but the judge, upon being called upon to take
judicial notice thereof, may, if he is unacquainted with
such fact, refer to any person or to any document or book
of reference for his satisfaction in relation thereto, or may
refuse to take judicial notice thereof unless and until the
party calling upon him to take such notice produces any
such document or book of reference.3
1 {Howard v. Moot, 64 N. Y. 262, 271 ; Hilliker v. Coleman, 73
Mich. 170 ; People v. Powers, 147 N. Y. 104, no ; Opinion of Justices, 70
Me. 609 ; as e.g., the result of an election affecting the organization of
a county {Andrews v. Knox Co., 70 111. 65 ; Thomas v. Comm., 90 Va.
92 ; but see Whitman v. State, 80 Md. 410); the effect of elevated
railroads upon the business of the streets through which they run.
Bookman v. N. V. El. R. Co., 137 N. Y. 302.]
2 [In Hoyt v. Russell, 117 U. S. 401, judgment was reversed because
the court below required proof of a fact of which it was bound to take
judicial notice. Cf. State v. Main, 69-Ct. 123, 136.]
3T. E. (from Greenleaf) s. 20. E.g., a judge will refer in case of
need to an almanac, or to a printed copy of the statutes, or write to
the Foreign Office, to know whether a State had been recognized.
[Gr. Ev. i. § 6 ; Nix v. Hedden, 149 U. S. 304 ; Jones v. U. S., 137 U. S.
202 ; Walton v. Stafford, 14 App. Div. (N. Y.) 310 ; Vahle v. Bracken
seik, 145 111. 236 ; Bowcn v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 118 Mo. 541 ; Heffernan
v. Harvey, 41 W. Va. 766 ; Wilson v. Van Leer, 127 Pa. 372 ; Hall v.
174 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
Article Go.
evidence need not be given of facts admitted.
No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the
parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hear-
ing, or which they have admitted before the hearing and
with reference thereto, or by their pleadings.1 Provided
that in a trial for felony the prisoner can make no admis-
sions so as to dispense with proof, though a confession
may be proved as against him, subject to the rules stated
in Articles 21-24.2
Brown, 58 N. H. 95 ; State v. Wagner, 61 Me. 178 ; State v. Morris,
47 Ct. 179 ; State v. Clare, 5 la. 509. Counsel should cite statutes and
decisions to the court, even though the Courtis bound to judicially
notice them {State v. Farlee, 74 la. 451). But a judge is not to take
judicial notice of matters merely because he in fact knows them.
Lena/tan v. People, 5 T. & C. 265.]
1 Rules of Supreme Court, Order xxxii. [Coffin v. Hydraulic Co.,
136 N. Y. 655; Waldron v. IValdron, 156 U. S. 361; McGowan v.
McDonald, in Cal. 57; State v. Brooks, 99 Mo. 137; Atkinson v.
Linden Co., 138 111. 187 ; Burke v. Mascarich, 81 Cal. 302 ; Mussclman
v. Wise, 84 Ind. 248. So evidence offered by a party contradicting
his admissions in the pleadings is not competent {Getty v. Ham lin,
46 Hun, 1), and a finding or judgment contrary to such admissions
is error (Reinhart v. Lugo, 75 Cal. 639 ; Paige v. Willett, 38 N. Y. 28).
A demurrer admits facts well pleaded, but only for the purposes of
the argument on the demurrer ; it is not evidence of such facts on the
trial of the issue of fact {State's Att'y v. Branford, 59 Ct. 402 ; cf.
Gray v. Gray, 143 N. Y. 354), unless the party demurring obtains
leave to withdraw his demurrer from the record and goes to trial
without having done so. Cutler \. Wright, 22 N. Y. 472.] The fact
that a document is admitted does not make it relevant and is not
equivalent to putting it in evidence. Watson v. Rodwell, 11 Ch. D.
150, per James, L. J.
2 1 Ph. Ev. 391 , n. 6. In R. v. Thornhill, 8 C. & P. 575, Lord Abinger
acted upon this rule in a trial for perjury. [In this case Lord Abinger
rejected evidence of admissions made by defendant's counsel before
the trial, but said that admissions made at the trial might be allowed.
See Gr. Ev. iii. § 39.]
Chap. VIII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 175
CHAPTER VIII.
OF ORAL EVIDENCE.
Article 61.
proof of facts by oral evidence.
All facts may be proved by oral evidence subject to the
provisions as to the proof of documents contained in Chap-
ters IX., X., XL, and XII.
Article 62.*
ORAL EVIDENCE MUST BE DIRECT.
Oral evidence must in all cases whatever be direct ; that
is to say —
If it refers to a fact alleged to have been seen, it must
be the evidence of a witness who says he saw it ;
If it refers to a fact alleged to have been heard, it must
be the evidence of a witness who says he heard it ;
If it refers to a fact alleged to have been perceived by
any other sense or in any other manner, it must be the
evidence of a witness who says he perceived it by that
sense or in that manner ; '
* See Note XXVII. [Appendix].
1 [See Teerpenning v. Com Ex. Ins. Co., 43 N. Y. 279 ; People v.
Chin Hane, 108 Cal. 597 ; Simpson v. Smith, 27 Kan. 565, 570 ; Rea
v. Harrington, 58 Vt. 181; Fassin v. Hubbard, 55 N. Y. 465. A wit-
ness may testify as to a communication received through the tele-
phone ( Wolfe v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 97 Mo. 473 ; Oskamp v. Gadsden,
35 Neb. 7; Miles v. Andrew, 153 111. 262); but identification of the
speaker, as e. g.,by the sound of his voice, may be necessary {People
176 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
If it refers to an opinion, or to the grounds on which
that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person
who holds that opinion on those grounds.
v. McKane, 143 N. Y. 455, 474). A witness may testify to his impres-
sion, if this is based upon his own recollection of facts which he saw,
heard, perceived, etc., and not upon hearsay or inference (Gr. Ev. i.
§ 440 ; Blake v. People, 73 N. Y. 586 ; Humphries v. Parker, 52 Me.
502 ; Whitman v. Morey, 63 N. H. 448, 457 ; State v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153 ;
Dexter v. Harrison, 146 111. 169 ; Lovejoy v. Howe, 55 Minn. 353 ; Ala.
Southern R. Co. v. Hill, 93 Ala. 515 ; Tail v. Hall, 71 Cal. 149 ; Du-
vall's Excr. v. Darby, 38 Pa. 56). So testimony as to what the wit-
ness "understood" or "supposed" has been received, when it really
expresses his knowledge and recollection of what was said or doneor
agreed upon, etc. (Fiske v. Gowing, 61 N. H. 431 ; Leach v. Ban-
croft, Id. 411; Ganserv. Fireman s Ins. Co., 38 Minn. 74 ; Moody v.
Davis, 10 Ga. 403); but usually such evidence is inadmissible, as con-
stituting only hearsay or opinion {Fosdick v. Van Arsdale, 74 Mich.
303 ; Kingsbury v. Moses, 45 N. H. 222 ; Mather v. Parsons, 32 Hun,
338 ; Crow ell v. Western Res. Bk., 3 O. St. 406). So evidence of one's
intent, understanding, etc., is not received to show or vary the mean-
ing of a written instrument, nor can one's undisclosed intent at the
time of making a contract be proved to bind the other party (Ricker-
son v. Hartford Ins. Co., 149 N. Y. 307 ; Bartley v. Phillips, 179 Pa.
175). A witness may testify to his own intent or motive or belief, when
that is material in the case (Bayliss v. Cocke rofi, 81 N. Y. 363 ; Wal-
lace v. U. S., 162 U. S. 466, 477 ; Brown v. Mass. Ins. Co., 151 Mass.
127 ; Phelps v. George's, etc. R. Co., 60 Md. 536 ; Wohlford v. People,
148 111. 296 ; Ross v. State, 116 Ind. 495 ; Angellv. Pickard, 61 Mich.
561; Plank v. Gri?nm, 62 Wis. 251; contra, Ala. Fertilizing Co. v.
Reynolds, 79 Ala. 497), but not to the intent or motive of another per-
son {Nlfrs. &* Traders' Bk. v. Koch, 105 N. Y. 630 ; Cihak v. Klekr,
117 111. 643 ; Garrett v. Trabue, 82 Ala. 227). So a witness may not
testify to a conclusion of law (Wh. Ev. i. §§ 507, 509 ; Nicolay v. I ~ngc>\
80 N. Y. 54 ; Wardv. Kilpa trick, 85 N. Y. 413 ; Providence Tool Co.
v. U. S. Mfg. Co., 120 Mass. 35 ; Fisher v. Green, 142 111. 80 ; Young
v. Newark Jus. Co., 59 Ct. 41 ; G abbey v. Forgens, 38 Kan. 62).
Objects which have a material bearing on the case may be shown
to the jury, and thus have the effect of evidence ; as the weapon or in-
strument used to commit a crime, bloody garments, a person's injured
limb, etc. (Wh. Ev. i. §§ 345-347; People v. Gonzalez, 35 N. Y. 49; King
v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 72 X. Y. 607 ; Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Wood, 113
Ind. 544 ; Lanark v. Dougherty, 153 111. 163 ; Langworthy v. Green, 95
Chap. VIII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 177
Mich. Q3 ; State v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153); but if such an exhibition would
be indecent or offensive, it may be denied {Knowles v. Crampton, 55
Ct. 336). So the jury may be permitted to view the locus in quo ( Vane
v. Evans ton, 150 111. 616). A person may be produced before a jury
to enable them to judge as to his being a minor {Comm. v. Emmons,
98 Mass. 6 ; Herrman v. State, 73 Wis. 248 ; N. Y. Pen. Code, § 19;
contra, Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Wood, 113 Ind. 544, 550); and a wit-
ness under examination or one present in court as a party may be
required by the court to uncover his or her face or to stand up to be
identified {Rice v. Rice, 47 N. J. Eq. 559 ; People v. Goldenson, 76 Cal.
328 ; People v. Gardner, 144 N.Y. 1 19 ; Williams v. State, 98 Ala. 52).
So photographs or drawings of persons or places, if properly verified
as being accurate, may be introduced in evidence ( Udderzook' s Case,
76 Pa. 340 ; Ccwley v. People, 83 N. Y. 464 ; Comm. v. Robertson, 162
Mass. 90 ; Wilson v. U. S., 162 U. S. 613 ; Cleveland, etc. R. Co. v.
Monaghan, 140 111. 475 ; Leidlein v. Meyer, 95 Mich. 586 ; People v.
Johnson, 140 N. Y. 350 ; cf. Gilbert v. West End R. Co., 160 Mass. 403).
But whether a person suing for personal injuries can be required by
the court to submit to an examination by physicians is a matter upon
which the authorities are conflicting ; that he can, see Atchison, etc.
R. Co. v. Thul, 29 Kan. 466 ; Turnpike Co. v. Baily, 37 O. St. 104 ;
White v. Milwaukee R. Co., 61 Wis. 536 ; Schroeder v. Railroad Co.,
47 la. 375; Railway Co. v. Dobbins, 60 Ark. 481 ; Fullerton v. Fordyce,
121 Mo. 1 ; Graves v. Battle Creek, 95 Mich. 266 ; N. Y. Code Civ. Pro.
§ 873 ; that he cannot, Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250 ;
Peoria, etc. R. Co. v. Rice, 144 111. 229; Pennsylvania Co. v. Newmeyer,
129 Ind. 401. In suits for divorce because of impotence, it is well set-
tled that the court has the power. Bishop, M. D. & S. ii. §§ 1298-1315;
Anonymous, 89 Ala. 291; Cahn v. Cahn, 21 Misc. 506; cf. McGuJ v,
State, 88 Ala. 147.]
178 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
CHAPTER IX.
OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE— PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY, AND ATTESTED DOCUMENTS.
Article 6$.
proof of contents of documents.
The contents* of documents may be proved either by pri-
mary or by secondary evidence.
Article 64.
primary evidence.
Primary evidence means the document itself produced
for the inspection of the court, accompanied by the pro-
duction of an attesting witness in cases in which an attest-
ing witness must be called under the provisions of Articles
66 and 67 ; or an admission of its contents proved to have
been made by a person whose admissions are relevant
under Articles 15-20.1
1 Slatterie v. Pooley, 6 M. & W. 664. [This doctrine that the con-
tents of a document may be proved by a party's admissions is accepted
in several States (Loo?/iis v. Wadhams, 8 Gray, 557 ; Edgar v. Rich-
ardson, 33 O. St. 581 ; Taylor v. Peck, 21 Gratt. 1 1 ; Edwards v. Tracy,
62 Pa. 374 ; Blackington v. Rockland, 66 Me. 332 ; Hoeflingv. Ham-
bleton, 84 Tex. 517 ; Morey v. Hoy I, 62 Ct. 542 ; cf. Morrill v. Robin-
son, 71 Me. 24). But in New York and New Jersey it is rejected
{Sherman v. People, 13 Hun, 575 ; Cumberland Ins. Co. v. Giltinan,
48 N. J. L. 495), though such evidence is receivable if the document is
lost or destroyed. Mandeville v. Reynolds, 68 N. Y. 528, 537 ; Corbin
v. Jackson, 14 Wend. 619 ; see Gr. Ev. i. § 96 ; \Vh. Ev. ii. §§ 1091-
1093-]
Chap. IX.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 179
Where a document is executed in several parts, each
part is primary evidence of the document : !
Where a document is executed in counterpart, each
counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties
only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the
parties executing it.2
Where a number of documents are all made by print-
ing, lithography, or photography, or any other process of
such a nature as in itself to secure uniformity in the
copies, each is primary evidence of the contents of the
rest ; 3 but where they are all copies of a common original,
1 [Each of several duplicate originals is primary evidence {Lewis v.
Payn, 8 Cow. 71 ; Hubbard v. Russell, 24 Barb. 404 ; Totten v. Bucy,
57 Md. 446 ; Gardner v. Eberhart, 82 111. 316 ; cf. Crossvian v. Cross-
man, 95 N. Y. 145 ; see p. 191, note 1, post). So a copy may, under
special circumstances, be deemed primary evidence. Carroll v.
Peake, 1 Pet. 18 ; Aaltman v. Ritter, 81 Wis. 395.]
2 Roe d. West v. Davis, 7 Ea. 362. [Loring v. Whittemore, 13 Gray,
228 ; Nicoll v. Burke, 8 Abb. N. C. 213 ; Cleveland, etc. R. Co. v. Per-
kins, 17 Mich. 296 ; Anglo-A?ner. Co. v. Camion, 31 F. R. 313. vIt is
not usual now to execute instruments in counterpart. Roland v.
Pinckney, 8 Misc. 458.]
3 R. v. Watson, 2 Stark. 129. This case was decided long before the
invention of photography ; but the judgments delivered by the court
(Ellenborough, C. J., and Abbott, Bayley, and Holroyd, JJ.) establish
the principle stated in the text. [Wh. Ev. i. §§ 70, 92 ; see Huffv.
Bennett, 4 Sandf. 120 ; Simmons v. Holster, 13 Minn. 249.
When a telegram is to be proved, the primary evidence, in contro-
versies between the sender and the company, is the original message
delivered to the company for transmission ( W. U. Tel. Co. v. Hopkins,
49 Ind. 223; but see Conyers v. Postal Tel. Co., 92 Ga. 619); and the
same is true when the question is whether the alleged sender of a dis-
patch did actually send it, or authorize it to be sent ( Oregon Steams/iip
Co. v. Otis, 100 N. Y. 446). But when a contract is made by telegrams,
and the sender takes the initiative by sending the offer, thus making
the company his agent to transmit the message, the primary evidence
to prove the contract is the message of the sender as delivered to the
receiver and the answering message of the receiver as delivered by
him to the office for transmission {Durkee v, Vt. R. Co., 29 Yt. 127;
i8o A DIGEST OF [Part II.
no one of them is primary evidence of the contents of the
original.1
Article 65.
PROOF OF DOCUMENTS BY PRIMARY EVIDENCE.
The contents of documents must, except in the cases
mentioned in Article 71, be proved by primary evidence ;
and in the cases mentioned in Article 66 by calling- an
attesting witness.3
Article 66.*
proof of execution of document required by law to be
attested.
If a document is required by law to be attested,4 it may
not be used as evidence (except in the cases mentioned
* See Note XXVIII. [Appendix].
Howley v. Whipple, 48 N. H. 487 ; Nickersoii v. Spindell, 164 Mass.
25 ; Ayer v. Tel. Co., 79 Me. 493', 500 ; Savelandv. Green, 40 Wis. 431 ;
cf. Smith v. Easton, 54 Md. 138 ; Trevor v. Wood, 36 N. Y. 307 ; see
cases collected in 14 Abb. N. C. 394). So in other cases where the
sender takes the initiative in sending directions by telegraph, or an
offer or request, the message received by the addressee is primary
evidence {Anhetiser-Busch Ass 71 v. Hutmacher, 127 111. 652 ; Magie
v. Herman, 50 Minn. 424; cf. Comm. v. Jeffries, 7 Allen, 548). But
when the sendee employs the telegraph company, the primary evi-
dence is the message delivered to the operator. Id.]
1 Noden v. Murray, 3 Camp. 224. [Letter-press copies of documents
are secondary evidence {Foot v. Bentley, 44 N. Y. 166 ; State v. Hal-
stead, 73 la. 376 ; McDowell v. J£t7ia Ins. Co., 164 Mass. 444 ; King
v. Worthington, 73 111. 161). So of photographic copies. Duffinv.
People, 107 111. 113 ; Maclean v. Scripps, 52 Mich. 214 ; White Co. v.
Gordon, 124 Ind. 495.]
2[Gr. Ev. i. §§ 82-88; Wh. Ev. i. §§ 60-160; Kain v. Larkin, 131
N. Y. 300, 311; Woods v. Burke, 67 Mich. 674 ; Martin v. McCray, 171
Pa. 575-]
3 [One who subscribes an instrument as a witness, but without the
knowledge or consent of the parties, is not to be deemed an attesting
witness. Gr. Ev. i. § 569 a ; Sherwood v. Pratt, 63 Barb. 137 ; Huston
v. Ticknor, 99 Pa. 231.]
4 [See Art. 69, note.]
Chap. IX.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 181
or referred to in the next Article) if there be an attesting
witness alive, sane, and subject to the process of the
court, until one attesting witness at least has been called
for the purpose of proving its execution.1
If it be shown that no such attesting witness is alive or
can be found, it must be proved that the attestation of one
attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that
the signature of the person executing the document is in
the handwriting of that person.2
1 [Gr. Ev. i. § 569 ; Wh. Ev. i. §§ 723-725 ; Henry v. Bishop, 2 Wend.
575 ; International, etc. R. Co. v. McRae, 82 Tex. 614 ;0Barryv. Ryan,
4 Gray, 523. Only one witness need testify, though there be two or
more (O' Sullivan v. Overton, 56 Ct. 102; White v. Wood, 8 Cush.
413; Melcherv. Flanders, 40 N. H. 139). But the absence of all
must be accounted for, before evidence of handwriting will be ad-
mitted. Jackson v. Gager, 5 Cow. 383 ; Tarns v. Hitner, 9 Pa. 441 ;
Turner v. Green, 2 Cr. C. C. 202.]
2 [The same general rule is established by statute in some States in
regard to deeds (Mass. Pub. St. c. 120, ss. 8, 10; Maine Rev. St. c.
72, s. 19 ; Vt. Rev. St. ss. 1938, 1943). But generally in this country it
is sufficient to prove the signature either of a witness or of the party,
without proving both (Borst v.Empie, 5 N. Y. 33). Proof of the
signature of one witness is sufficient proof of execution {Stebbins v.
Duncan, 108 U. S. 32; Gelolt v. Goodspeed, 8 Cush. 411; Va?i
Rensselaer v. Jones, 2 Barb. 643); but proof of the party's identity may
be needed besides, in cases of doubt or suspected fraud (Id.; Brown
v. Kimball, 25 Wend. 259); and the signatures of other witnesses or of
the party may, of course, always be proved, in addition to that of one
witness {Jackson v. Chamberlain, 8 Wend. 620; Serin's v. Nelson, 14
N. J. Eq. 94). In New York and some other States the signature of a
witness must always be proved, if practicable, before that of a party
can be ( Willson v. Belts, 4 Den. 201 ; Stebbins v. Duncan, 108 U. S. 32 ;
see McVicker v. Conkle, 96 Ga. 584, criticising the rule); but if the
witness's handwriting cannot be proved, then the party's should be
{Jackson v. Waldron, 13 Wend. 178 ; Lessee of Clarke v. Courtney,
5 Pet. 319). But in a number of the States the writing of the party
may be proved without proving that of a witness {Jones v. Roberts,
65 Me. 273; Cox v. Davis, 17 Ala. 714; Landers v. Bolton, 26 Cal.
393; Wellfordv. Eakin, 1 Cr. C. C 264); that the handwriting of
either or both may be proved, see Snider v. Burks, 84 Ala. 53, 56 ;
A DIGEST OF [Part II.
The rule extends to cases in which —
the document has been burnt,1 or canceled,2 [or lost] ; :
Gelott v. Goodspeed, 8 Cush. 411 ; cf. Troeder v. Hyams, 153 Mass.
536.
Besides death or insanity {Neely v. Neely, 17 Pa. 227 ; McKay v.
Lasher, 121 N. Y. 477), absence of witnesses from the State will let in
proof of handwriting ; it is not necessary to send a commission to take
their depositions {Trustees of Charities v. Connolly, 157 Mass. 272;
Hanrick v. Patrick, 119 U. S. 156; Grogan v. U. S. Industrial his.
Co., 90 Hun, 521 ; Lush v. Druse, 4 Wend. 313; N.J. Zinc Co. v.
Lehigh Zinc Co., 59 N. J. L. 189 ; Gallagher v. London Assur. Corp.,
149 Pa. 25 ; Ballinger v. Davis, 29 la. 512). So handwriting may be
proved when no witness can be found after diligent search, or none
who is competent to testify (Gr. Ev. i. § 572 ; Pelletreau v. Jackson,
11 Wend, no ; li'oodman v. Segar, 25 Me. 90).
Special statutes in some States require proof of certain documents
by more than one witness, as e. g., proof of a will by both or all the
subscribing witnesses upon an application for the admission of the
will to probate (N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. § 2618 ; Ohio R. S. s. 5926 ; 111.
R. S. c. 148, ss. 2 & 6). But in other proceedings than those for probate,
the testimony of one subscribing witness to the will may be sufficient
{Upton v. Bernstein, 76 Hun, 516). In several States a will may be
proved, upon an application for probate, by one witness, if the pro-
bate is not contested (Mass. Pub. St. c. 129, s. 1 ; R. S. of N. H. c. 187,
s. 6 ; Wis. R. S. ii. p. 2014). If any witness or witnesses to a will are
dead, insane, absent, etc., proof of handwriting may be given ; by
some statutes the signature of the testator must be proved as well as
that of the witness or witnesses. Id.; N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. § 2620;
Denny v. Pinncy, 60 Yt. 524 ; cf. Collyer v. Collyer, 4 Dem. 53.]
1 Gillies v. Smither, 2 Stark. 528. [But where the instrument which
was burned was a deed which had been duly acknowledged, it was
held not necessary to call the subscribing witness to prove its
execution. Simmons v. Haven, 101 N. Y. 427 ; see Art. 67, post,
note 4.]
2 Breton v. Cope, Pea. R. 43.
z [Hewitt v. Morris, 5 J. & Sp. 18; Kelsey v. Hanmer, 18 Ct. 311;
Porter v. Wilson, 13 Pa. 641 ; Wells v. Jackson Iron Co., 48 N. H. 491 ;
cf. Jackson v. Frier, 16 Johns. 193 ; Moore v. Livingston, 28 Barb. 543 ;
Kimball v. Morrill, 4 Me. 368. If, however, by reason of the loss, it
cannot be ascertained who were the subscribing witnesses, other
evidence is admissible. Jackson v. Vail, 7 Wend. 125 ; Davis v.
Spooner, 3 Pick. 284.]
Chap. IX.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 183
the subscribing witness is blind ; '
the person by whom the document was executed is pre-
pared to testify to his own execution of it ; 2
the person seeking to prove the document is prepared
to prove an admission of its execution by the person who
executed it, even if he is a party to the cause,3 unless such
admission be made for the purpose of, or has reference to
the cause.4
Article 67.*
cases in which attesting witness need not be called.
In the following cases, and in the case mentioned in
Article 88, but in no others, a person seeking to prove the
execution of a document required by law to be attested is
*See Note XXVIII. [Appendix].
1 Cronk v. Frith, 9 C. & P. 197; [see Cheeney v. Arnold, 18 Barb.
434-]
2 R. v. Harringworth, 4 M. & S. 353. [This is true, though parties
are now competent to testify. Brigham v. Palmer, 3 Allen, 450 ;
Jones v. Underwood, 28 Barb. 481 ; Weigandv. Sichel, 4 Abb. Dec.
592 ; Fletcher v. Perry, 97 Ga. 368 ; Russell v. Walker, 73 Ala. 315 ;
Hess v. Griggs, 43 Mich. 397 ; cf. Rayburn v. Mason Lumber Co., 57
Mich. 273 ; contra, Bowling v. Hax, 55 Mo. 446 ; Garrett v. Hanshue,
53 O. St. 482.]
* Call v. Dunning, 4 Ea. 53. See, too, Whyma7i v. Garth, 8 Ex.
803 ; Randall v. Lynch, 2 Camp. 357. [Fox v. Riel, 3 Johns. 477 ;
Smith v. Carotin, 1 Cr. C. C. 99 ; Richmond, etc. R. Co. v. Jones, 92
Ala 218 ; Kinney v. Flynn, 2 R. I. 319 ; Warner v. B. &* O. R. Co.,
31 O. St. 265. But a contrary rule became established in New York
as to negotiable paper (see Jones v. Underwood, 28 Barb. 483 ; S. P.
Williams v. Floyd, 1 1 Pa. 499 ; but see Art. 69, post, note 2).
If the witnesses are dead, and the document lost or canceled, so
that handwriting cannot be proved, evidence of admissions is re-
ceivable {Jackson v. Vail, 7 Wend. 125; Kingwood v. Bethlehem, 13
N. J. L. 221 ; Elliott v. Dyche, 78 Ala. 150). So if the witnesses' testi-
mony is insufficient. Frost v. Deering, 21 Me. 156.]
4 [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 569, 572 ; Blake v. Sawin, 10 Allen, 340 ; Jones v.
Henry, 84 N. C. 320. Such admissions may be made in the pleadings
1 84 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
not bound to call for that purpose cither the party who
executed the deed or any attesting witness, or to prove
the handwriting of any such party or attesting witness —
( t ) When he is entitled to give secondary evidence of
the contents of the document under Article 71 (a);1
(2) When his opponent produces it when called upon,
and claims an interest under it in reference to the subject-
matter of the suit ; 2
(3) When the person against whom the document is
sought to be proved is a public officer bound by law to
procure its due execution, and who has dealt with it as a
document duly executed.3 4
{Robert v. Good, 36 N. Y. 408 ; Thorpe v. Keokuk Coal Co., 48 N. Y.
253). So both parties may waive proof by witness. Forsythe v. Har-
din,62 111. 206.]
1 Cooke v. Tanswell, 8 Tau. 450 ; Poole v. Warren, 8 A. & E. 588.
[Razaleyv. Doe, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 143. In Bright v. Young, 15 Ala. 112,
which was a case of this kind, the subscribing witness was examined,
but failed to prove the execution of the instrument with any degree
of certainty, and it was held that circumstantial evidence was then
receivable to show its execution and identity. See /ackson v. Woolsey,
1 1 Johns. 446.]
2 Pearce v. Hooper, 3 Tau. 60 ; Rearden v. A/inter, 5 M. & G. 204.
[Gr. Ev. i. § 571; /aekson v. Kingsley, 17 Johns. 158; McGregor v.
Wait, 10 Gray, 72 ; Woodstock Iron Co. v. Reed, 84 Ala. 493; see
Balliett v. Fink, 28 Pa. 266 ; Adams v. O Connor, 100 Mass. 515.] As
to the sort of interest necessary to bring a case within this exception,
see Collins v. Bayntun, 1 Q. B. 118.
3 Plumer v. Briscoe, 11 Q. B. 46 ; [Scott v. Waithman, 3 Stark. 168 ;
Gr. Ev. i. §§ 571, 573 ; see Battle v. Baird, 118 N. C. 854; McVicker
v. Conkle, 96 Ga. 584, 585.] Bailey v. Bidwell, 13 M. & W. 73, would
perhaps justify a slight enlargement of the exception, but the circum-
stances of the case were very peculiar. Mr. Taylor (ss. 1650-1) con-
siders it doubtful whether the rule extends to instruments executed
by corporations, or to deeds enrolled under the provisions of any act
of Parliament, but his authorities hardly seem to support his view;
at all events, as to deeds by corporations.
*■* [The following are additional exceptions :
(a) It is a rule in some States that proof by a subscribing witness is
Chap. IX.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 185
Article 68.
proof when attesting witness denies the execution.
If the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the
execution of the document, its execution may be proved
by other evidence.1 . ^^.
Article 69.
proof of document not required by law to be
attested.
An attested document not required by law to be at-
tested may in all cases whatever, civil or criminal, be
proved as if it was unattested.2
not required when the instrument is not directly in issue, but only
comes incidentally or collaterally in question (Gr. Ev. i. § 573 b ; Wh.
Ev. i. § 724 ; Kitchen v. Smith, lot Pa. 452 ; Ayers v. Hewett, 19 Me.
281 ; Rand v. Dodge, 17 N. H. 343, 357 ; Curtis v. Belknap, 21 Vt. 433 ;
Steiner Bros. v. Tranum, 98 Ala. 315 ; see Co mm. v. Castles, 9 Gray,
121 ; Smith v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 4 Abb. Dec. 262 ; post, p. 190, note).
(b) In many States recorded deeds and other instruments may be
proved by duly authenticated copies, without calling any subscribing
witness ; or the deed, etc., as acknowledged or proved and certified,
so as to be recorded, may be given in evidence. But the rules vary
in different States. See Gragg v. Learned, 109 Mass. 167 ; Sudlow v.
Warshing, 108 N. Y. 520 ; Brown v. Oldham, 123 Mo. 621 ; N. Y. Code
Civ. Pro. §§ 935-937 ; Maine Rev. St. c. 82. s. no ; Wh. Ev. i. §740.]
1 "Where an attesting witness has denied all knowledge of the
matter, the case stands as if there were no attesting witness." Talbot
v. Hodson, 7 Tau. 251, 254. [Hamsher v. Kline, 57 Pa. 397; Matter
of Cottrell, 95 N. Y. 329 ; Patterson v. Tucker, 9 N. J. L. 322 ; Barne-
wall v. Murrell, 108 Ala. 366; Thomas v. Le Baron, 8 Met. 355 ; Webb
v. Dye, 18 W. Va. 376 ; cf. Tompson v. Fisher, 123 Mass. 559. So gen-
erally if the witness's testimony is inadequate to prove execution.
Harrington v. Gable, 81 Pa. 406 ; Frost v. Deering, 21 Me. 156.]
2 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 26 ; 28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, ss. 1, 7. [Similar
statutes are in force in some States of this country (Laws of 1883, N.
Y. c. 195 ; Pub. St. R. I. c. 214, s. 41 ; 3 How. St. (Mich.) § 7531, a ;
i86 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
Article 70.
secondary evidence.
Secondary evidence means —
( 1 ) Examined copies, exemplifications, office copies, and
certified copies :l
(2) Other copies made from the original and proved to
be correct : 2
(3) Counterparts of documents as against the parties
who did not execute them : 3
(4) Oral accounts of the contents of a document given
by some person who has himself seen it.4
Article 71.
cases in which secondary evidence relating to
documents may be given.
Secondary evidence may be given of the contents of a
document in the following cases : —
Laws of Md. of 1888, c. 545 ; cf. 111. Rev. St. p. 543, s. 51 (ed. 1883) ;
Medary v. Cathers, 161 Pa. 87). But by the common-law rule, which
still generally prevails, if a document is actually attested, though the
law does not require its attestation, its execution must be proved by
the attesting witness, or as otherwise prescribed in Art. 66 {Giannonc
v. Fleetwood, 93 Ga. 491).
As to the proof of unattested documents, see Nichols v. Allen, 112
Mass. 23 ; St. John v. Amer. Ins. Co., 2 Duer, 419 ; Seibold v. Rogers,
no Ala. 438 ; Pullen v. Hutchinson, 25 Me. 249.]
1 See Chapter X.
2 [See p. 180, note 1. A copy of a copy is sometimes admissible.
Cameron v. Peck, 37 Ct. 555 ; Winn v. Patterson, 9 Pet. 663.]
zMunnv. Godbold, 3 Bing. 292. [Loringv. Whittanore, 13 Gray,
228 ; see p. 179, note 2.]
4 [The witness must be able to prove the substance of the contents of
Chap. IX.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 187
(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the
possession or power of the adverse party,
and when, after the notice mentioned in Article 72, he
does not produce it ; *
(b) When the original is shown or appears to be in the
possession or power of a stranger not legally bound to
produce it, and who refuses to produce it after being
served with a subpoena duces tecum, or after having been
sworn as a witness and asked for the document and hav-
ing admitted that it is in court ; 2
the document. Edwards v. Noyes, 65 N. Y. 125 ; Richard's Appeal,
122 Pa. 547 ; Mayor of Baltimore v. War, yy Md. 593 ; Camden v.
Belgrade, 78 Me. 204.]
1 R. v. Watson, 2 T. R. 201. Entick v. Carrington, 19 S. T. 1073, 's
cited by Mr. Phillips as an authority for this proposition. I do not
think it supports it, but it shows the necessity for the rule, as at com-
mon law no power existed to compel the production of documents.
[Comm. v. Shurti, 145 Mass. 150; Dunbar v. U. S., 156 U. S. 185;
Bishop v. Amer. Preservers' Co., 157 111. 284 ; Carland v. Cunning-
ham, 2,7 Pa. 228; Keagle v. Pessell, 91 Mich. 618; Gaffer v. Amer.
Mortgage Co., yy la. 736 ; Golden v. Cornier, 89 Ala. 598 ; see Art.
y 2, post. The party refusing to produce on notice incurs the penalty
of having all inferences from the secondary evidence, if such evidence
be imperfect, vague, or uncertain, taken most strongly against himself
(Cahen v. Continental Ins. Co., 69 N. Y. 300 ; Cartierv. Troy Lumber
Co., 138 111. 533 ; McGuiness v. School District, 39 Minn. 499).
Notice need not be given to a party who has admitted that the
original document is lost or destroyed. R. v. Haworth, 4 C. & P. 254 ;
Barmby v. Phimmer, 29 Neb. 64 ; but see Burlington Lumber Co. v.
Whitebreast Co., 66 la. 292.]
2 Mills v. Oddy, 6 C. & P. 732 ; Marston v. Downes, 1 A. & E. 31.
[As where an attorney refuses to produce a document of his client
{Brandt v. Klein, \y Johns. 335 ; Hubbell v.Judd, etc. Oil Co., 19 Alb.
L. J. 97 ; Stokoe v. St. Paul, etc. R. Co., 40 Minn. 545 ; see Arts. 1 15,
118, 119, post); or a witness refuses, because the document will crim-
inate him {State v. Gurnee, 14 Kan. in); or the document is a public
one on file in a public office and so not required to be produced. Cor-
belt v. Gibson, 16 Blatch. 334 ; cf In re Hirsch, 74 F. R. 928 ; see p.
193, note 1, post.]
A DIGEST OF [Part II.
(c) When the original has been destroyed or lost, and
proper search has been made for it ; '
[d) When the original is of such a nature as not to be
easily movable,2 or is in a country from which it is not
permitted to be removed ; 3
1 i Ph. Ev. 452; 2 Ph. Ev. 281 ; T. E. (from Greenleaf) s. 309. [Man-
deville v. Reynolds, 68 N. Y. 528 ; Slebbins v. Duncan, 108 U. S. 32 ;
JMc Council v. Wildes, 153 Mass. 487 ; Gorgas v. Hertz, 150 Pa. 538.
Diligent search must ordinarily be shown, exhausting all reasonable
means of discovery (Simpson v. Dull, 3 Wall. 460 ; Johnson v. Am-
wine, 42 N. J. L. 451; Kearney v. Mayor of N. Y, 92 N. Y. 617 ; Dar-
row v. Pierce, 91 Mich. 63 ; Mullanphy Bk. v. Schott, 135 111. 655 ;
McCollisterv. Yard, 90 la. 621). But the less the importance of the
instrument, the less the diligence required (American Ins. Co. v.
Rosenagle, 77 Pa. 507 ; Hatch v. Carpenter, 9 Gray, 271). Proof of
the existence and genuineness of the lost instrument is required, in
order that secondary evidence may be admissible. Nichols v. King-
dom Iron Co., 56 N. Y. 618 ; Guntherv. Bennett, 72 Md. 384 ; Krise v.
Neason, 66 Pa. 253.] The loss may be proved by an admission of the
party or his attorney (R. v. Haworth, 4 C. & P. 254 ; [Pentecost v.
Stale, 107 Ala. 81]).
[A party who has voluntarily destroyed a document cannot give
secondary evidence of its contents, unless he shows his act to have
been with innocent intent. Potter v. Adams, 125 Mo. 118; Steele v.
Lord, 70 N. Y. 280 ; Bagley v. McMickle, 9 Cal. 430 ; Jones v. Knauss,
31 N. J. Eq. 609 ; Joannes v. Bennett, 5 Allen, 169.]
2 Mortimer v. McCallan, 6 M. & W. 67, 68, (this was the case of a
libel written on a wall); Bruce v. Nicolopulo, 11 Ex. 133, (the case of
a placard posted on a wall). [Gr. Ev. i. § 94 ; North Brookfield v.
Warren, 16 Gray, 171, (inscription on a tombstone); Stearns v. Doe, 12
Gray, 482, (name of a vessel); cf. Cozzens v. Higgins, 1 Abb. Dec. 451,
(photograph of a place ; see Art. 62, ante, and note).]
3 Alivon v. Fumival, 1 C. M. & R. 277, 291-2. [Mauri v. Heffernan,
13 Johns. 58. So if the original is in the possession of a person in an-
other State or country, so that its production cannot be compelled
(Elwell v. Mersick, 50 Ct. 272 ; Tucker v. Woolsey, 6 Lans. 482 ; Stevens
v. Miles, 142 Mass. 571; Knickerbocker v. Wilcox, 83 Mich. 200;
Beattie v. Hilliard, 55 N. H. 428 ; Fosdick v. Van Horn, 40 O. St. 459 ;
Burton v. Driggs, 20 Wall. 125, 134; Memphis, etc. R. Co. v. Hcm-
bree, 84 Ala. 182 ; Zellerbach v. Allenberg, 99 Cal. 57 ; Otto v. Trump,
Chap. IX.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 189
(e) When the original is a public document ; J
{/) [When the party has been deprived of the original
by fraud, so that it cannot be procured.] 2
(g) When the original is a document for the proof of
which special provision is made by any act of Parliament,
or any law in force for the time being ; 3 or
(h) When the originals consist of numerous documents
which cannot conveniently be examined in court, and the
fact to be proved is the general result 4 of the whole col-
115 Pa. 425, 430). These cases do not declare it necessary to take
his deposition, but in some cases his deposition has been taken,
and secondary evidence of the document received because he would
not give up the original {Bullis v. Eastern, 96 la. 513; Deitz v.
Regnier, 27 Kan. 94 ; L Herbette v. Pittsfield Nat. Bk., 162 Mass.
137; in these foregoing cases he gave a copy which was used;
Forrest v. Forrest, 6 Duer, 102, 137 ; Fisher v. Greene, 95 111. 94).
Some cases, however, hold that mere absence of the document from
the State is not enough, but that the deposition of the witness
should be taken or some proper effort made to obtain the original.
Wiseman v. N. P. R. Co., 20 Or. 425 ; Wood v. Cidlen, 13 Minn.
394 ; Shaw v. Mason, 10 Kan. 184 ; see Knowlton v. Knowlton,
84 Me. 283; Thomson - Houston Electric Co. v. Palmer, 52 Minn.
1 74-]
1 See Chapter X. ; [including public records ; see Gr. Ev. i. § 91.]
2 [Grimes v. Kimball, 3 Allen, 518 ; Nealley v. Greenough, 25 N. H.
325 ; Mitchell v.Jacobs, 17 111. 235 ; see Marlow v. Marlon/, 77 111.
633-
This paragraph is substituted for one which is peculiar to English
law. It will be found in the Appendix, Note XLIX.]
3 See Chapter X. [Many such statutes are in force in this country.]
4 Roberts v. Doxen, Peake, 116; Meyer v. Sefton, 2 Stark. 276. The
books, etc., should in such a case be ready to be produced if required.
Johnson v. Kershaw, 1 De G. & S. 264. [Gr. Ev. i. § 93 ; Wh. Ev. i.
§ 80 ; Burton v. Driggs, 20 Wall. 125 ; Von Sachs v. Kretz, 72 N. Y.
548 ; Boston 6>-» W. R. Co. v. Dana, 1 Gray, 83 ; Chicago, etc. R. Co.
v. Wolcott, 141 Ind. 267; State v. Findley, 101 Mo. 217 ; Wolfordv.
Farnham, 47 Minn. 95.]
iqo A DIGEST OF [Part II.
lection ; provided that that result is capable of being
ascertained by calculation.1
1 [Besides the cases here stated, another has been asserted, viz.,
that parol evidence of the contents of documents may be given, when
they do not form the foundation of the cause, but merely relate to
some collateral fact (M Fadden v. Kingsbury, 1 1 Wend. 667 ; Roose-
velt \. Eckard, 17 Abb. N. C. 58; Maxwell v. Hofheimer, 81 Hun,
551 ; Coonrodv. Madden, 126 Ind. 197 ; Rodgers v. Crook, 97 Ala. 722 ;
Faulcon v. Johnston, 102 N. C. 264 ; cf. Daniels v. Smith, 130 N. Y.
696 ; Phinney v. Holt, 50 Me. 570). This doctrine has been criti-
cised (Ph. Ev. Amer. Ed., ii. *5 13 ; Jones v. Underwood, 28 Barb.
481), but there is now much weighty authority in its support.
So the contents of a document, as a notice, placard, inscription,
etc., may be proved by parol, as a means of describing the place
where it hangs, of identifying the object to which it is attached, of
showing the nature and purpose of a display or exhibition in which it
is carried, etc. {Comm. v. Brown, 124 Mass. 318 ; Comm. v. Morrell,
99 id. 542 ; R. v. Hunt, 3 B. & Aid. 566). Parol evidence has also
been received of the contents of a document which was a transient
casual paper, not likely to be preserved, or when such contents were
referred to incidentally or by way of inducement or recital, etc. {State
v. Credle, 91 N. C. 640 ; People v. Jones, 106 N. Y. 523, 526 ; Chrysler
v. Renois, 43 N. Y. 209 ; N. J. Zinc Co. v. Lehigh Zinc Co., 59 N. J.
L. 189, 193 ; Massey v. Farmers' Nat. Bk., 113 111. 334).
A document may also be so far collateral to the question in issue,
though relating to the same subject-matter, that its production is
not required, nor proof of its contents necessary. In such a case
parol evidence is receivable of the transaction to which it relates ; as
e.g., where a contract is made by parol, but a written memorandum
of its terms is made at the same time ; the writing may, however, be
competent evidence to corroborate the oral testimony (Lathrop v.
Brain hall, 64 N. Y. 365 ; Thomas v. Nelson, 69 N. Y. 118 ; Mobile,
etc. R. Co. v. Jurey, 1 1 1 U. S. 584 ; Freeman v. Bartlett, 47 N. J. L. 33 ;
Adams v. Sullivan, 100 Ind. 8). So the existence of a fact or a state
of facts, as a tenancy, a partnership, etc., may be proved by parol
evidence, though it was created by the use of a document (Ham»io>:
v. Sexton, 69 Ind. 37 ; Uhl v. Moorhous, 137 Ind. 445 ; Gallagher v.
London Assur. Corp., 149 Pa. 25 ; State v. Grant, 104 N. C. 908 ; East
v. Pace, 57 Ala. 521), or though a writing was made as some record or
memorial thereof {Hewitt v. State, 121 Ind. 245 ; Comm. v. Dill, 156
Mass. 226; cf. Comm. v. Stevens, 155 id. 291). So the payment of a
debt may be proved by parol, without producing the written receipt
Chap. IX.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 191
Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, any
secondary evidence of a document is admissible.1
In case {h) evidence may be given as to the general
result of the documents by any person who has examined
them, and who is skilled in the examination of such
documents.
Questions as to the existence of facts rendering
secondary evidence of the contents of documents ad-
missible are to be decided by the judge, unless in de-
ciding such a question the judge would in effect decide
the matter in issue.*
{Kingsbury v. Moses, 45 N. H. 222) ; so oftentimes of written proposals,
notices, demands, etc. (Gr. Ev. i. §§ 89, 90 ; Wh. Ev. i. §§ 64, 77 ; Jones
v. Call, 93 N. C. 170 ; Mich. Land, etc. Co. v. Republic T'p, 65 Mich.
628). So collateral facts about a document may be proved by parol
( Winslow v. State, 76 Ala. 42 ; see p. 224, note 3, post).
As to proof of a person's holding a public office, see Art. go, post,
last paragraph.]
1 If a counterpart is known to exist, it is the safest course to produce
or account for it (Munn v. Godbold, 3 Bing. 297 ; R. v. Castleton, 7
T. R. 236).
[It is the English doctrine that there are no degrees in secondary
evidence, and a party may introduce any form thereof (as e. g., oral
testimony instead of a copy), if the original cannot be had. Some
American States adopt the same doctrine (Comm. v. Smith, 151 Mass.
491 ; Magie v. Herman, 50 Minn. 424 ; Eslow v. Mitchell, 26 Mich.
500; Carpenter v. Dame, 10 Ind. 125). But generally in this country
a party must produce the best form of secondary evidence that is or
appears to be procurable by him, as e. g., a copy instead of oral
testimony (Cornell v. Williams, 20 Wall. 226 ; Reddington v. Oilman,
1 Bos. 235 ; Lazzaro v. Maugham, 10 Misc. 230 ; Mandeville v.
Reynolds, 68 N. Y. 528, 533 ; Stevenson v. Hoy, 43 Pa. 191 ; Illinois
Land Co. v. Bonner, 75 111. 315; Harvey v. Thorpe, 28 Ala. 250;
Higgins v. Reed, 8 la. 298 ; Ford v. Cunningham, 87 Cal. 209).
As to counterparts, see Poignand v. Smith, 8 Pick. 272 ; Riggs v.
Tayloe, 9 Wheat. 483 ; Art. 64, ante. Of duplicate originals, all must
be shown to be lost, destroyed, etc., before secondary evidence will be
received. Dyer v. Fredericks, 63 Me. 173, 592 ; McMakin v. Weston,
64 Ind. 270 ; Ala. Southern R. Co. v. Alt. Vernon Co., 84 Ala. 173.]
2 [Mason v. Libbey, 90 N. Y. 683 ; Elivell v. Mersick, 50 Ct. 272.]
192 A DIGEST OF [Part II
Article 72.*
rules as to notice to produce.
Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents
referred to in Article 71 (a) may not be given, unless the
party proposing to give such secondary evidence has,
if the original is in the possession or under the control
of the adverse party, given him such notice to produce it
as the court regards as reasonably sufficient to enable it
to be procured ; ' or has,
if the original is in the possession of a stranger to the
* See Note XXIX. [Appendix].
1 Dtuyer v. Collins, 7 Ex. 648. [Foster y. Newbrough, 58 N. Y. 481;
Draper v. Hatfield, 124 Mass. 53 ; People v. Walker, 38 Mich. 159 ;
Dunbar v. U. S., 156 U. S. 185 ; Mayor of Baltimore v. War, 77 Md.
593, 603 ; Trelever v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 89 Wis. 598 ; Eilbert v.
Finlcbeiner, 68 Pa. 243. Notice is not required unless the original is
in the party's possession or control {Roberts v. Spencer, 123 Mass. 397 ;
Baker v. Pike, 33 Me. 213 ; Shepard v. Giddings, 22 Ct. 282). The
notice may be given to the party's attorney (Brown v. Littlefield, 7
Wend. 454; Den v. M'Allister, 7 N. J. L. 46). The notice must be
given a sufficient time beforehand (Bourne v. Buffingtoti, 125 Mass.
481; U. S. v. Duff, 6 F. R. 45 ; DeWitt v. Prescott, 51 Mich. 298 ;
McPherson v. Rathbone, 7 Wend. 216 ; Utica Ins. Co. v. Cadwell, 3
Wend. 296); if the time allowed be unreasonably short, secondary
evidence will not be admissible (Id.; Mortlock v. Williams, 76 Mich.
568 ; Dade v. sEtna Pis. Co., 54 Minn. 336). The notice must also
definitely describe the document required ( Walden v. Davison, 1 1
Wend. 65 ; Arnstine v. Preat, 71 Mich. 561; McDowell v. AZtna Ins.
Co., 164 Mass. 444 ; see Gr. Ev. i. § 563 ; Art. 71, ante ; Arts. 138, 139,
post). Whether sufficient notice has been given is a question for the
court to determine (Comm. v. Sullivan, 156 Mass. 229 ; Hanselmau v.
Doyle, 90 Mich. 142).
In the Federal courts, the production of books and writings by a
party may also be required under a special statute in actions at law
1 V . S. Rev. St. § 724 ; Lowenstein v. Carey, 12 F. R. 811, and note ;
Exchange .Wit. Bk. v. Washita Co., 61 id. 190). Statutes in many
States also allow discovery and inspection of documents before trial.
N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 803-809 ; Mass. Pub. St. c. 167, ss. 49-60 ; Laws
Chap. IX.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 193
action, served him with a subpoena duces tecum requiring
its production ; '
if a stranger so served does not produce the document,
and has no lawful justification for refusing or omitting to
do so, his omission does not entitle the party who served
him with the subpcena to give secondary evidence of the
contents of the document.2
Such notice is not required in order to render secondary
evidence admissible in any of the following cases —
(1) When the document to be proved is itself a notice ; 3
of Me. of 1893, c. 217 ; Pynchon v. Day, 118 111. 9 ; Arnold v. Paw-
tuxet Co., 18 R. I. 189.]
1 Newton v. Chaplin, 10 C. B. 56-69. \_Aikin v. Martin, 1 1 Pai. 499 ;
Lane v. Cole, 12 Barb. 680 ; Baker v. Pike, 33 Me. 213 ; In re S 'hep-
hard, 3 F. R. 12. So on examinations before masters and commis-
sioners in Federal practice {Erie R. Co. v. Heath, 8 Blatch. 413 ; U. S.
v. Tilden, 10 Ben. 566). Such a subpoena may be served on a party,
now that parties are competent witnesses {Shelp v. Morrison, 13 Hun,
1 10 ; Murray v. Els ton, 23 N. J. Eq. 212 ; Cummer v. Kent Judge, 38
Mich. 351; but see Campbell v. Johnston, 3 Del. Ch. 94), or on a cor-
poration, by serving the proper officer {Johnson Steel Rail Co. v.
North Branch Co., 48 F. R. 195 ; Ex parte Brown, 72 Mo. 83 (tele-
grams); U. S. v. Babcock, 3 Dill. 566 (telegrams); N. Y. Code Civ. Pro.
§ 868 ; In re Sykes, 10 Ben. 162). The writ should describe documents
definitely {State v. Davis, 117 Mo. 614 ; U. S. v. Hunter, 15 F. R. 712 ;
Ex parte Jayncs, 70 Cal. 638), and is compulsory, unless it is set aside,
or the witness is privileged {Boncsteel 'v. Lynde, 8 How. Pr. 226, 352 ;
Corbett v. Gibson, 16 Blatch. 334 ; In re Hirsch, 74 F. R. 928 ; John-
son v. Donaldson, 3 F. R. 22; see Art. 71 {b), ante; Arts. 1 18-120,
post). A subpcena duces tecum may only be used to compel the pro-
duction of documents, books, drawings, and the like, but not of such
objects as iron plates, patterns for stove castings, etc. Johnson Steel
Rail Co. v. North Branch Co., 48 F. R. 191.]
2 R. v. Llanjaethly, 2 E. & B. 940. [The recusant witness may be
sued for damages {Lane v. Cole, 12 Barb. 680), punished for contempt
{Holly MJg. Co. v. Venner, 74 Hun, ^58, 143 N. Y. 639), and is gener-
ally subject also to a statutory penalty. When he is a party, his plead-
ing has sometimes been stricken out. Shelp v. Morrison, 13 Hun, 1 10.]
3 [Quinlcy v. Atkins, 9 Gray, 370 ; Michigan, etc. Land Co. v. Re-
public Township, 65 Mich, 628 ; Pensacola, etc. R. Co. v. Brayton, 34
194 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
(2) "When the action is founded upon the assumption
that the document is in the possession or power of the
adverse party and requires its production ; '
(3) "When it appears or is proved that the adverse party
has obtained possession of the original from a person sub-
poenaed to produce it ; 2
(4) WThen the adverse party or his agent has the original
in court.3 4
Fla. 471; Edwards v. Bonneau, 1 Sandf. 610; Gethin v. Walker, 59
Cal. 502 ; Morrow v. Comm., 48 Pa. 305 ; Central Bk. v. Allen, 16
Me. 41.]
1 How v. Hall, 14 Ea. 247. In an action on a bond, no notice to pro-
duce the bond is required. See other illustrations in 2 Ph. Ev. 373 ;
T. E. s. 422. [Lawson v. Bachman, 81 N. Y. 616 ; Morrill v. B. &=
M. R. Co., 58 N. H. 68 ; Dana v. Conant, 30 Vt. 246 ; Railway Co. v.
Cronin, 38 O. St. 122 ; as e. g., in an action of trover for the document
{Hotchkiss v. Mosher. 48 N. Y. 478). The rule applies also in criminal
cases, as e. g., where the defendant was charged by the indictment
with fraudulently possessing himself of certain documents. State v.
Maybcrry, 48 Me. 218 ; cf. People v. Swetland, 77 Mich. 53.]
2 Leeds v. Cook, 4 Esp. 256. [Gray v. Kemahan, 2 Mill (S. Car.) 65 ;
cf. Bonestecl v. Lynde, 8 How. Pr. 226, 352.' So where a party tore off
a part of a document with intent to destroy, notice to produce the por-
tion he took was held unnecessary. Scott v. Pentz, 5 Sandf. 572.]
3 Formerly doubted, see 2 Ph. Ev. 278, but so held in Dwyer v. Col-
lins, 7 Ex. 639. [A verbal notice'in court is in this case sufficient to
let in secondary evidence (Overlock v. Hall,8i Me/348 ; Field v. Ze-
mansky, 9 111. App. 479; Winslow v. State, 92 Ala. 78; Downer v.
Button, 26 N. H. 338, 343 ; Chadwick v. U. S., 3 F. R. 750 ; Kerr v.
McGuire, 28 N. Y. 446; see Atwellv. Miller, 6 Md. 10; Barton v.
Kane, 1 7 Wis. 37 ; Dole v. Belden, 1 X. Y. S. 667); but some early cases
are to the contrary ( Watkins v. Pintard, 1 N. J. L. (Coxe) 378 ; Mi/li-
ken v. "Barr, 7 Pa. 23). The court may compel a witness to produce
a document which he has in court. Boynlon v. Boynton, 25 How. Pr.
490, 41 N. Y. 619 ; Shelp v. Morrison, 13 Hun, no, 113; McGregor v.
Wait, 10 Gray, 72.]
4 [Additional rules are as follows :
(a) A duplicate original maybe given in evidence, without giving
notice to produce the other (Gr. Ev. i. § 561; Totten v. Bucy, 57 Md.
446 ; Wcstbrook v. Fulton, 79 Ala. 510 ; see Art. 64, ante).
{b) Absence of the party having the document from the State is no
Chap. IX.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 195
excuse for not giving notice, if he can be found (Car/and v. Cunning-
ham, 37 Pa. 228 ; Dade v. A£ttia Ins. Co., 54 Minn. 336). Aliter, if a
stranger out of the State have the document {Stirling v. Buckingham,
46 Ct. 461; see Burton v. Driggs, 20 Wall. 125, 134 ; Art. 71 (d),ante).
(c) In States where the contents of an instrument may be proved by
parol, because it is only collaterally in question, notice to produce the
instrument is not necessary. Coonrodv. Madden, 126 Ind. 197 ; Askew
v. Steiner, 76 Ala. 2j8, 221 ; see ante, p. 190, note.]
i^
ro6 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
CHAPTER X.
PROOF OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS,
Article 73.
PROOF OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.
When a statement made in any public document, register,
or record, judicial or otherwise, or in any pleading or
deposition kept therewith is in issue, or is relevant to the
issue in any proceeding, the fact that that statement is
contained in that document, may be proved in any of the
ways mentioned in this chapter.1
Article 74.
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT ITSELF.
The contents of any public document whatever may be
proved by producing the document itself for inspection
from proper custody, and identifying it as being what it
professes to be.2
1 See Articles 34 and 90.
'-' [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 479, 482-484 ; Wh. Ev. i. §§635-660; Arts. 33 and 34,
ante, and cases cited; Evanston v. Gunn, 99 U. S. 660; Taylor v.
Adams, 115 111. 570; Phelps v. Hunt, 43 Ct. 194. A printed report of
a decision is not competent original evidence of a judgment {Donellan
v. J lardy, 57 Ind. 393), unless the original record has been destroyed
{Frost v. Frost, 21 S. Car. 501). If a public record be lost, its contents
may be proved by the testimony of a witness, no better evidence being
available. Richard 's Appeal, 122 Pa. 547.]
Chap. X.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 197
Article 75*
examined copies.
The contents of any public document whatever may in
all cases be proved by an examined copy.1
An examined copy is a copy proved by oral evidence
to have been examined with the original and to corre-
spond therewith.2 The examination may be made either
by one person reading both the original and the copy, or
by two persons, one reading the original and the other
the copy, and it is not necessary (except in peerage cases3)
that each should alternately read both.4
Article j6.\
[general records of the nation or state.]
[Copies of any documents, records, books, or papers in
any of the executive departments of the United States
Government, authenticated under the seals of such de-
partments, respectively, are admitted in evidence equally
with the originals ; and the same is true of copies of doc-
* See Note XXX. [Appendix] ; also Doe v. Ross, 7 M. & W. 106.
■j" [For original Article, see Note LI. Appendix.]
1 [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 485, 508 ; State v. Loughlin, 66 N. H. 266.]
2 [Gr. Ev. i. § 508 ; State v. Lynde, 77 Me. 561 ; State v. Sfiaulding,
60 Vt. 228 ; Hill v. Packard, 5 Wend. 376, 387 ; Amer. Life Ins. Co. v.
Rosenagle, 77 Pa. 507 ; see N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. § 962. It is also called
a "sworn copy" (Id.; Gr. Ev. i. §§ 485, 501 ; Hubbell v. Meigs, 50 N.
Y. 480, 492 ; Moore v. Gaiis Mfg. Co., 113 Mo. 98 ; State v. Clothier,
30 N. J. L. 351). An examined copy must be made by comparison
with the original document, not by comparison with some other copy.
Lasater v. Van Hook, 77 Tex. 650.]
3 Slane Peerage Case, 5 C. & F. 42.
4 2 Ph. Ev. 200, 231 ; T. E. ss. 1379, 1389 ; R. N. P. 113. [Kellogg v.
Kellogg, 6 Barb. 116 ; see Krise v. Neason, 66 Pa. 253.]
198 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
uments in various public offices, certified by the proper
public officer and authenticated under his seal of office.1
A similar rule as to the proof in State courts of public
documents in State offices is commonly established by
statutes of the States, respectively.] a
Article 77.*
exemplifications.
An exemplification is a copy of a record set out either
under the Great Seal or under the Seal of a court.3
A copy made by an officer of the court, bound by law
to make it, is equivalent to an exemplification, though it is
sometimes called an office copy.4
*See Note XXXI. [Appendix].
1 [U. S. Rev. St. ss. 882-898 ; Ballew v. U. S., 160 U. S. iol ; decisions
collected in Bump's Federal Procedure, pp. 552-562, and Foster's Fed.
Pr. 1, § 268, 2d ed.]
2 [See N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 933, 957, 958 ; Mass. Pub. St. c. 169,
s. 70. So statutes may provide that documents in U. S. offices may be
so proved in State courts. N. Y-. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 943, 944.]
3 [The term applies primarily to domestic judicial records, and is
here defined from that point of view (Gr. Ev. i. §§ 488, 501 ; Wh. Ev.
i. § 95 ; Traction Co. v. Board of Works, 57 N. J. L. 315, 316 ; Patterson
v. Winn, 5 Pet. 233). But it is often now applied both to domestic and
to foreign records, laws, and documents, whether judicial or non-
judicial. Lincoln v. Battelle, 6 Wend. 475 ; Ropes v. Kemps, 38 Fla.
233; Lazier v. Westcott, 26 N. Y. 146; Watson v. Walker, 23 N. H.
471 ; Spaulding v. Vincent, 24 Yt. 501.]
4 [ Traction Co. v. Board of Works, 57 N. J. L. 316. This rule applies
to all courts within the same jurisdiction (Gr. Ev. i. § 507). Copies of
public records, whether judicial or otherwise, made by a public officer
authorized by law to make them, are also often termed " office copies,"
as e g., copies of recorded deeds (Graggv. Learned, 109 Mass. 167;
JLlwell v. Cunningkam, 74 Me. 127). They are also called "certified
copies" (Samuels v. Borrowscale, 104 Mass. 207). They are declared
admissible in many cases in courts of the same jurisdiction without
further authentication. The officer may be required to attach his seal
of office, if he has one. See Art. 79.]
Chap. X.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 199
An exemplification is equivalent to the original docu-
ment exemplified.1
Article 78.*
copies equivalent to exemplifications.
A copy made by an officer of the court, who is author-
ized to make it by a rule of court, but not required by law
to make it, is regarded as equivalent to an exemplifica-
tion in the same cause and court, but in other causes or
courts it is not admissible unless it can be proved as an
examined copy.2
Article 79.
certified copies.
It is provided by many statutes that various certificates,
official and public documents, documents and proceedings
of corporations, and of joint stock and other companies,
and certified copies of documents, by-laws, entries in
registers and other books, shall be receivable in evidence
of certain particulars in courts of justice, provided they
are respectively authenticated in the manner prescribed
by such statutes.3
* See Note XXXI. [Appendix].
1 [This is spoken of domestic records, etc.; foreign records may
need additional authentication. Gr. Ev. i. § 501 ; Art. 84, post.]
- [Gr. Ev. i. § 507; Wh. Ev. i. §§ 104, 105 ; Kellogg v. Kellogg, 6 Barb.
116, 130 ; Traction Co. v. Board of Works, 57 N. J. L. 313, 316. These
are called "office copies" (Id.). But certified copies authorized by-
statute (or "office copies ' in the broader sense of the term ; see pre-
ceding Article) are now commonly used in their place, being admis-
sible in all domestic courts.]
3 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, preamble. Many such statutes are specified in
T. E. s. 1440 and following sections. See, too, R. N. P. 114-5. [See,
e. g., U. S. Rev. St. ss. 882-900 ; N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 921-924, 928-
941, 943-947, 957-962 ; Northumberland Co. v. Zimmerman, 75 Pa. 26;
200 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
Whenever, by virtue of any, such provision, any siich
certificate or certified copy as aforesaid is receivable in
proof of any particular in any court of justice, it is admis-
sible as evidence if it purports to be authenticated in the
manner prescribed by law without proof of any stamp,
seal, or signature required for its authentication or of the
official character of the person who appears to have signed
it.'
"Whenever any book or other document is of such a pub-
lic nature as to be admissible in evidence on its mere pro-
duction from the proper custody, and no statute exists
El-wood v. Flannigan, 104 U. S. 562 ; Get/tin v. Walker, 59 Cal. 502 ;
Preston v. Evans, 56 Md. 476. In some States such copies may be used
by virtue of immemorial usage {Chamberlin v. Ball, 15 Gray, 352).
But it is sometimes provided, as in New York, that the common-law
methods of proof may be used, as well as the special statutory methods
(Code Civ. Pro. §962).
Certificates or certified copies are not admissible in evidence unless
authorized by law, and then only as to matters which the officer is
required or authorized to certify. Water Comm'rs v. Lansing, 45
N. Y. 19; Parr v. Greenbush, 72 N. Y. 463; Way land v. Ware, 109
Mass. 248 ; Jay v. East Livernwre, 56 Me. 107 ; Francis v. Newark,
58 X. J. L. 522 ; People v. Lee, 112 111. 113.]
1 Ibid., s. 1. I believe the above to be the effect of the provision,
but the language is greatly condensed. Some words at the end of the
section are regarded as unmeaning by several text-writers. See, e.g.,
R. X. P. 116 ; 2 Ph. Ev. 241 ; T. E. s. 7, note 1. Mr. Taylor says that
the concluding words of the section were introduced into the act while
passing through the House of Commons. He adds, they appear to
have been copied from 1 & 2 Vict. c. 94, s. 13 (see Art. 76) "by some
honorable member who did not know distinctly what he was about."
They certainly add nothing to the sense. [*S. P. Thurman v. Cameron,
24 Wend. 87 ; Trustees of Canandarqua Academy v. McKecJinie, 19
Hun, 62, 90 X. Y. 618 ; Keichline v. Keichline, 54 Pa. 75 ; Kingman v.
Coivlcs, 103 Mass. 283 ; Harris v. Doe, 4 Blackf . 369 ; Galvin v. Palmer,
113 Cal. 46 ; Bixby v. Carskaddon, 55 la. 533. Such copies or certifi-
cates are, however, generally deemed only presumptive ox prima facie
evidence, open to rebuttal. Id.; see N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §§921-924,
928, 936.]
Chap. X.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 201
which renders its contents provable by means of a copy,
any copy thereof or extract therefrom is admissible in
proof of its contents,1 provided it purport to be signed
and certified as a true copy or extract by the officer to
whose custody the original is intrusted.2 3
Article 80.*
[documents and records of the several states admissible
throughout the united states.]4
[The records and judicial proceedings of the courts of
any State or Territory or of any country subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States, shall be proved or ad-
*[For the original Article, see Note LI. Appendix.]
1 The words "provided it be proved to be an examined copy or ex-
tract or," occur in the act, but are here omitted because their effect is
given in Article 75.
2 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 14. [Some American decisions have main-
tained this rule as a common-law principle (Gr. Ev. i. § 485 ; U.. S. v.
Percheman, 7 Pet. 51; People v. Lee, 112 111. 113); but the weight of
authority is that certified copies of public documents are not admis-
sible unless authorized by statute ( Traction Co. v. Board of Works,
57 N. J. L. 313 ; Selden v. Canal Co., 29 N. Y. 634 ; see, also, cases
cited in note 1, p. 200, ante). But the use of certified copies is now so
generally authorized by statute that this question as to the common-
law doctrine has become of little practical importance.]
3 [At this point Mr. Stephen adds the English statutory rule that
"every such officer must furnish such certified copy or extract to any
person applying at a reasonable time for the same, upon payment of
a reasonable sum for the same, not exceeding fourpence for every
folio of ninety words. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 14." So in this country it
is a general rule that when the use of certified copies is authorized by
statute, the proper officer must give such a copy on payment of his
legal fees for the same. U. S. Rev. St. ss. 213, 460, 461, 828, 892, 4194,
4195 ; N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. § 961.]
4 [The acts of Congress herein stated were enacted under the author-
ity of the constitutional provision declaring that " full faith and credit
2o2 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
mitted in any other court within the United States, by the
attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed,
if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the judge,
chief justice, or presiding magistrate, that the said attesta-
tion is in due form.1 And the said records and judicial
proceedings, so authenticated, shall have such faith and
credit given to them in every court within the United
shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial
proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may, by
general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and
proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." U. S. Constitu-
tion, Art. iv. § i.]
1 [As to the construction of this provision, see Gr. Ev. i. §§ 504-506;
Wh. Ev. i. §§ 96-103; First Nat. Bk. v. Crosby, 179 Pa. 63. The
authorities are fully collected in Bump's Fed. Pro. pp. 566-616. The
attestation must be made by the clerk of the court ; that of a deputy
clerk is not sufficient {Morris v. Patchin, 24 N. Y. 394); if the court
has ceased to exist and its records have been transferred to another
court, the clerk of the latter should attest {Folsom v. Blood, 58 N. H.
11). If the court has no seal, this fact should be stated. The certificate
must be added by the judge of the court, if there be only one, but,
when there are more than one, by the chief or presiding judge of the
court, if any judge bears such title ( Van Storch v. Griffin, 71 Pa. 240;
People v. Smith, 121 N. Y. 578 ; Andrews v. Flack, 88 Ala. 294 ; Jhrr-
low v. Steel, 65 Mo. 611) ; this certificate must be that the attestation
is in due form {i.e., in the form required in the State whence the
record comes); if the judge certifies, not this fact but some other, the
certificate is insufficient {Craigv. Brown, 1 Pet. C. C. 352; Morris
v. Patchin, supra ; see Burnett v. Weld, 76 X. Y. 103). If the judge
is also clerk of the court, he must attest and certify in each capacity
{Keith Bros. v. Stiles, 92 Wis. 15). This statute does not apply to the
Federal courts, but their records, when certified by the clerk of the
court under its seal, are admissible in State courts and Federal courts
alike {Tiirnbull v. Payson, 95 U. S. 418). Nor does it apply, as is
generally held, to courts of inferior jurisdiction, as courts of justices
of the peace {FarnswortJi v. Briggs, 6 N. H. 561 ; Ransom v. Wheeler,
12 Abb. Pr. 139; Case v. Hucy, 26 Kan. 553; Snyder v. Wise, 10 Pa.
157). The mode of proving their dockets and judgments is that pre-
scribed by the laws of the several States, or by common law. See
N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 948-95 1 ; Gr. Ev. i. § 505 ; Case v. Huey, supra.]
Chap. X.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 203
States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the
State from which they^ire taken.1
All records and exemplifications of books, which may
be kept in any public office of any State or Territory, or
of any countsy subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States, not appertaining to a court, shall be proved or ad-
mitted in any court or office in any other State or Terri-
tory, or in any such country, by the attestation of the
keeper of the said records or books, and the seal of his
office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certifi-
cate of the presiding justice of the court of the county,
parish, or district, in which said office may be kept, or of
the governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or
keeper of the great seal of the State or Territory, or
country, that the said attestation is in due form, and by
the proper officers. If the said certificate is given by the
presiding justice of a court, it shall be further authenti-
cated by the clerk or prothonotary of the said court, who
shall certify, under his hand and the seal of his office,
that the said presiding justice is duly commissioned and
qualified ; or, if given by such governor, secretary, chan-
cellor or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under the
great seal of the State, Territory, or country aforesaid in
which it is made. And the said records and exemplifica-
tions, so authenticated, shall have such faith and credit
given to them in every court and office within the United
vStates as they have by law or usage in the courts or of-
fices of the State, Territory, or country as aforesaid, from
which they are taken.2
But these provisions do not preclude the several States
1 [U. S. Rev. St. s. 905 ; as to the effect of such records, see ante,
Art. 47, note.]
2 [U. S. Rev. St. s. 906 ; Chase v. Caryl, 57 N. J. L. 545 ; Bump's
Fed. Pro. p. 618 ; as to the scope of this section, see Snyder v. Wise,
10 Pa. 157, 158.]
204 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
from establishing other modes of proving in their own
courts the records of other States.] '
Article 8i.*
[officially printed copies.]
[The Revised Statutes of the United States, printed un-
der the direction of the Secretary of State at the govern-
ment printing-office and embracing the statutes of the
United States general and permanent in their nature, in
force on December i, 1873, as revised and consolidated,
and including also the amendatory acts passed by Con-
gress between that date and the year 1878, shall be legal
evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts
of the United States and of the several States and Terri-
tories, but shall not preclude reference to, nor control, in
case of any discrepancy, the effect of any original act as
passed by Congress since December 1, 1873. And copies
of the acts of Congress, printed as aforesaid at the close
of each session of Congress, shall be legal evidence of the
laws and treaties therein contained, in said courts.2
* [For the original Article, see Note LI. Appendix.]
1 [Kingman v. Cowles, 103 Mass. 283 ; In re Ellis' Estate, 55 Minn.
401 ; Gardefi City Co. v. Miller, 157 111. 225 ; Otto v. Trump, 115 Pa.
425 ; Haives v. State, 88 Ala. 37 ; Gr. Ev. i. §§ 489, 505. Some States
have adopted special statutes of this kind (Id.; Mass. Pub. St. c. 169,
s. 67); but usually the modes prescribed by the acts of Congress are
followed. The common-law methods, as by exemplified or examined
copy, may also be used. Otto v. Trump, supra ; Dean v. Chapin, 22
Mich. 275.]
• [U.S. Rev. St. (ed. 1878), Appendix, pp. 1 090-1 092 ; so as to the
supplement to the Revised Statutes (21 Stat. L. 308; see Wright v.
U. S., 15 Ct. of CI. 80). The acts of Congress were formerly published
by Little and Brown, of Boston, and it is provided also that their
edition shall be evidence of the laws and treaties therein contained
(U. S. Rev. St. § 908). If there is any variance between an act of
Chap. X.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 205
It is common for State statutes to provide that the
statute law of that State, and of other States and Terri-
tories, and of the United States, may be read in evidence
in its courts from a printed book, paper, or other publica-
tion, duly published under official authority and direc-
tion.] :
Article 82.*
[proof of the statutes of any state or territory.]
[The acts of the legislature of any State or Territory,
or of any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States, shall be authenticated by having- the seals of such
State, Territory, or country affixed thereto, and shall then
* [For the original Article, see Note LI. Appendix.]
Congress, as found in the printed volume of statutes, and the original,
as enrolled and deposited with the Secretary of State, the latter must
prevail {McLaughlin v. Menotti, 105 Cal. 572), and the same rule holds
good as to State statutes. Bruce v. State, 48 Neb. 570.]
1 [Harryman v. Roberts, 52 Md. 64 ; Tenant v. Tenant, no Pa. 478 ;
Bride v. Clark, 161 Mass. 130; People v. McQuaid, 85 Mich. 123;
Eagan v. Cojinelly, 107 111. 458 ; Falls v. U. S. Savings, etc. Co., 97
Ala. 417 ; Leach v. Linde, 70 Hun, 145, 142 N. Y. 628 ; Glenn v. Hunt,
120 Mo. 330 ; Rogero v. Zippel, 33 Fla. 625 ; see Mass. Pub. St. c. 169,
ss. 69, 71 ; N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 932, 942, extending the same rule to
printed copies of any proclamation, edict, decree, or ordinance, by the
executive power of any other State or country. If the official publica-
tion of the law of another State or country be not of recent date, still it
will be presumed to contain the existing law, in the absence of evi-
dence to the contrary {In re Huss, 126 N. Y. 537 ; People v. Caldcr, 30
Mich. 85).
In some States where no statutes exist authorizing the statute law
of other States to be read from a printed volume, this has yet been
allowed by the courts (Gr. Ev. i. §§ 480, 489). The common-law mode
of proof is by exemplification under the great seal, or by examined
copy, and this may still be used (Id.). The evidence of experts may
also be received (see p. 145, ante, note 1). As to the cases in which
statutes are judicially noticed, see Art. 58 (1), ante.]
206 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
be admitted in evidence in every other court within the
United States.'
But this provision does not preclude the several States
from establishing other modes of proving in their own
courts the written law of other States.] 2
Article 83.*
[proclamations, acts of state, legislative journals, etc]
[The contents of State papers, public documents, and
legislative journals, printed by the official printer under
the authority of Congress or a State legislature respec-
tively (or of the proper branch thereof),3 may be proved
by the production of such a printed copy, as well as by
the production of the originals.4 Executive proclama-
tions and acts of state may be proved by an officially
printed copy.5
Extracts from the journals of the Senate of the United
States, or of the House of Representatives and of the
* [For the original Article, see Note LI. Appendix.]
1 [U. S. Rev. St. s. 905 ; Bump's Fed. Pro. p. 566 ; Grant v. Coal Co.,
80 Pa. 208 ; U. S. v. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392 ; cf. McClerkin v. State,
105 Ala. 107.]
2 [Gr. Ev. i. § 489 ; Ansley v. Meikle, 81 Ind. 260 ; as to the other
modes of proof allowed, see Art. 81 and notes; also Art. 49, ante, and
note 1 on p. 145 ; this last Article also shows the mode of proving the
common law of other States.]
3[ Whiton v. Albany, etc. Ins. Co., 109 Mass. 24.]
4 [Gr. Ev. i. § 479; Watkins v. Hobnan, 16 Pet. 25; Bryan v. Forsyth,
19 How. (U. S.) 334 ; Gregg v. Forsyth, 24 Id. 179 ; Clemens v. Meyer,
44 La. Ann. 390; Milfordv. Greenbiish, ~j Me. 330; Lincoln v. Han-
gan, 45 Minn. 451 ; Root v. King, 7 Cow. 613 ; Post v. Supervisors, 105
U. S. 667; cf. Marks v. Orth, 121 Ind. 10.]
6 [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 479, 492 ; Lurton v. Gilliam, 2 111. (1 Scam.) 577 ; but
proclamations are, in general, judicially noticed ; see ante, Art. 58.
There is a statute in New York as to the proof of executive de-
crees and proclamations of other States and countries ; see ante,
p. 205, note 1.]
Chap. X.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 207
executive journal of the Senate when the injunction of
secrecy is removed, certified by the secretary of the Sen-
ate or by the clerk of the House of Representatives, shall
be admitted as evidence in the courts of the United States,
and shall have the same force and effect as the originals
would have, if produced and authenticated in court.] 1
Article 84.*
[foreign written laws, acts of state, records, etc.]
[Foreign written laws, acts of state, and judicial records
may be proved by an exemplification of a copy under the
great seal of the state, or by a copy proved to be a true
copy by a witness who has examined and compared it
with the original, or by a certificate of an officer properly
authorized by law to give a copy, which certificate must
itself be duly authenticated.2 Moreover, in some juris-
dictions, a foreign written law may be proved by the
statute book containing it, officially published by the gov-
ernment which made the law, either with or without the
testimony of experts.] 3
* [For the original Article, see Note LI. Appendix.]
1 [U. S. Rev. St. s. 895. For a like rule in State courts, see Post v.
Supervisors, 105 U. S. 667 ; cf. Soicthivark Bk. v. Comm., 26 Pa. 446;
see ante, p. 165, note 2.]
2 [These are the recognized common-law methods. Gr. Ev. i. §§ 488,
514; Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cr. 187 ; Lincoln v. Battelle, 6 Wend. 475 ;
Watson v. Walker, 23 N. H. 471 ; Gunn v. Peakes, 36 Minn. 177;
Jacobi v. Order of Germania, 73 Hun, 602 ; cf. Tess7)iann v. United
Friends, 103 Mich. 185.]
3 [This is provided in some States by statute (Mass. Pub. St. c. 169,
s. 73 ; Maine Rev. St. c. 82, s. 109; N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §942 ; Laws
of N. J. of 1893, c. 38 ; see In re Huss, 126 N. Y. 537 ; p. 145, note 1,
ante), but is declared in Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. (U. S.) 401, as a
common-law doctrine ; but see Hynes v. McDermott, 82 N. Y. 41, 56.
Sometimes expert testimony is received without a printed copy of the
2o8 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
law; see Art. 49, ante, and note 1 on p. 145, which also states the
mode of proving a foreign unwritten law. As to proof of the statutes
of sister States, see Articles 81 and 82, ante, and notes.
Special State statutes are also in force, establishing modes of proving
foreign records, etc. (Dunstan v. Higgins, 138 N. Y. 70; Wickershaui
v. Johnstoji, 104 Cal. 407 ; Fisher v. Fielding, 67 Ct. 94 ; N. Y Code
Civ. Pro. §§952-956). But these are not generally made exclusive of
common-law methods. Id. §962.]
Chap. XL] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 209
CHAPTER XI.
PRESUMPTIONS AS TO DOCUMENTS.
Article 85.
presumption as to date of a document.
When any document bearing a date has been proved, it is
presumed to have been made on the day on which it
bears date,1 and if more documents than one bear date on
the same day, they are presumed to have been executed
in the order necessary to effect the object for which they
,were executed,2 but independent proof of the correctness
of the date will be required if the circumstances are such
that collusion as to the date might be practised, and
would, if practised, injure any person, or defeat the
objects of any law.3
1 [Gr. Ev. i. § 40, n.; Wh. Ev. ii. § 977 ; Livingston v.Arnoux, 56
N. Y. 507, 519 ; Smith v. Porter, 10 Gray, 66 ; Pringle v. Pringle, 59
Pa. 281. So a deed, found in the hands of the grantee, is presumed
to have been delivered on the day of its date {People v. Snyder, 41
N. Y. 397; Scobey v.Walker, 114 Ind. 254); but this is not true of
forged instruments {Remington Co. v. O' Dougherty, 81 N. Y. 474).
The presumption as to all instruments may be rebutted by proof of
the real date of execution. Parke v. Neeley, 90 Pa. 52 ; Gennania
Bank v. Distler, 67 Barb. 333, 64 N. Y. 6i2 ; Knisely v. Sampson, 100
HI. 573-1
8 {Dudley v. Cadwell, 19 Ct.218; Jones v. Phelps, 2 Barb. Ch. 440; see
Gilman v. Moody, 43 N. H. 239. So it is a general principle that two
or more instruments of the same date, between the same parties, and
relating to the same subject-matter, form parts of the same agreement
or transaction. Mott v. Richtmyer, 57 N. Y. 49, 65 ; Hagerty v. White,
69 Wis. 317.]
3i Ph. Ev. 482-3; T. E. s. 137; Best, s. 403; [see Philpot v.
Gruninger, 14 Wall. 570.]
2io A DIGEST OF [Part II.
Illustrations.
(a) An instrument admitting a debt, and dated before the act of
bankruptcy, is produced by a bankrupt's assignees, to prove the
petitioning creditor's debt. Further evidence of the date of the
transaction is required in order to guard against collusion between
the assignees and the bankrupt, to the prejudice of creditors whose
claims date from the interval between the act of bankruptcy and the
adjudication.1
(6) In a petition for damages on the ground of adultery letters are
produced between the husband and wife, dated before the alleged
adultery, and showing that they were then on affectionate terms.
Further evidence of the date is required to prevent collusion to the
prejudice of the person petitioned against.2
Article 86.
presumption as to stamp of a document.3
When any document is not produced after due notice
to produce, and after being called for, it is presumed to
have been duly stamped,4 unless it be shown to have
remained unstamped for some time after its execution.6
1 Anderson v. Weston, 6 Bing. X. C. 302; Sinclair v. Baggallay, 4
M. & W.318.
2 Houlston v. Smith, 2 C. & P. 24. [Gr. Ev. i. § 102, ii. § 57 ;
Fratini v. Caslini, 66 Yt. 273 ; see Art. 11, Illustration (fc), ante.]
"[The general abolition in this country, until recently, of laws requir-
ing stamps upon written instruments has caused a dearth of modern
decisions upon this subject. Analogous decisions of interest under the
former law requiring revenue stamps are Van Rensellaerv. Vickery,
3 Lans. 57 ; Long v. Spencer, 78 Pa. 303 ; for a case in which stamps
were used as seals, see Van Bokkelen v. Taylor, 62 X. Y. 105.]
4 Closmadeuc v. Carrel, 18 C. I>. 44. In this case the growth of the
rule is traced, and other cases are referred to, in the judgment of
Cress well, J.
■' Marine Investment Co. v. Haviside, L. R. 5 E. & I. App. 624.
Chap. XL] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 211
Article 87.
presumption as to sealing and delivery of deeds.
When any document purporting to be and stamped as
a deed, appears or is proved to be or to have been signed
and duly attested, it is presumed to have been sealed
and delivered, although no impression of a seal appears
thereon.1
1 Hall v. Bainbridge, 12 Q. B. 699-710 ; Re Sandilands, L. R. 6 C. P.
411. [These cases, so far as they support this Article, are based upon
the English rule, that neither an impression upon wax or other tena-
cious substance, nor a scroll or other mark, is necessary to constitute
a seal ; (thus in Re Sandilands it was declared that sealing might be
done with the end of a ruler or anything else and that there need be
no visible impression). But in this country, except in States which
have abolished the use of seals, the general rule is that no deed or
other specialty is complete without a seal in one or the other of these
forms, though in many States a mere scroll or similar device, and in
some a mere flourish or dash, if intended as a seal, is deemed sufficient
{Hacker s Appeal, 121 Pa. 192 ; Lorah v. Nissley, 156 Pa. 329 ; Osbom
v. Kistler, 35 O. St. 99 ; Deininger v. McConnell, 41 111. 227 ; cf. Jack-
sonville, etc. R. Co. v. Hooper, 160 U. S. 514). If, therefore, an instru-
ment has no seal upon it, in the form recognized as valid in the par-
ticular State, the fact that it purports to be sealed, and is attested as
such, is not sufficient to make it a deed {Chilton v. People, 66 111. 501 ;
State v. Humbird, 54 Md. 327 ; State v. Thompson, 49 Mo. 188 ; Taylor
v. Glaser, 2 S. & R. 502 ; Boothbay v. Giles, 68 Me. 160 ; Cadell v.
Allen, 99 N. C. 542 ; cf. Rensens v. Staples, 52 F. R. 91). But where a
deed is proved by the public records, and no seal has been recorded,
the fact that the instrument purports to have been sealed and is so
attested will raise the presumption of a seal upon the original {Flow-
ery Co. v. Bonanza Co., 16 Nev. 302 ; Starkweather v. Martin, 28
Mich. 471 ; McCoy v. Cassidy, 96 Mo. 429; Le Franc v. Richmond, 5
Sawy. 601 ; cf. Todd v. Union Dime Inst., 118 N. Y. 337 ; Rensens v.
Lawson, 91 Va. 226 ; Heath v. Cotton Mills, 115 N. C. 202 ; Beardsley
v. Day, 52 Minn. 451 ; contra, Switzer v. Knapps, 10 la. 72 ; Williams
v. Bass, 22 Vt. 352). If a seal is omitted by mistake, equity will cause
the omission to be supplied or will assume that the instrument is sealed
{Harding M.Jewell, 73 Me. 426 ; Probate Ct. v. May, 52 Vt. 182 ; Bar-
nard v. Gantz, 140 N. Y. 249 ; Henklonan v. Peterson, 154 111. 419).
If an instrument, when given in evidence, bears a seal, this is pre-
212 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
Article 88.
presumption as to documents thirty years old.
Where any document purporting or proved to be thirty
years old is produced from any custody which the judge
in the particular case considers proper, it is presumed
that the signature and every other part of such document
which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular
sumed to be the seal of the party signing {Mill Dam Fonndery v.
Hovey, 21 Pick. 417, 428; Trustees of Canandarqua Academy v. Mc-
Kechnie, go X. Y. 618); and upon proof of the signature, it maybe
presumed that the instrument was regularly sealed and delivered,
especially if there be a recital stating the fact of sealing ; such recital
is, however, by the weight of authority, held unnecessary, though it
may be material to show that a particular device was intended as a
seal {Merritt v. Cornell, 1 E. D. Sm. 335 ; Miller v. Binder, 28 Pa.
489 ; Bradford v. Randall, 5 Pick. 496 ; Trasher v. Everhart, 3 G. &
J. 234 ; Force v. Craig, 7 N. J. L. 272 ; Anthony v. Harriso7i, 14 Hun,
200, 74 N. Y. 613 ; cf. Corlies v. Van Note, 16 N. J. L., 324 ; but see
Cleggv. Lemessurier,\^ Gratt. 108). But the presumption is rebuttable
(Koehlerv. Black River Co., 2 Black, 715). Still the fact that an in-
strument bears a seal and also purports to be sealed is evidence for
the jury that it was sealed when signed, though the obligor denies this
(Brolley v. Lap ham, 13 Gray, 294 ; State v. Peek, 53 Me. 284, 286); and
the obligor may even be estopped to deny the seal, if the obligee has
acted in good faith upon the instrument as being duly sealed (Metro-
politan Ins. Co. v. Bender, 124 X. Y. 47 ; but see Burnet v. Abbott, 53
Vt. 120).
In a number of the States, by statute, the use of seals by private
persons is now unnecessary, as e.g., Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Ne-
braska, Tennessee, etc.
When a deed with the regular evidence of its execution upon its face
is found in the hands of the grantee, it is presumed to have been duly
delivered (Butrick v. Tilton, 141 Mass. 93; Strough v. Wilder, 119
N. Y. 530 ; Harshbarger v. Carroll, 163 111. 636); so if it is upon record
duly acknowledged and attested (Munoz v. Wilson, m X. Y. 295;
Johnson v. Seidel, 150 Pa. 397; Stevens v. Castel, 63 Mich, in, collect-
ing also the cases which hold differently). But these presumptions
are also rebuttable. Id.; Black v. Sharkey, 104 Cal. 279 ; Townsend
v. Rackham, 143 X. Y. 516; see Washb.R. P. iii. 312 (5th ed).]
Chap. XL] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 213
person is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of
a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed
and attested, by the persons by whom it purports to be
executed and attested ; ' and the attestation or execution
need not be proved, even if the attesting witness is alive
and in court.2
Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are
in the place in which, and under the care of the person
with whom, they would naturally be ; but no custody is
improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin,
1 2 Ph. Ev. 245-8 ; Starkie, 521-6 ; T. E. s. 74 and ss. 593-601 ; Best,
s. 220. [Wh. Ev. i. §§ 194-199, 703, 732 ; Gr. Ev. i. §§ 21, 142-144, 570;
Applegate v. Lexington, etc. Mining Co., 117 U. S. 255 ; Dodge v. Gal-
latin, 130 N. Y. 1 18 ; Bell v. Brewster, 44 O. St. 690 ; Fowler v. Scott,
64 Wis. 509; Geer v. Lumber Co., 134 Mo. 85 ; Scharff 'v. Keener, 64
Pa. 376; Goodwin v. Jack, 62 Me. 414. The age of a will under this
rule is reckoned from the testator's death (Staring v. Bowen, 6 Barb.
109). If material and suspicious alterations appear upon the instru-
ment, they should be explained by the party offering it in evidence
(Rodriguez v. Hay ties, 76 Tex. 225 ; Wisdom v. Reeves, no Ala. 418;
Herrick v. Malin, 22 Wend. 388). It has been a mooted question,
whether, if the document were a conveyance of land, it would be
necessary to prove, besides its age and its production from the proper
custody, that there had been possession of the land under it and in
accordance with its terms. The better opinion is that evidence of
possession is not strictly necessary, but other corroborative evidence
may be received to establish the genuineness of the instrument (Ha-
vens v. Sea Shore Co., 47 N. J. Eq. 365 ; Nowlin v. Burwell, 75 Va.
551; Applegate v. Lexington, etc. Mining Co., supra; Long v. Mc-
Dow, 87 Mo. 197 ; Whitman v. Heneberry, 73 111. 109; Walker v.
Walker, 67 Pa. 185; Boston v. Richardson, 105 Mass. 351; Clark v.
Owens, iS N. Y. 434 ; Enders v. Sternbergh, 2 Abb. Dec. 31 ; see Gr.
Ev. i. § 144, n.). But evidence of possession is the best means of cor-
roboration, and should be produced when practicable (Willson v.
Belts, 4 Den. 201). Unless there be some satisfactory corroboration,
the execution of the document must be proved ; its age alone is not
enough to authenticate it. Jackson v. Luquere, 5 Cow. 221 ; Martin v.
Rector, 24 Hun, 27.]
2 [Jackson v. Christman, 4 Wend. 277; Mc Reynolds v. Longenberger,
'57 Pa. 13.]
214 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as
to render such an origin probable.1
Article 89.
PRESUMPTION AS TO ALTERATIONS.
No person producing any document which upon its
face appears to have been altered in a material part can
claim under it the enforcement of any right created by it,
unless the alteration was made before the completion of
the document or with the consent of the party to be
charged under it or his representative in interest.3
1 [ Whitman v. Shaw, 166 Mass. 451, 460; Nowlin v. Burwell, 75 Va.
551; Beard v. Ryan, 78 Ala. 37 ; and see other cases in notes 1 and 2,
supra, on p. 213.]
'- [Gr. Ev. i. § 565 ; Angle v. Life Ins. Co., 92 U. S. 330 ; Drum v.
Drum, 133 Mass. 566 ; Hunt v. Gray, 35 N. J. L. 227 ; Russell v. Reed,
36 Minn. 376. A material alteration made by a party intentionally
after execution avoids the instrument, though it be innocently made
{Booth v. Powers, 56 N. Y. 22 ; Eckert v. Pickel, 59 la. 545 ; Craig-
head v. McLoney, 99 Pa. 211) ; but then, in the case of a contract, a
recovery may be had on the original consideration (Id.; Miller v.
Stark, 148 Pa. 164), though the rule is otherwise, if the alteration be
fraudulent {Meyer v. Huneke, 55 N. Y. 412; Warder v. Willy ard, 46
Minn. 531). Some authorities, however, hold that a material alter-
ation, if made innocently or to correct a mistake, does not vitiate the
instrument {Poole v. Hambrick, 70 Miss. 157 ; Croswell v. Labree, 81
Me. 44). A negotiable instrument, materially altered by a party, is
void even in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value (Benedict
v. Cowden, 49 X. V. 396; Charlton v. Reed, 61 la. 166; Gettysburg
Nat. Bk. v. Chisolm, 169 Pa. 564 ; Newman v. King, 54 O. St. 273 ;
Angle v. Life Ins. Co., supra). Alterations in a deed of land, how-
ever, will not divest the title conveyed by it, though they will, if
material, avoid the covenants (Gr. Ev. i. § 265 ; Herrick v. Malin, 22
Wend. 388 ; Woods v. Hilderbrand, 46 Mo. 284 ; Wallace v. Harm-
stad, 15 Pa. 462 ; cf. Potter v. Adams, 125 Mo. 1 18).
Alterations before execution should be noted in the attestation
clause (Gr. Ev. i. § 564). Alterations by consent of parties do not
avoid the instrument {Benny v. Corwithe, 18 Johns. 499 ; Taddiken v.
Chap. XL] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 215
This rule extends to cases in which the alteration was
made by a stranger, whilst the document was in the
custody of the person producing it, but without his
knowledge or leave.1
Alterations and interlineations appearing on the face
)f a deed are, in the absence of all evidence relating to
them, presumed to have been made before the deed was
completed.2
Cantrell, 69 N. Y. 597), though they may have that effect as to sureties,
if made without their consent. Paine v. Jones, 76 N. Y. 274 ; Eckert
v. Louis, 84 Ind, 99 ; Thompson v. Massif, 41 O. St. 307.]
1 Pigot's Case, 1 1 Rep. 47 ; Davidson v. Cooper, 1 1 M. & W. 778 ;
13 M. & W. 343 ; Aldous v. Cornwell, L. R. 3 Q. B. 573. This qualities
one of the resolutions in Pigot's Case. The judgment reviews a great
number of authorities on the subject. [It is the general rule in this
country, however, that unauthorized alterations by a stranger, even
though material, do not affect the validity of the document {Drum v.
Drum, 133 Mass. 566; Hunt v. Gray, 35 N. J. L. 227; Bigelow v.
Stilphens, 35 Vt. 521 ; Waring v. Smyth, 2 Barb. Ch. 119; Mix v.
Royal Ins. Co., 169 Pa. 639 ; Sewing Machine Co. v. Dakin, 86 Mich.
581 ; Ames v. Brown, 22 Minn. 257 ; Orlando v. Gooding, 34 Fla. 244 ;
cf. Gleason v. Hamilton, 138 N. Y. 353), and the fact that the docu-
ment is in the party's custody at the time seems to make no difference
(Id.; see Nickerson v. Swett, 135 Mass. 514 ; Kingan v. Silvers Co.,
13 Ind. App. 80). The stranger's act is called a "spoliation," rather
than an alteration. Gr. Ev. i. § 566 ; John v. Hatfield, 84 Ind. 75 ;
State v. McGonigle, 10 1 Mo. 353.]
2 Doe v. Catomore, 16 Q. B. 745. [The American rule differs from
the English in many States, though there is much diversity of doctrine
in the different States. It is generally agreed, however, that if a
material alteration appear upon the face of a document, and be
suspicious in its character and beneficial to the party claiming the
enforcement of a right under the document, the burden of proof is
upon such party to show that the alteration was made before or at
the time of execution, or is for other reasons proper or excusable ;
and if evidence be adduced to explain any material alteration, it is
submitted to the jury, who are to determine as a question of fact,
when, by whom, and for what reason the alteration was made {Nat.
Ulster Co. Bk. v. Madden, 1 14 N. Y. 280 (note); Smith v. McGowan, 3
Barb. 404 (deed) ; Smith v. U. S., 2 Wall. 219, 232 (bond); Citizens'
Nat, Bk. v. Williams, 174 Pa. 66 (note) ; Robinson v. Myers, 67 Pa. 9
216 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
Alterations and interlineations appearing on the face
of a will are, in the absence of all evidence relating to
(deed) ; Wilson v. Hotchkiss' Estate, 81 Mich. 172 (note) ; Comstock
v. Smith, 26 Mich. 306 (covenant in deed) ; Ely v. Ely, 6 Gray, 439
(mortgage); Drum v. Drum, 133 Mass. 566 (note); Dodge v. Haskell,
69 Me. 429 (note); Hodnett v. Pace, 84 Va. 873 (note); Hill v. Nelms,
86 Ala. 442 (mortgage); Stillwell v. Patton, 108 Mo. 352 (note); Sisson
v. Pearson, 44 111. App. 81 (deed)). But if the alteration be not sus-
picious, such explanatory evidence is not required (Id.; Zimmerman
v. Camp, 155 Pa. 152 ; Brand v. Jo/inroive, 60 Mich. 210; Paramore
v. Lindsey, 63 Mo. 63) ; and the same is true if the alteration be not
apparent; if in such a case the opposing party alleges a wrongful
alteration, the burden of proving it is on him {Williamsburgh Bk. v.
Solon, 136 N. Y. 465 ; Insurance Co. v. Brim, in Ind. 281).
In some States maintaining the above rule, it is held that if the
party who is bound to explain a suspicious material alteration offers no
evidence for the purpose, the document may be rejected by the court
as inadmissible in evidence {Burgwin v. Bishop, 91 Pa. 336 (lease);
Hartley v. Corboy, 150 Pa. 23 (note): Collins v. Ball, 82 Tex. 259
(deed); Tillou v. Clinton, etc. Ins. Co., 7 Barb. 564 (written consent);
but see Maybee v. Sniffen, 2 E. D. Sm. 1 (release) ; this is the Eng-
lish rule of Knight v. Clements, 8 A. & E. 215). In other States the
document, upon proof of execution, is submitted to the jury in all
cases of alteration, with or without explanatory evidence Aliunde,
so that they may determine from its inspection, etc., when, and for
what purpose, the alteration was made (Hoey v.Jarman, 39 N. J. L.
523, 40 id. 379 (specialty); Cole v. Hills, 44 N. H. 227 (note); Stayner
v. Joyce, 120 Ind. 99 (note); Goodin v. Plugge, 47 Neb. 284 (note);
Dodge v. Haskell, supra) ; but the jury must be satisfied by a pre-
ponderance of evidence that any material alteration was rightfully
made, and in the absence of evidence to show this, a verdict against
the validity of the instrument will be sustainable, or may be directed
(Id.; Putnam v. Clark, 33 N. J. Eq. 338, 343). Under both these
theories, it is sometimes said that there is a presumption of fact that
a material alteration, not sufficiently explained, was made after
execution. It is denied, however, that there is any presumption of
law as to the time of alteration, in such a case, though such a doctrine
has been often asserted {Ely v. Ely, Comstock v. Smith, supra ;
Closson v. Morrison, 47 N. H. 482, 487 ; Jordan v. Stewart, 23 Pa.
244, 249).
In a number of the States the foregoing rules do not prevail, but
the presumption is that an unexplained alteration of an instrument
Chap. XI. | THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 217
them, presumed to have been made after the execution of
the will.1
There is no presumption as to the time when alterations
and interlineations, appearing on the face of writings not
under seal, were made,2 except that it is presumed that
they were so made that the making would not constitute
an offence.3
An alteration is said to be material when, if it had been
was made before or at the time of execution {Neil v. Case, 25 Kan.
510 (note); Beaman v. Russell, 20 Vt. 205 (note); Franklin v. Baker,
48 O. St. 296 (note); Wilson v. Hayes, 40 Minn. 531 (note); Little v.
Herndon, 10 Wall. 26 (asserting this as to deeds, following the English
rule); cf. Hayden v. Goodnow, 39 Ct. 164). Under this doctrine the
instrument is admissible in evidence, though no explanatory evidence
is offered ; if, however, such evidence is introduced, the question as
to the time and purpose of the alteration is for the jury (Id.).
There are other theories, also, on this vexed subject. Thus by some
authorities there is a presumption of law that suspicious alterations
were made after execution, but other alterations before {Cox v.
Palmer, 1 McCrary, 431 (mortgage); Orlando v. Gooding, 34 Fla.
244), while others assert that an apparent alteration raises no pre-
sumption either way {Hagan v. Merchants' etc. his. Co., 81 la. 321
(insurance policy); see Wilson v. Hayes, supra).
In general, each State, as the cases hitherto cited indicate, applies
one and the same rule to deeds, bills and notes, written contracts of
any kind, and other like documents. As to wills, see next note.]
1 Simmons v. Rudall, 1 Sim. (N. S.) 136. [Wetmore v. Carryl, 5
Redf. 544 ; Toebbe v. Williams, 80 Ky. 661 ; contra, Wikoff's Case, 15
Pa. 281 ; see In re Voorhees, 6 Dem. 162 ; Linuard's Appeal, 93 Pa.
313 ; Haynes v. Haynes, 33 O. St. 598. When alterations are made
after execution, it is generally held that the will must be reexecuted ;
if not, the will stands as it read before such alteration {Gardner v.
Gardiner, 65 N. H. 230; Simrell's Estate, 154 Pa. 604; Lovellv.
Quitman, 88 N. Y. 377 ; Eschbach v. Collins, 61 Md. 478 ; Giffin v.
Brooks, 48 O. St. 211 ; Hesterberg v. Clark, 166 111. 241), except in
cases where the alteration is by cancellation or obliteration, revoking
the will in whole or in part. Townshcnd v. Howard, 86 Me. 285 ;
Bigelow v. Gillott, 123 Mass. 102.J
2 Knight v. Clements, 8 A. & E. 215 ; [see p. 215, note 2, supra.]
3A\ v. Gordon, Dears. 592; [see for dan v. Stewart, 23 Pa. 244.]
218 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
made with the consent of the party charged, it would
have affected his interest or varied his obligations in any
way whatever.1
An alteration which in no way affects the rights of the
parties or the legal effect of the instrument, is immaterial.2
1 [Craighead v. McLoney, 99 Pa. 21 1 ; Booth v. Powers, 56 N. Y. 22 ;
Murray v. Klinzing, 64 Ct. 78 ; Wood v. Steele, 6 Wall. 80. Whether
an alteration is material or not, is a question for the court. Id.; Bel-
fast Bk. v. Harriman, 68 Me. 522 ; Keens Excr. v. Mofiroe, 75 Va.
424-]
8 This appears to be the result of many cases referred to in T. E. ss.
1619-20 ; see also the judgments in Davidson v. Cooper and Aldous y.
Comwell, referred to above. [Immaterial alterations by a party or
stranger do not avoid an instrument {Casoni v. Jerome, 58 N. Y. 315 ;
Robertson v. Hay, 91 Pa. 242 ; Cushing v. Field, 70 Me. 50 ; Prudden
v. Nester, 103 Mich. 540 ; Ryan v. First Nat. Bk., 148 111. 349 ; Mers-
man v. Werges, 1 12 U. S. 139 ; Vose v. Dolan, 108 Mass. 155 ; Derby v.
Thrall, 44 Vt. 413), even though they are made by a party with
fraudulent intent {Fuller v. Green, 64 Wis. 159 ; JMoye v. Herndon, 30
Miss. 116; Robinson v.Phamix Ins. Co., 25 la. 43°); but in some
States immaterial alterations by a party do avoid an instrument
{Jones v. Crowley, 57 N. J. L. 222 ; Kingston Bk. v. Bosserman, 52
Mo. App. 269 ; see Gr. Ev. i. § 568 ; cf. Co/um. v. Emigrant Sav. Bk.,
98 Mass. 12).
If blank spaces are left in a negotiable bill or note so that it is
incomplete, any bonajide holder may fill them up, and the instrument
will be valid in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value ( Weyer-
hauser v. Pun, 100 N. Y. 150 ; Bank v. Sargent, 85 Me. 349 ; Brown
v. First Nat. Bk., 115 Ind. 572 ; Angle v. Life Ins. Co., 92 U. S. 330 ;
Garrard v. Lewis, 10 Q. B. D. 30). But unwritten spaces in a complete
note or bill cannot be so filled {McGrath v. Clark, 56 N. Y. 34 ; Bruce
v. Westcott, 3 Barb. 374 ; De Pauw v. Bank, 126 Ind. 553 ^ Knoxville
Nat. Bk.v. Clark, 51 la. 264; Simmons v. Atkinson, 69 Miss. 862;
Burrows v. Klunk, 70 Md. 451 ; Greenfield Sav. Bk. v. Stowcll, 123
Mass. 196). But there are cases to the contrary, which are collected
in this last decision. As to filling blanks in deeds or bonds, see
Washb. R. P. iii. 252-256 (5th ed.); Bell v. Kennedy, 100 Pa. 215;
Chicago v. Gage, 95 111. 593 ; State v. Mathews, 44 Kan. 596 ; Allen v.
Withrow, 1 10 U. S. 1 19 ; Brim v. Fleming, 135 Mo. 597 ; Lafferty ve
Lajfcrty, \i W Va. 783.]
Chap. XII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 21a
CHAPTER XII.
OF THE EXCLUSION OF ORAL BY DOCUMENTARY
EVIDENCE, AND OF THE MODIFICATION AND
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTARY BY ORAL
EVIDENCE.
Article- 90.*
EVIDENCE OF TERMS OF CONTRACTS, GRANTS, AND OTHER DIS-
POSITIONS OF PROPERTY REDUCED TO A DOCUMENTARY FORM.
When any judgment of any court or any other judicial or
official proceeding, or any contract or grant, or any other
disposition of property, has been reduced to the form of
a document or series of documents, no evidence may be
given of such judgment or proceeding, or of the terms
of such contract, grant, or other disposition of property,
except the document itself, or secondary evidence of its
contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admis-
sible under the provisions hereinbefore contained.1 Nor
may the contents of any such document be contradicted,
altered, added to, or varied by oral evidence.2
*See Note XXXII. [Appendix].
1 Illustrations (a) and (b). See ante, Arts. 63-84. [Contemporaneous
writings between the same parties, relating to the same subject-mat-
ter, are admissible in evidence (Gr. Ev. i. § 283 ; Wilson v. Randall,
6rj N. Y. 338; McNamara v. Gargett, 68 Mich. 454 ; Windmill Co. v.
Piercy, 41 Kan. 763); but neither of them can be varied by parol evi-
dence (Myers v. Munson, 65 la. 423). So writings referred to in an-
other instrument are admissible with such instrument. Maxted v.
Seymour, 56 Mich. 129 ; Amos v. Amos, 1 17 Ind. 19.]
'2 [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 275-282 ; Wh. Ev. li. §§ 920-927. This rule of the
English courts is well established in this country. It excludes (sub-
ject to the modifying rules hereinafter stated) evidence of prior, con-
temporaneous, or subsequent oral declarations or stipulations of the
220 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
Provided that any of the following matters may be
proved : —
(i) Fraud, intimidation, illegality, want of due execu-
tion, want of capacity in any contracting party, the fact
that it is wrongly dated,1 want or failure of consideration,
or mistake in fact or law, or any other matter which, if
proved, would produce any effect upon the validity of
any document, or of any part of it, or which would entitle
any person to any judgment, decree, or order relating
thereto.2
parties {Mottv. Richtmyer, 57 N. Y. 49; Seitz v. Brewers Co., 141
U. S. 510; Wodock v. Robinson, 148 Pa. 503 ; Johnson v. Glover, 121
111. 283 ; Caulfield v. Hermann, 64 Ct. 325 ; Tuttle v. Burgett, 53 O. St.
498 ; Boyd v. Paul, 125 Mo. 9; Black v. Bachelder, 120 Mass. 171;
Naumbergv. Young, 44 N. J. L. 331). But in Pennsylvania it is ap-
plied with less stringency than in other States [G reenawalt v. Kohne,
85 Pa. 369). The rule as to wills is the same as in respect to other
instruments. Parol evidence is not received of the testator's oral
declarations of intention, except in the special cases stated in the
next Article ( Williams v. Freeman, 83 N. Y. 561; Warren v. Gregg,
116 Mass. 304 ; Mackie v. Story, 93 U. S. 589 ; Hoiltv. Hoitt, 63 N. H.
475; Hawke v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 165 111. 561). The general rule
for all instruments is simply this: — Ascertain the inte?itio>i of the
party or parties from the instrument itself, not from parol evidence
independent of the instrument ( Waters v. Bishop, 122 Ind. 516 ; Eyer
v. Beck, 70 Mich. 179). But, as is shown by this Article and the next,
parol evidence of various kinds is admissible to enable one to find the
intent in the instrument. House v. Walch, 144 N. Y. 418.]
1 Reffellv. Rcffell, L. R. I P. & D. 139. [Kincaid v. Archibald, 73
N. Y. 189; Battles v. Fobes, 21 Pick. 239; Pigott v. O'Halloran, 37
Minn. 415. But when the parties to a contract have made the date a
material part thereof, as when the time of performance is fixed with
reference to it, parol evidence is not admissible to change it. Bar-
low v. Buckingham, 68 la. 169; Joseph v. Bigelow, 4 Cush. 82.] Mr.
Starkie extends this to mistakes in some other formal particulars. 3
Stark. Ev. 787-8.
2 Illustration (c). [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 284, 285 ; Wh. Ev. ii. §§ 930-935,
1009, 1054; Trambly v. Ricard, 130 Mass. 259 (fraud); Mayer v.
Dean, 115 N. Y. 556 (fraud); Paine v. Upton, 87 N. Y. 327 (fraud,
accident, and mistake); Haughwout v. Garrison, 69 N. Y. 339
Chap. XII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 221
(2) The existence of any separate oral agreement as to
any matter on which a document is silent, and which is
not inconsistent with its terms, if from the circumstances
of the case the court infers that the parties did not intend
(usury) ; Sherman v. Wilder, 106 Mass. 537 (illegality) ; Anthony v.
Harrison, 14 Hun, 198, 74 N. Y. 613 ; Baird v. Baird, 145 N. Y. 659;
Fire Ins. Ass'n v. Wickham, 141 U. S. 564 (want of consideration).
So parol evidence is admissible to show the real consideration of
a contract or deed, though different from that expressed, or an ad-
ditional consideration, not inconsistent with that expressed {Hebbard
v. Hanghian, 70 N. Y. 54 ; Burnham v. Dorr, 72 Me. 198 ; Snow
v. Alley, 156 Mass. 193 ; Silvers v. Potter, 48 N. J. Eq. 539 ; Koch v.
Roth, 150 111. 212; cf. Emmett v. Penoyer, 151 N. Y. 564; but see
Simanovich v. Wood, 145 Mass. 180; Conant v. Nat. State Bk., 121
Ind. 323 ; Davis v. Gann, 63 Mo. App. 425); to show a deed to be a
mortgage {Hassam v. Barrett, 115 Mass. 256 ; Barry v. Hamburg Ins.
Co., no N. Y. 1; German Ins. Co. v. Gibe, 162 111. 251; McMillan v.
Bissell, 63 Mich. 66 ; Pengh v. Davis, 96 U. S. 332 ; this is only true in
equity in most States); to show a bill of sale of goods to be a chattel
mortgage {Marsh v. McNair, 99 N. Y. 174, 178 ; Susman v. Whyard,
149 N. Y. 127; Morgan's Assignees v. Shinn, 15 Wall. 105 ; Booth v.
Robinson, 55 Md. 419 ; this also, in most States, is in equity, but not at
law, Philbrook v. Eaton, 134 Mass. 398); to establish a trust in per-
sonal property, or a constructive or resulting trust in land, though a
deed or other writing has purported to carry an absolute title ( Minchin
v. Minchin, 157 Mass. 265; Ducie v. Ford, 138 U. S. 587; Parker v.
Snyder, 31 N.J. Eq. 164; cf. Zimmerman v. Barber, 176 Pa. 1); to
show that a deed was intended as an advancement {Palmer v. Cul-
bertson, 143 N. Y. 213); to show that the signer of an unsealed non-
negotiable instrument signed as agent, not as principal [Brady v. iVally,
151 N. Y. 258, 262 ; Barbie v. Goodale, 28 Or. 465 ; Lerned v. Johns, 9
Allen, 419; contra in N. J., Schenck v. Spring Lake Co., 47 N. J. Eq.
44 ; as to sealed instruments, see Henricus v. Englert, 137 N. Y. 488);
to show the true relations of the parties signing an instrument as be-
tween themselves, as that they are co-sureties though they signed as
makers, and vice versa, etc. {Mansfield v. Edwards, 136 Mass. 15;
Paul v. Rider, 58 N. H. 1 19; Hubbard v. Gurncy, 64 N. Y. 457 ; Kiel v.
Choate, 92 Wis. 517 ; Farwell v. Ensign, 66 Mich. 600); to show that a
writing purporting to be a contract was not intended as such {Griersou
v. Mason, 60 N. Y. 394; cf. Michelsv.Olmstead, 157 U. S. 198); to show
which of two contemporaneous writings expresses the real intention
222 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
the document to be a complete and final statement of the
whole of the transaction between them.1
(3) The existence of any separate oral agreement, con-
stituting- a condition precedent to the attaching of any
obligation under any such contract, grant, or disposition
of property.'-'
of the parties (Payson v. Lamson, 134 Mass. 593). So a receipt may be
contradicted or explained by parol, except in so far as it constitutes or
contains a contract, as, e. g., in the case of a bill of lading (Macdon-
ald v. Dana, 154 Mass. 152 ; Ryan v. Ward, 48 N. Y. 204 ; Goodwin v.
Goodwin, 59 N. H. 548 ; Chapin v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 79 la. 582 ;
Swain v. Frazier, 35 N. J. Eq. 326); so as to a written license or ad-
mission (Fargis v. Walton, 107 N. Y. 398; Smith v. May field, 163 111.
447); and there are many other like cases.]
1 Illustrations (d), (e), and (ee). [Gr. Ev. i. § 284 a ; Thomas v. Scutt,
127 N. Y. 133; Graffam v. Pierce, 143 Mass. 386; Stahelin v. Lowle,
87 Mich. 124 ; Hand v. Ryan Co., 63 Minn. 539; Rlattv. A£tna Ins.
Co., 153 111. 113, 121 ; Greening v. Steele, 122 Mo. 287 ; Sivers v. Sivers,
97 Cal. 518 ; Naumberg v. Young, 44 N. J. L. 331. Thus, e. g., an in-
dependent collateral agreement may be shown by parol ( Van Brunt
v. Day, 81 N. Y. 251; Backus v. Sternberg, 59 Minn. 403; Xeal v.
Flint, 88 Me. 73 ; Ayer v. Bell Mfg. Co., 147 Mass. 46). But the rule
in the text does not apply when it appears from inspection of the in-
strument that it was intended to express the full and complete inten-
tions of the parties {Eighmie v. Taylor, 98 N. Y. 288 ; Seitz v. Brew-
ers' Co., 141 U. S. 510; Dickson v. Hartman Mfg. Co., 179 Pa. 343;
Averill v. Sawyer, 62 Ct. 560); nor does it apply to contracts which
are required by the Statute of Frauds to be in writing. Ringer v. Holtz-
claw, 112 Mo. 519.]
s Illustrations (/) and (g). [ Wilson v. Powers, 131 Mass. 539; Mc-
Farland x. Sikes, 54 Ct. 250; Reynolds v. Robinson, no N. Y. 654;
Higgins v. Ridgway, 153 N. Y. 130; Burke v. Delaney, 153 U. S. 228 ;
Smith v. Mussetter, 58 Minn. 159; cf. McCormick Co. v. Wilson, 39
Minn. 467. Generally, however, in this country a condition attached
to the delivery of an instrument under seal, or at least of a convey-
ance of land, to the obligee or grantee, whereby it is to take effect
only upon the happening of a contingent event, cannot be shown by
parol {Newman v. Baker, 10 App. D. C. 187; Blewitt v. Booriun, 142
N- Y. 357) ; but in other respects specialties and deeds are subject
to this rule, as well as instruments not under seal ( Wendlinger v ,
Smith, 75 Ya. 309 ; Brackett v. Barney, 2S N. Y. 333 ; Slate v. U'allis,
Chap. XII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 223
(4) The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agree-
ment to rescind or modify any such contract, grant, or
disposition of property, provided that such agreement is
not invalid under the Statute of Frauds, or otherwise.1
(5) Any usage or custom by which incidents not ex-
pressly mentioned in any contract are annexed to con-
tracts of that description ; unless the annexing of such
57 Ark. 73 ; Keener v. Crago, 81 * Pa. 166 ; Harrisoii v. Morton, 83 Md.
456). It has been held, however, not applicable to wills (Sewell v.
Slingluff, 57 Md. 537).
But conditions other than such "conditions precedent" as the text
describes cannot be engrafted upon a writing by parol evidence
( Wilson v. Decn, 74 N. Y. 531 ; Allen v. Furbish, 4 Gray, 504 ; Holz-
worth v. Koch, 26 0. St. 33) ; in Pennsylvania, however, a less stringent
rule prevails, and parol evidence is received of oral promises or con-
ditions on the faith of whi.ch a written contract has been executed.
Cull mans v. Lindsay, 114 Pa. 170.]
1 Illustration (h). [Gr. Ev. i.§§ 302-304; Teal v. Bilby, 123 U. S. 578 ;
Hastings v. Lovcjoy, 140 Mass. 261; West Haven Co. v. Redfield, 58
Ct. 39 ; Nicollv. Burke, 78 N. Y. 580 ; Church v. Florence Iron Works,
45 N. J. L. 129; Holloway v. Frick, 149 Pa. 178. Generally the sub-
sequent agreement requires a new consideration (Malone v. Dough-
erty, 79 Pa. 46 ; Stewart v. Keteltas, 36 N. Y. 388, 392 ; Barton v. Gray,
57 Mich. 622 ; Carruthers v. Mc Murray, 75 la. 173), but the original
consideration may be deemed sufficient {Lynch v. Mc Henry, 75 Wis.
631; cf. Anderson v. Moore, 145 111. 61). So in case of a parol waiver
or a parol extension of time for performance, no consideration is gen-
erally required {Stevens v. Taylor, 58 la. 664; Mead v. Barker, in
N. Y. 259 ; Thomson v. Boor, 147 N. Y. 402 ; Cobbs v. Fire Ass'n, 68
Mich. 463). As to the modification by parol of a contract under seal,
see Canal Co. v. Ray, 101 U. S. 522 ; Quigley v. De Haas, 98 Pa. 292 ;
McCreery v. Day, 1 19 N. Y. 1 ; Hcrzog v. Sawyer, 61 Md. 344 ; Blag-
borne v. Hunger, 101 Mich. 375 ; Alschulerv. Schiff, 164 111. 298.
The authorities are conflicting as to whether a contract within the
Statute of Frauds can be varied by a subsequent parol agreement.
Cummings v. Arnold, 3 Met. 486 ; Negley v. Jcffers, 28 O. St. 90 ; Hill
v. Blake, 97 N. Y. 216 ; Thomson v. Pcor, 147 N. Y. 402, 408 ; Swain
v. Seamens, 9 Wall. 254, 272; Backer v. Steward, 34 Yt. 127, 130;
Williams v. Flood, 63 Mich. 487 ; Burns v. Fidelity Co., 52 Minn. 31 ;
see Long v. Hartwell, 34 N. J. L. 116; Reed on St. of Frauds, ii.
§473-]
224 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
incident to snch contract would be repugnant to or incon-
sistent with the express terms of the contract.'
Oral evidence of a transaction is not excluded by the
fact that a documentary memorandum of it was made, if
such memorandum was not intended to have legal effect
as a contract, or other disposition of property.2
Oral evidence of the existence of a legal relation is not
excluded by the fact that it has been created by a docu-
ment, when the fact to be proved is the existence of the
relationship itself, and not the terms on which it was
established or is carried on.3
1 Illustration (ha) ; Wigglesworth v. Dallison, and note thereto,
S. L. C. 598-628. A late case is Johnson v. Raylton, 7 Q. B. D. 438, in
which it was held that evidence was admissible of a custom that in a
contract with a manufacturer for iron plates he warranted them to be
of his own make. [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 294, 295 ; Walls v. Bailey, 49 N. Y.
464; Page v. Cole, 120 Mass. 37; Robinson v. U. S., 13 Wall. 363;
Patlerson v. Croivther, 70 Md. 124; Pennell v. Transportation Co.,
94 Mich. 247. But evidence of usage will not be received to defeat
a settled rule of law or the plain meaning of a statute. Barnard v.
Kellogg, 10 Wall. 383 ; Corn Exch. Bk. v. Nassau Bk., 91 N. Y. 74;
Suburban Elec. Co. v. Elizabeth, 59 N. J. L. 134; cf. Armstrong v.
Granite Co., 147 N. Y. 495.]
2 Illustration (i). [firigg v. Hilton, 99 N. Y. 517 ; Lathrop v. B ram-
hall, 64 N. Y. 365 ; Perrine v. Cooler's Excrs., 39 N. J. L. 449 ; Irwin
v. Thompson, 27 Kan. 643 ; Grant v. Frost, 80 Me. 202 ; Kreuzberger
v. Wingfield, 96 Cal. 251 ; see ante, p. 190, note 1.]
:; Illustration (J). [Thus the existence of a partnership or corporation
may be proved by parol ( Widdifieldv. Widdificld, 2 Binn.245; Cutler
v. Thomas, 25 Yt. 73 ; Stale v. Grant, 104 N. C. 908 ; see p. 190, note I,
ante); or the fact of a tenancy in land ( / /amnion v. Sexton, 691a. 37); or
the ownership of property ( Gallagher v. London Assur. Co., 149 Pa. 25 ;
cf. Uhlv. Moorhous, 137 Ind. 445). So various collateral facts about an
instrument may be proved by parol ; as e. g., the purpose or object
for which it was given (IlutcJiins v. I/cbbarci, 34 N. Y. 24 ; Bunker v.
Barron, 79 Me. 62; Bruce v. Slemp, 82 Va. 352); the reason why it was
not indorsed {Bank v. Kennedy, 17 Wall 19); the fact that notes were
sent to a banking-house for collection {Cecil Bk.v. Snively,2^ Md. 253);
and many like cases. Sec Brick v. /hick, 98 U. S. 514; Buchanon v.
Adams, 49 N. J. L. 636; Shocnbcrgcr v. Ilackman, 37 Pa. 87.]
Chap. XII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 225
The fact that a person holds a public office need not be
proved by the production of his written or sealed appoint-
ment thereto, if he is shown to have acted on it.'
Illustrations.
{a) A policy of insurance is effected on goods "in ships from Suri-
nam to London." The goods are shipped in a particular ship, which
is lost.
The fact that that particular ship was orally excepted from the pol-
icy cannot be proved.'2
(b) An estate called Gotton Farm is conveyed by a deed which de-
scribes it as consisting of the particulars described in the first division
of a schedule and delineated in a plan on the margin of the schedule.
Evidence cannot be given to show that a close not mentioned in the
schedule or delineated in the plan was always treated as part of Got-
ton Farm, and was intended to be conveyed by the deed.3
(c) A institutes a suit against B for the specific performance of a
contract, and also prays that the contract may be reformed as to one
of its provisions, as that provision was inserted in it by mistake.
A may prove that such a mistake was made as would entitle him to
have the contract reformed.4
(d) A lets land to B, and they agree that a lease shall be given by
A toB.
Before the lease is given, B tells A that he will not sign it unless A
promises to destroy the rabbits. A does promise. The lease is after-
wards granted, and reserves sporting rights to A, but does not mention
1 See authorities collected in 1 Ph. Ev. 449-50; T. E. s. 139. [Gr. Ev.
'• §§ 83, 92 ; Comm. v. Kane, 108 Mass. 423 ; Cotton v. Beardsley, 38
Barb. 29; State v. Row, 81 la. 138 ; Rite hie v. Widdemer, 59 N. J. L.
290 ; Lueierv. Pierce, 60 N. H. 13 ; Golder v. Bressler, 105 111. 419, 428 ;
cf. Short v. Symmes, 150 Mass. 298.]
'2 Weston v. Eames, 1 Tau. 115.
3 Barton v. Dawes, 10 C. B. 261-265.
4 Story's Equity Jurisprudence, chap. v. ss. 153-162. [Gr. Ev. i.
§ 296 a; Thompson v. Phenix Bis. Co., 136 U. S. 287 ; Goode v. Riley,
153 Mass. 585 ; Park Bros. v. Blodgett Co., 64 Ct. 28 ; Christopher St.
R. Co. v. 23d St. R. Co., 149 N. Y. 58 ; N. &- W. Branch R. Co. v.
Swank, 105 Pa. 555 ; but equity will not reform a will. Sherwood v.
Sherwood, 45 Wis. 357 ; Stit?-gis v. Work, 122 Ind. 134J
226 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
the destruction of the rabbits. B may prove A's verbal agreement as
to the rabbits.1
(e) A & B agree verbally that B shall take up an acceptance of A's,
and that thereupon A and B shall make a written agreement for the
sale of certain furniture by A to B. B does not take up the acceptance.
A may prove the verbal agreement that he should do so.?
(ee) [A makes an oral assignment to B for a valid consideration of
a portion of a debt due to A by a bank, and at the same time gives to
B a check to enable him to draw the amount assigned. The check is
not the contract between the parties and does not render parol evidence
of the agreement inadmissible.] 3
(/) A & B enter into a written agreement for the sale of an interest
in a patent, and at the same time agree verbally that the agreement
shall not come into force unless C approves of it. C does not approve.
The party interested may show this.4
(g) A, a farmer, agrees in writing to transfer to B, another farmer,
a farm which A holds of C. It is verbally agreed that the agreement
is to be conditional on C's consent. B sues A for not transferring the
farm. A may prove the condition as to C's consent and the fact that
he does not consent.5
(/i) A agrees in writing to sell B 14 lots of freehold land and make
a good title to each of them. Afterwards B consents to take one lot
though the title is bad. Apart from the Statute of Frauds this agree-
ment might be proved.6
1 Morgan v. Griffiths, L. R. 6 Ex. 70 ; and see Angell v. Duke, L. R.
10 Q. B. 174. [L'f. Willisw. Hulbert, 1 17 Mass. 151 ; Lewis v. Seabury,
74 N. Y. 400 ; J)o:fge v. Zimmer, 1 10 N. Y. 49 ; Bradstreet v. Rich, 72
Me. 233. Morgan v. Griffiths is disapproved in Naumberg v. Young,
44 N.J. L. 331.]
2 Lin ct 'ley v. Lacey, 17 C. B. (N. S.) 578; [see Enge/horn v. Reit-
lingcr, \22 X. Y. 80.]
'■'■[Risicy v. Phenix Bank, 83 N. Y. 318 ; cf. Ludeke v. Sutherland,
87 111. 481.]
*Pym v. Campbell, 6 E. & B. 370. [See Ware v. Allen, 128 U. S.
590; Fauncev. Life Ins. Co., 101 Mass. 279 ; Seymour \. Cowing, 4
Abb. Dec. 200 ; Whitford v. Laidler, 94 N. Y. 145 ; Miller v. Gamble,
4 Barb. 146.]
5 Wallis v. Littell, 11 C. B. (X. S.) 369; [see Schmittler v. Simon,
114 X. Y. 184.]
6 Goss v. Lord 'Nugent, 5 15. & Ad. 58, 65 ; [see Wiggin v. Goodrich,
63 Me. 389.]
Chap. XII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 227
(ha) [A written contract is made between A and B whereby the
former is engaged as manager of the latter's theatre "at a weekly sal-
ary of $40 per week." A claims payment at this rate for every week
in the year. Evidence of a custom in the theatrical profession to pay
wages only for the weeks in the theatrical season, and not for all the
weeks of the year, is admissible.] '
(i) A sells B a horse, and orally warrants him quiet in harness. A
also gives B a paper in these words : " Bought of A a horse for 7/.
is. 6d."
B may prove the oral warranty.2
(f) The question is, whether A gained a settlement by occupying
and paying rent for a tenement. The facts of occupation and pay-
ment of rent may be proved by oral evidence, although the contract
is in writing.3
•r A DTtf
Article 91.*
what evidence may be given for the interpretation of
documents.
(1) Putting a construction upon a document means
ascertaining the meaning of the signs or words made
upon it, and their relation to facts.4
* See Note XXXIII. [Appendix].
1 [Leavitt v. Kennicott, 157 111. 235 ; Grant v. Maddox, 15 M. & W.
T37-]
2 Allen v. Pink, 4 M. & W. 140. [Filkitis v. Why land, 24 N. Y. 338 ;
Dunham v. Barnes, 9 Allen, 352.]
3B.v. Hull, 7 B. & C. 611.
4 [Usually it is for the court and not for the jury to construe a docu-
ment ; but where its language is ambiguous or equivocal or technical,
or the special circumstances of the case affect its meaning, or the facts
attending its execution need to be ascertained, etc., the question be-
comes a mixed one of law and fact, and may as such be submitted to
the jury (Kenyon v. Knights Templar Ass '», 122 N. Y. 247 ; Jordan v.
Patterson, 67 Ct. 47 3; Shafer v ; Senseman, 125 Pa. 310; Tompkins v.
Gardner Co., 69 Mich. 59; Hamilton x. Liverpool Ins. Co., 136 U.S.
242) ; so where a contract rests partly in writing and partly in parol,
the jury determine what the contract is (Roberts v. Bonaparte, 73 Md.
191). If printed and written parts of a document conflict with each
228 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
(2) In order to ascertain the meaning of the signs and
words made upon a document, oral evidence maybe given
of the meaning of illegible or not commonly intelligible
characters, of foreign^obsolete, technical, local, and pro- (
vincial expressknigfof abbreviations, and of common .
words which, from the context, appear to have been used
in a peculiar sense;' but evidence may not be given to
show that common words, the meaning of which is plain,
and which do not appear from the context to have been
used in a peculiar sense, were in fact so used.2
(3) If the words of a document are so defective or
ambiguous as to be unmeaning, no evidence can be given
to show what the author of the document intended to say.3
other, the written parts prevail {Clark v. Woodruff, 83 N. Y. 518;
Haws v. Insurance Co., 130 Pa. 113; Summers v. Hibbard, 153 111.
102). When a written contract is ambiguous, the practical construc-
tion given to it by the parties may be considered, and is of much
weight. Dist. of Columbia v. Gallaher, 124 U. S. 505; Hosmer v.
McDonald, 80 Wis. 54.]
1 Illustrations (a), (b), (c). [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 280, 292 ; Houghton v. Wa-
tertown Ins. Co., 131 Mass. 300 ; Hatch v. Douglas, 48 Ct. 1 16 ; Atkin-
son v. Trucsdell, 127 N. Y. 230 ; Conestoga Co. v. Finke, 144 Pa. 159 ;
Mc Donough v. Jolly, 165 Pa. 542 ; Elgin x.Joslyn, 136 111. 525 ; Con-
verse v. Wead, 142 111. 132 ; Walrath v. Whittekind, 26 Kan. 482. So
where an instrument appears to be incomplete, or where words and
phrases used are ambiguous or unintelligible, parol proof is admis-
sible to supplement the incomplete term, and to explain what is ob-
scure or doubtful. Emmcttv. Penoyer, 151 N. Y. 564 ; Quick v. Glass,
128 Mo. 320.]
• Illustration (d). [Collcnder v. Dinsmore, 55 N. Y. 200; Gray v.
Shepard, 147 X. Y. 177 ; Moran v. Prather, 23 Wall. 492 ; Odiome v.
Marine Ins. Co., 101 Mass. 551. Such words are to be understood in
their plain and ordinary sense. Id.; Holston Co. v. Campbell, 89 Va.
396 ; Hunt v. Gray, 76 la. 268.]
:! Illustrations (e) and (/). [Kelley v. Kelley, 25 Pa. 460 ; Palmer v.
Albec, 50 la. 429 ; cf. Wootton v. Pedd's Excrs., 12 Gratt. 196. This
is often called a case of " patent ambiguity," but the better term for it
is " uncertainty." The same terms are also applied when the mean-
ing of a document remains uncertain, even after evidence of " sur-
Chap. XII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 229
(4) In order to ascertain the relation of the words of a
document to facts, every fact may be proved to which it
refers, or may probably have been intended to refer,1 or
which identifies any person or thing mentioned in it.2
Such facts are hereinafter called the " circumstances of
the case."3
(5) If the words of a document have a proper legal
meaning, and also a less proper meaning, they must be
deemed to have their proper legal meaning, unless such
a construction would be unmeaning in reference to the
rounding circumstances" and other permissible explanatory evidence
(see paragraphs 2 and 4 in this Article) have been received (Gr. Ev. i.
§ 300 ; Kretschmer v. Hard, 18 Col. 223). But a patent ambiguity-
may not be resolved by parol evidence of other kinds, as e. g., by
evidence of a testator's parol statements of intention as to the mean-
ing of his will. Lewis v. Douglas, 14 R. I. 604 ; Senger v. Senger,
81 Va. 687 ; Taylor v. Maris, 90 N. C. 614.]
1 See all the Illustrations.
2 Illustration (g). [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 286-290 ; Coleman v. Manhattan
Co., 94 N. Y. 229; Reed v. Ins. Co., 95 U. S. 23 ; Bond's Appeal, 31
Ct. 183 ; Stoops v. Smith, 100 Mass. 63 ; Gilmors Estate, 154 Pa. 523 ;
Perry v. Bowman, 151 111. 25; Andrews v. Dyer, 81 Me. 104. This evi-
dence of the " circumstances of the case " or (as they are more com-
monly called) "surrounding circumstances" is received, to put the
court in the position of the parties at the time when the instrument
was drawn and thus enable it to comprehend their intentions (Id.;
Bingelv. Vols, 142 111. 214 ; Barnard v. Barlow, 50 N. J. Eq. 131).
But such evidence is not received to alter or modify the plain lan-
guage of an instrument, nor when the meaning of the instrument is
clear without it (Brawley v. U. S., 96 U. S. 168 ; Veazie v. Forsaith,
76 Me. 172 ; Humphreys v. N. V. etc. R. Co., 121 N. Y. 435 ; Fruin v.
Crystal R. Co., 89 Mo. 397 ; Fowler v. Black, 136 111. 363).
Under this rule, proof may be given that the maker of the instru-
ment habitually applied a nickname or peculiar designation used
therein to a particular person or thing. Foggs v. Taylor, 26 O. St.
604; Ryerss v. Wheeler, 22 Wend. 148; Banning v. Sisters of St.
Francis, 35 N. J. Eq. 392, note ; see Illustrations (e) and (gg).]
3 As to proving facts showing the knowledge of the writer, and for
an instance of a documenfc-which is not admissible for that purpose,
see A die v. Clark, 3 Ch. D. 134, 142.
230 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
circumstances of the case, in which case they may be
interpreted according to their less proper meaning.'
(6) If the document has one distinct meaning in
reference to the circumstances of the case, it must be
construed accordingly, and evidence to show that the
author intended to express some other meaning is not
admissible.2
(7) If the document applies in part but not with
accuracy or not completely to the circumstances of the
case, the court may draw inferences from those circum-
stances as to the meaning of the document, whether there
is more than one, or only one thing or person to whom or
to which the inaccurate description may apply. In such
cases no evidence can be given of statements made by the
author of the document as to his intentions in reference
to the matter to which the document relates, though
evidence may be given as to his circumstances, and to his
habitual use of language or names for particular persons
or things.3
1 Illustration (//). [Cromer v. Pinckncy, 3 Barb Ch. 466 ; Daugherty
v. Rogers, 119 Ind. 254; hi re Fish, [1894] 2 Ch. 83; cf. DeKay v.
Irving, 5 Den. 646.]
'-' Illustration (/). [American Bible Soc. v. Pratt, 9 Allen, 109 ; Best
v. Hammond, 55 Pa. 409 ; Drew v. Swift, 46 N. Y. 204 ; Jackson v.
Sill, 11 Johns. 201 ; Cotton v. Smithwick, 66 Me. 360 ; Jackson v. A /sop,
67 Ct. 249 ; Dunham v. Averill, 45 Ct. 61; Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick,
36 la. 674 ; Kurtz v. Hibner, 55 111. 514 ; In re Seal, [1894] 1 Ch. 316.
The meaning of plain language in a will must be followed, though it
make the will void. Win Nostrandv. Moore, 52 X. Y. 12.]
* Illustrations (/•), (/), (m). [Morse v. Steams, 131 Mass. 389;
Hinckley v. Thatcher, i;y> Mass. 477 ; Fairfield v. Laivson, 50 Ct.
501 ; St. lake's Home v. Ass'n for Females, 52 X. Y. 191 ; Griscom v.
Evens, 40 X. J. L. 402, 42 id. 579 ; Button v. . Imer. Tract Soc, 23 \'t.
336; Appeal of Washington and Lee Univ., 11 1 Pa. 572 ; Hallidayv.
Hess, 83 111. 588. This rule illustrates the well-known maxim, Falsa
demonstratio non nocet, cum de corpore constat, i. e., a false description
works no harm, when the matter of substance remains. The false
part of the description is rejected, and if sufficient remains to identify
Chap. XII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 231
(8) If the language of the document, though plain in
itself, applies equally well to more objects than one,
evidence may be given both of the circumstances of the
case and of statements made by any party to the docu-
ment as to his intentions in reference to the matter to
which the document relates.1
(9) If the document is of such a nature that the court
will presume that it was executed with any other than its
apparent intention, evidence may be given to show that
it was in fact executed with its apparent intention.2
a particular person or thing, effect can be given to the instrument ;
otherwise it is void for uncertainty (Id.; Gr. Ev. i. §§ 291, 301 ; see
Illustration («); Muldoon v.Deline, 135 N. Y. 150; Decker v. Decker,
I2i 111. 341; Eckford v. Eckford, 91 la. 54). Evidence of "sur-
rounding circumstances" may serve to correct a mistake in descrip-
tion {Patch v. White, 117 U. S. 210 ; Hawkins v. Garland, 76 Va. 149;.
The expression "latent ambiguity" is sometimes applied to cases
falling under this paragraph, since the ambiguity is developed by
evidence extrinsic to the instrument. Id.; 1 hornell v. Brockton, 141
Mass. 151 ; Whitcomb v. Rod/nan, 156 111. 116 ; Covert v. Sebern, 73
la. 564.]
1 Illustrations (n), (0). [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 289, 290, 297, 298 ; St. Luke's
Home v. Ass'n for Females, 52 N. Y. 191, 198; Trustees v. Colegrove,
4 Hun, 362 ; Griscom v. Evens, supra ; Bod/nan v. .liner. Tract Soc,
9 Allen, 447; Fairfield v. Lawson, 50 Ct. 501 ; Goff v. Roberts, 72
Mo. 570 ; Pfeifer v. Nat. Ins. Co., 62 Minn. 536 ; Morgan v. Burrows,
45 Wis. 211. These are also (and more commonly than the cases
referred to in the preceding note) called cases of " latent ambiguity,"
but the more appropriate name is " equivocation" (Gr. Ev. i. § 289 ;
Tucker v. Seamen's Aid Society, 7 Met. 188, 206 ; Bradley v. Rees, 113
111. 327). This form of latent ambiguity may be explained by evi-
dence of parol statements of intention, as well as by proof of "sur-
rounding circumstances ; " still the " surrounding circumstances " are
often found to suffice as a means of determining the meaning of the
document. Gilmer v. Stone, 120 U. S. 586 ; Skinner v. Harrison T'ft,
1 16 Ind. 139 ; Putnam v. Bond, 100 Mass. 58 ; Ayers v. Weed, 16 Ct.
291 ; Tilton v. Amer. Bible Soc, 60 N. H. 377 ; Tyler v. Fickett, 73
Me. 410 ; Sargent v. Adams, 3 Gray, 72.]
' Illustration [p). [This is called evidence "to rebut an equity" (i.e.,
an equitable presumption), and oral statements of intention are
232 A DIGEST OF [Part II
Illustrations.
(a) A lease contains a covenant as to "ten thousand" rabbits. Oral
evidence to show that a thousand meant, in relation to rabbits, 1200, is
admissible.1
(b) A sells to B " 1170 bales of gambier." Oral evidence is admis-
sible to show that a "bale" of gambier is a package compressed and
weighing 2 cwt.2
(c) A, a sculptor, leaves to B "all the marble in the yard, the tools
in the shop, bankers, mod tools for carving." Evidence to show
whether "mod" meant models, moulds, or modeling-tools, and to
show what bankers are, may be given.3
(d) Evidence may not be given to show that the word "boats," in a
policy of insurance, means "boats not slung on the outside of the ship
on the quarter." i
(e) A leaves an estate to K, L, M, etc., by a will dated before 1838.
Eight years afterwards A declares that by these letters he meant par-
ticular persons. Evidence of this declaration is not admissible. Proof
that A was in the habit of calling a particular person M would have
been admissible."
(/) A leaves a legacy to . Evidence to show how the blank
was intended to be filled is not admissible.6
provable for the purpose. Gr. Ev. i. § 296 ; Van Houten v. Post, 33
N. J. Eq. 344 ; Reynolds v. Robinson, 82 N. Y. 103, 107 ; Richardson v.
Evcland, 126 111. 37 ; Bank v. Fordyce, 9 Pa. 275 ; cf. Phillips v.
M Combs, 53 N. Y. 494.]
1 Smith v. Wilson, 3 B. & Ad. 728. [See Soutier v. Kellerman, 18
Mo. 509 ; Brown v. Brown, 8 Met. 576. But except in special cases
like these where words have a peculiar meaning by local custom,
usages of business, etc., the meaning of ordinary words cannot be
varied. Butler v. Gale, 27 Vt. 739; Mann v. Mann, 14 Johns. 1.]
2 Gorrissen v.Perrin, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 681. [See Miller v. Stevens, 100
Mass. 518 (meaning of "barrels"); Confederate Arotc Case, 19 Wall.
548 (of "dollars"); Carey v. Bright, 58 Pa. 70 (of "collieries");
People v. Borda, 105 Cal. 636 (of "corral "); Dana v. Fiedler, 12 N. Y.
40 ; McDonough v. Jolly, 165 Pa. 542.]
3 Goblet v. Beechy, 3 Sim. 24 ; 2 R. & M. 624. [See Ryerss v.
Wheeler, 22 Wend. 148, 153.]
4 Blackett v. Royal Exchange Co , 2 C. & J. 244.
5 Clayton v. Lord Nugent, 13 M. & W. 200 ; see 205-6. [See Beatty
v. Trustees, 39 N. J. Eq. 452.]
6 Bay lis v. A. G., 2 Atk. 239. [See Crooks v. Whitford, 47 Mich. 283 ;
Chap. XII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 233
(g) Property was conveyed in trust in 1704 for the support of " Godly
preachers of Christ's holy Gospel." Evidence may be given to show
what class of ministers were at the time known by that name.1
(gg) [A leaves a legacy in his will to "The Home of the Friendless
in New York." There is no institution of that name, but the legacy is
claimed by the " American Female Guardian Society." Evidence may
be given that this society has been commonly designated by the name
used in the will, both by its officers and friends and by the testator, and
that upon its circulars and business signs a name almost identical has
been used.]'2
(h) A leaves property to his "children." If he has both legitimate
and illegitimate children, the whole of the property will go to the
legitimate children. If he has only illegitimate children, the property
may go to them, if he cannot have intended to give it to unborn
legitimate children.3
(z) A testator leaves all his estates in the county of Limerick and
city of Limerick to A. He had no estates in the county of Limerick,
but he had estates in the county of Clare, of which the will did not
dispose. Evidence cannot be given to show that the words "of Clare"
had been erased from the draft by mistake, and so omitted from the
will as executed.4
(ii) [A testator devises to X "all that my farm called Trogues-farm,
IVallize v. Wallize, 55 Pa. 242 ; Lefevre v. Lefevre, 59 N. Y. 434, 441 ;
Vandervoort v. Dewey, 42 Hun, 68; cf. Crocker v. Crocker, 5 Hun,
587.] In In re Bacon s Will, Camp v. Coe, 31 Ch. D. 460, blanks were
left in a will, and parol evidence was admitted to rebut any presump-
tion arising from them against the prima facie claim of the executor
to the residue undisposed of.
1 Shore v. Wilson, 9 C. & F. 365, 565-6. [See Robertson v. Bullions,
1 1 N. Y. 243, 259 ; Hinckley v. Thatcher, 139 Mass. 477, 480 ; Goddard
v. Foster, 17 Wall. 143.]
2 \Lefevre v. Lefevre, 59 N. Y. 434 ; see Sutton v. Bowker, 5 Gray,
416; Woodv. Hammond, 16 R. I. 98 ; Missionary Soc. v. Mead, 131
111. 338-]
3 Wig. Ext. Ev. pp. 18 and 19, and note of cases. [Appelv. Byers,
98 Pa. 479 ; B rower v. Bowers, 1 Abb. Dec. 214 ; Hill v. C?-ook, L. R.
6 H. L. 265 ; see Gelston v. Shields, 16 Hun, 143, 78 N. Y. 275. So the
word " children " does not include grandchildren, except when there
are no children, in the usual sense of the word. Mowatt v. Carow, J
Pai. 328 ; West v. Rassman, 135 Ind. 278.]
4 Miller v. Travers, 8 Bing. 244. [See Tucker v. Seamen s Aid Soc,
234 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
now in the occupation of C." Evidence of "surrounding circum-
stances" being received showed that the testator owned a farm called
by this name, but that only part of it was in the occupation of C. The
last part of the description being inaccurate was therefore rejected,
and it was held that the whole of Trogues-farm passed to the devisee,
thus satisfying the word "all " in the first part of the description.] '
(J) A leaves a legacy to "Mrs. and Miss Bowden." No such per-
sons were living at the time when the legacy was made, but Mrs.
Washburne, whose maiden name had been Bowden, was living, and
had a daughter, and the testatrix used to call them Bowden. Evidence
of these facts was admitted.2
(k) A devises land to John Hiscocks, the eldest son of John His-
cocks. John Hiscocks had two sons, Simon, his eldest, and John, his
second son, who, however, was the eldest son by a second marriage.
The circumstances of the family, but not the testator's declarations
of intention, may be proved in order to show which of the two was
intended.3
(/) A devises property to Elizabeth, the natural daughter of B. B
has a natural son John, and a legitimate daughter Elizabeth. The
court may infer from the circumstances under which the natural child
was born, and from the testator's relationship to the putative father,
that he meant to provide for John.4
{in) A leaves a legacy to his niece, Elizabeth Stringer. At the date
of the will he had no such niece, but he had a great-great-niece named
Elizabeth Jane Stringer. The court may infer from these circum-
stances that Elizabeth Jane Stringer was intended ; but they may not
refer to instructions given by the testator to his solicitor, showing that
the legacy was meant for a niece, Elizabeth Stringer, who had died
7 Met. 188 ; Dunham v. Averill, 45 Ct. 61; Sturgis v. Work, 122 Ind.
I34-]
1 [Goodlitle v. Southern, 1 M. & S. 299; approved in Slingsby v.
Grainger, 8 H. L. C. 273, 282. S. P. WinkZey v. Kainie, 32 N. H. 268 ;
Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 36 la. 674.]
2 Lee v. Pain, 4 Hare, 251-3 ; [Gr. Ev. i. § 291.]
3 Doe v. Hiscocks, 5 M. & W. 363. [/« re Taylor, 34 Ch. D. 255 ; In
re Chappell, [1894] P. 98 ; see Smith v. Smith, 1 Edw. Ch. 189, 4 Pai.
271; Connolly v. Pardon, 1 Pai. 291; Thayer v. Boston, 15 Gray,
347-]
4 Ryall v. Hannam, 10 Beav. 536.
Chap. XII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 235
before the date of the will, and that it was put into the will by a mis-
take on the part of the solicitor.1
(n) A devises one house to George Gord, the son of George Gord,
another to George Gord, the son of John Gord, and the third to George
Gord, the son of Gord. Evidence both of the circumstances and of the
testator's statements of intention may be given to show which of the
two George Gords he meant.2
(o) A appointed " Percival , of Brighton, Esquire, the father,"
one of his executors. Evidence of surrounding circumstances may
be given to show who was meant, and (probably) evidence of state-
ments of intention.3
(p) A /eaves two legacies of the same amount to B, assigning the
same motive for each legacy, one being given in his will, the other in
a codicil. The court presumes that they are not meant to be cumula-
tive, but the legatee may show, either by proof of surrounding circum-
stances, or of declarations by the testator, that they were.4
Article 92.*
cases to which articles 90 and 91 do not apply.
Articles 90 and 91 apply only to parties to documents,
and their representatives in interest, and only to cases in
which some civil right or civil liability dependent upon
* See Note XXXIV. [Appendix].
1 Stringer v. Gardiner, 27 Beav. 35 ; 4 De G. & J. 468 ; [cf. Gallup
v. Wright, 61 How. Pr. 286.]
- Doe v. Needs, 2 M. & W. 129. [There were only two George Gords
to claim the third devise, viz., those who were named as the recipients
of the first and second devises. Hence this became a case of " equiv-
ocation," admitting evidence of statements of intention.]
3 If 1 the Goods of de Rosaz, L. R. 2 P. D. 66. [Mr. Stephen's state-
ment, that " probably evidence of statements of intention " might have
been given in this case, hardly seems warranted by the decision. No
such evidence was received, and, on principle, it does not seem com-
petent. There was only one person to whom the description accurately
applied.]
4 Per Leach, V. C, in Hurst v. Leach, 5 Madd. 351, 360-1. The
rule in this case was vindicated, and a number of other cases both
before and after it were elaborately considered by Lord St. Leonards,
236 A DIGEST OF [Part II.
the terms of a document is in question. Any person other
than a party to a document or his representative in inter-
est may, notwithstanding the existence of any document,
prove any fact which he is otherwise entitled to prove ; '
and any party to any document or any representative in
interest of any such party may prove any such fact for
any purpose other than that of varying or altering any
right or liability depending upon the terms of the docu-
ment.3
Illustrations.
a) The question is, whether A, a pauper, is settled in the parish of
Cheadle. A deed of conveyance to which A was a party is produced,
purporting to convey land to A for a valuable consideration. The
parish appealing against the order was allowed to call A as a witness
to prove that no consideration passed.3
(b) The question is, whether A obtained money from B under false
pretences. The money was obtained as a premium for executing a
deed of partnership, which deed stated a consideration other than the
one which constituted the false pretence. B may give evidence of
the false pretence, although he executed the deed mis-stating the
consideration for the premium.4
when Chancellor of Ireland, in Hall v. Hall, 1 Dru. & War. 94, m-
133. See, too, Jetwer v. Hinch, L. R. 5 P. D. 106. [See p. 231, note 2,
ante, and cases cited.]
1 [Gr. Ev. i. § 279; IVilsoti v. Sullivan, 58 N. H. 260; Burnham v.
Dorr, 72 Me. 198 ; Fonda v. Burton, 63 Vt. 355 ; Hankinson v. Van-
tine, 152 N. Y. 20; First Nat. Bk. v. Dunn, 55 N. J. L. 404 ; Bruce v.
Roper Co., 87 Va. 381 ; Needles v. Hani/an, 1 1 111. App. 303 ; Pfeifer
v. Nat. Ins. Co., 62 Minn. 536, 538 ; Burns v. Thompson, 91 Ind. 146.
In a suit between a party to an instrument and a stranger to it, either
of them may prove facts by parol evidence differing from the contents
of the instrument ; so also may strangers to the instrument, in a suit
between themselves (Lowell Mfg. Co. v. Safeguard Ins. Co., 88 N. Y.
591 ; Clapp v. Banking Co., 50 O. St. 528 ; Dunn v. Price, 112 Cal. 46).
And even in a controversy between the parties, the rule prohibiting
parol evidence may be waived. Brady v. Nally, 151 N. Y. 258.]
2 [See Illustration (/>).]
3 R. v. Cheadle, 3 B. & Ad. 833.
4 R. v. Adamson, 2 Moody, 286.
Y
Chap. XIII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 237
PART III.
PRODUCTION AND EFFECT OF
EVIDENCE.
CHAPTER XIII*
BURDEN OF PROOF.
Article 93.1
he who affirms must prove.
Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any
legal right or liability dependent on the existence or non-
existence of facts which he asserts or denies to exist, must
prove that those facts do or do not exist.1
Article 94.!
presumption of innocence.
If the commission of a crime is directly in issue m any
proceeding, criminal or civil, it must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.2
*See Note XXXV. [Appendix]. |See Note XXXVI. [Appendix].
1 1 Ph. Ev. 552; T. E. (from Greenleaf) s. 337; Best, ss. 265-6;
Starkie, 585-6. [Gr. Ev. i. § 74 ; Wh. Ev. i. §§ 353-357 ; Sawyer v.
Child, 68 Vt. 365 ; Willett v. Rich, 142 Mass. 356.]
3 [In respect to trials for crime this rule is well settled {Miles v. U. S.,
103 U. S. 304 ; People v. Downs, 123 N. Y. 558 ; Gardner v. State, 55
N. J. L. 17; Nevling v. Com/n., 98 Pa. 322). "Beyond reasonable
doubt " is sometimes defined to mean the same as " to a moral certainty"
238 A DIGEST OF [Part HI
The burden of proving that any person has been guilty
{Comm. v. Costley, 1 18 Mass. I ; Morgan v. State, 48 O. St. 371 ; People
v. Paulsell, 115 Cal. 6; Carrv. State, 23 Neb. 749); sometimes as re-
quiring evidence so convincing that reasonable men would unhesi-
tatingly be governed by it in their most important and serious interests
(Hopt v. Utah, 120 U. S. 430 ; Siberry v. State, 133 Ind. 677 ; Fletcher
v. State, 90 Ga. 468); and other definitions are given, not always har-
monious {People v. Barker, 153 N. Y. 1 1 1 ; Comm. v. Mudgett, 174 Pa.
211; Little v. People, 157 111. 153 ; People v. .£k8r<?, 104 Mich. 341 ; State
v. Rounds, 76 Me. 123 ; Conun. v. Leach, 160 Mass. 542). Every con-
stituent element of the crime must be proved beyond reasonable doubt,
but this is not required as to each evidentiary fact ( Wade v. State, 71
Ind. 535 ; Jamison v. People, 145 111. 357 ; People v. Fairchild, 48 Mich.
31; Kallock v. State, 88 Wis. 663; Porterfield v. Comm., 91 Ya. 801;
Clare v. People, 9 Col. 122; cf. State v. Magoon, 68 Vt. 289). The
court should, if requested, charge the jury that the law presumes a
person accused of crime to be innocent, as well as instruct them that
guilt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt {Coffin v. U. S., 156
U. S. 432 ; Newsom v. State, 107 Ala. 133 ; cf. State v. Smith, 65 Ct.
283).
In civil cases, on the contrary, it is the rule that only a preponder-
ance of evidence is required to sustain a verdict {Seybolt v. N. Y. etc.
R. Co., 95 N. Y. 562 ; Taylor v. Pelsing, 164 111. 331 ; Hall v. WolffM
la. 559; Strand v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 67 Mich. 380), and this rule
applies both to a plaintiff in proving his cause of action {Farmers' L.
&= T. Co. v. Siefke, 144 N. Y. 355) and to a defendant in establishing his
defence {sEtna Life Pis. Co. v. Ward, 140 U. S. 76; Phenix Ins. Co.
v. Picket, 119 Ind. 155). If the evidence on the two sides is in equi-
poise, the verdict should be against the party having the general bur-
den of proof upon the issue {Broult v. Hanson, 158 Mass. 17 : Whit-
latch v. Fidelity, etc. Co., 149 N. Y. 45 ; Birmingham Union R. Co. v.
Hall, 90 Ala. 8 ; Rogers v. Wallace, 10 Or. 387 ; Gage v. Railway Co's,
88 Tenn. 724). Preponderance of evidence does not consist merely in
having a greater number of witnesses, fur "witnesses are to be weighed
and not counted " {Fengar v. Brown, 57 Ct. 60; State v. Mustek, 71 Mo.
401; Grant v. McPherson, 104 Cal. 165 ; cf. Kelley v. Brown, 18 R. I.
41); still if opposing witnesses are of equal credit, excess in number
may count for much with the court or jury {Kentner v. Kline, 41 N. J.
Eq. 422 ; Lillibridge v. Barber, 55 Ct. 366 ; Peters v. Canfield, 74 Mich
498 ; but see Thomas v. Paul, 87 Wis. 607 ; Braunsc hweiger v . Waits,
179 Pa. 47).
There is much conflict of opinion in this country as to which of these
Chap. XIII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 239
of a crime or wrongful act is on the person who asserts it,
rules applies in civil cases, where the commission of. a crime is in issue.
A few States have adopted the general English rule {Grimes v. Hil-
liary, 150 111. 141; Williams v. Dickenson, 28 Fla. go); but in most
States only a preponderance of evidence is generally required to prove
the crime {People v. Briggs, 114. N. Y. 56; Bairdv. Abbey, 73 Mich.
347; Thoreson v. Northwestern Bis. Co., 29 Minn. 107; Continental
Bis. Co. v./achnichen, no Ind. 59; U. S. Express Co. v. Jenkins, 73
Wis. 471; Coitv. Churchill, 61 la. 296; Smith v. Burrus, 106 Mo. 94).
Thus in actions for libel or slander, where the defendant pleads a
"justification," viz., that the charge of crime he made against the
plaintiff was true, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required in
some States to support this plea {Fowler v. Wallace, 131 Ind. 347;
Burckhalter v. Coward, 16 S. Car. 435 ; Merk v. Gelzhaeuser, 50 Cal.
631); but in most States only a preponderance of evidence is required
{Bell v. McGuinness, 40 O. St. 204 ; Ellis v. Buzzell, 60 Me. 209 ; Fol-
som v. Brawn, 25 N. H. 1 14 ; Currier v. Richardson, 63 Yt. 617 ; Lewis
v. Skull, 67 Hun, 543 ; McBee v. Fulton, 47 Md. 403 ; Atlanta Journal
v. Alaysou, 92 Ga. 640; 111. Rev. St. c. 126, s. 3; Peoples v. Evening
News, 51 Mich. 1 1 ; Kidd v. Fleek, 47 Wis. 443 ; Riley v. Morton, 65 la.
306; Edwards v. Knapp, 97 Mo. 432). In insurance cases, similar to
Illustration {a), the great weight of authority is against the English
rule, and requires only a preponderance of evidence {Blaeser v. Mil-
waukee Ins. Co., 37 Wis. 31; Kane v. Hibernia Bis. Co., 39 N. J. L.
697 ; Rothschild v. Amer. Bis. Co., 62 Mo. 356 ; Behrens v. Germania
Bis. Co., 58 la. 26; Johnson v. Agr. Bis. Co., 25 Hun, 251, and see 114
N. Y. 56 ; Schmidt v. N. Y. etc. Ins. Co., 1 Gray, 529, see 15 Gray, 413 ;
Somerset Co. Ins. Co. v. Usaw, 112 Pa. 80 ; Hall v. Matthews, 118 Ind.
527 ; Monaghan v. Agr. Ins. Co., 53 Mich. 238); but in a few States
the English rule is followed {Germania Ins. Co. v. Klewer, 129 111. 599 ;
Schultz v. Pacific Ins. Co., 14 Fla. 73). In many other civil cases
involving a charge of crime, the rule of preponderance has been
applied {Roberge v. Burnham, 124 Mass. 277 (action for sale of liquor
to minor); Mead v. Husted, 52 Ct. 53, Kcndig v. Overhulser, 58 la. 195
(action for setting property on fire); Munson v. Atwood, 30 Ct. 102
(action for damages, under statute, for stealing cattle) ; Poertner v.
Poertner, 66 Wis. 644 (action for divorce on ground of adultery, which
is a crime in Wisconsin ; S. P. Lindley v. Lindley, 68 Vt. 421 ; Nelson
v. Pierce, 18 R. I. 539 ; cf. Allen v. Allen, 101 N. Y. 658); so fraud in
a civil action requires only preponderance of evidence, even though
it also amounts to a crime {Jones v. Greaves, 26 O. St. 2 ; Hough v.
Dickinson, 58 Mich. 89; Turner v. Hardin, 80 la. 691; Bullard v.
240 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
whether the commission of such act is or is not directly in
issue in the action.1
Creditors, 56 Cal. 600); so, in most States, as to proof of bastardy in
proceedings against the putative father {Scmon v. People, 42 Mich. 141 ;
State v. Severson, 78 la. 653 ; Reynolds v. State, 115 Ind. 421 ; Johnson
v. People, 140 111. 350; contra, Van Tassel v. State, 59 Wis. 351).
There are some issues in civil actions or proceedings which require
more than a mere preponderance of evidence to maintain them. The
rule, as variously stated, declares that the evidence must be "clear,
unequivocal and convincing," "clear, precise and indubitable," "full,
clear and satisfactory," "clear and conclusive," etc. Such an amount
or weight of evidence is required to prove a deed to be a mortgage
{C adman v. Peter, 118 U. S. 73 ; Wilson v. Parshall, 129 N. Y. 223;
Fisher \. IVitham, 132 Pa. 488 ; Cake v. Skull, 45 N. J. Eq. 208 ; Blake
v. Taylor, 142 111. 482 ; Tilden v. Streeter, 45 Mich. 533) ; to reform a
deed or other written instrument {Simmons Creek Coal Co. v. Do ran,
142 U. S. 417 ; Schwass v. Hershey, 125 111. 653; Phamix Ins. Co. v.
Ryland, 69 Md. 437 ; Turner v. Shaw, 96 Mo. 22 ; Boyertoivn Nat. Bk.
v. Hartman, 147 Pa. 558 ; Christopher St. R. Co. v. 23d St. R. Co., 149
N. Y. 51 ; Green v. Stone, 54 N. J. Eq. 387 ; Pulaski Iron Co. v. Palmer,
89 Va. 384); to establish a resulting trust (Burdettv. May, 100 Mo. 13 ;
Towle v. Wadsworth, 147 111. 80 ; Alurphy v. Hanscome, 76 la. 192 ; cf.
. I //fii v. Withrow, no U. S. 119); to set aside a written instrument
for fraud or mistake ( U. S. v. Budd, 144 U. S. 154 ; Cummins v. Hurl-
butt, 92 Pa. 165) ; to establish a gift causa mortis {Devlin v. Green-
wich Sav. Bk., 125 N. Y. 756; Barnum v. Reed, 136 111. 388); to sus-
tain the defence of usury {Rosenstein v. Fox, 150 N. Y. 354, 364 ; Tay-
lor v. Morris, 22 N. J. Eq. 606 ; Poppleton v. Nelson, 12 Or. 349) ; to
impeach the certificate of acknowledgment in a deed {Ford v. Os-
•, 45 O. St. 1 ; Griffin v. Griffin, 125 111. 430 ; Albany Co. Sav. Bk.
v. McCarty, 149 N. Y. 71 ; Young v. Duvall, 109 U. S. 573 ; Lewars v.
Weaver, 121 Pa. 268). It is sometimes said that the evidence in these
cases must be convincing "beyond reasonable doubt" {First Prcsb.
Church v. Logan, jy la. 326 ; Bodwell v. Heaton, 40 Kan. 36 ; Stock-
bridge Iron Co. v. Hudson Iron Co., 102 Mass. 45 ; Hupsch v. Resch,
45 N. J. Eq. 657 ; Strauch v. Hathaway, 101 111. 11), but this has been
held too extreme {Southard v. Curlcy, 134 N. Y. 148). Evidence to
show a statute to be unconstitutional should be beyond reasonable
doubt. People v. Supervisors, 147 N. Y. 1.]
1 [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 35, 78-80 ; Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 68 N. Y. 34 ;
Slocovich v. Orient Ins. Co., 108 N. Y. 56; Darn's v. Darn's, 123 Mass.
590. This rule will, in general, make it necessary to prove a negative
Chap. XIII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 241
Illustrations.
(a) A sues B on a policy of fire insurance. B pleads that A burned
down the house insured. B must prove his plea as fully as if A were
being prosecuted for arson.1
(/>) A sues B for damage done to A's ship by inflammable matter
loaded thereon by B without notice to A's captain. A must prove the
absence of notice.2
(c) The question in 1819 is, whether A is settled in the parish of a
man to whom she was married in 1813. It is proved that in 1812 she
was married to another person, who enlisted soon afterwards, went
abroad on service, and had not been heard of afterwards. The burden
of proving that the first husband was alive at the time of the second
marriage is on the person who asserts it.3
proposition, if that is a constituent element of the crime or wrongful
act. Colorado Coal Co. v. U. S., 123 U. S. 307 ; see Illustration (b).~\
1 Thurlellv. Beaumont, 1 Bing. 339; [generally denied in this coun-
try ; see note on p. 239, supra, and 10 Am. Law Rev. 642, 17 Am. Law
Reg. N. S. 302 ; Welch v. JugenJieimer, 56 la. 1 1.]
8 Williams v. East India Co., 3 Ea. 102, 198-9. [Harris v. White, 81
N. Y. 532, 547 ; cf. Boston, etc. R. Co. v. Shanly, 107 Mass. 568.J
3 R. v. Twyning, 2 B. & A. 386. [The ground of this decision was
that the law presumes against the commission of crime. The woman
was, therefore, presumed innocent of bigamy, though the second mar-
riage was only a year after the first and though it would ordinarily be
presumed that the first husband was still living (see Art. 99 ; also Art.
95, Illustration i). The presumption of life yielded to the presumption
of innocence and the person asserting her guilt of bigamy had, con-
sequently, the burden of proving that the first husband was alive. So
in this country it is held that the law, in cases like this, in a general
way prefers the presumption of innocence to that of the continuance
of life (Bishop, M. D. & S. i. § 953 ; Gr. Ev. i. § 35 ; Nesbitv. Nesbit, 3
Dem. 329 ; Jolinson v. Johnson, 1 14 111. 61 1 ; Wilkie v. Collins, 48 Miss.
511; Hunter v. Hunter, 1 1 1 Cal. 261 ; Squire v. State, 46 Ind. 459, see
86 Ind. 75 ; Murray v. Murray, 6 Or. 17 ; Dixon v. People, 18 Mich.
84 ; Kelly v. Drew, 12 Allen, 107 ; cf. Hyde Park v. Canton, 130 Mass.
505 ; Dunlop v. U. S., 165 U. S. 486, 503 ; Howardv. State, 75 Ala. 27 ;
People v. Strassman, 112 Cal. 683). So a divorce from a prior marriage
has been presumed in order to sustain the validity of a second marriage.
Schmisseurv. Beatrie, 147 111. 210 ; Boulden v. Mclntire, 1 19 Ind. 574 ;
Erwin v. English, 61 Ct. 502 ; In re Edwards, 58 la. 431; cf. Barnes
v. Barnes, 90 la. 282 ; Castor v. Davis, 120 Ind. 231 ; Randlett v. Rice,
141 Mass. 385.]
242 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
Article 95.
on whom the general burden of proof lies.
The burden of proof in any proceeding lies at first on
that party against whom the judgment of the court
would be given if no evidence at all were produced on
either side, regard being had to any presumption which
may appear upon the pleadings.1 As the proceeding goes
on, the burden of proof may be shifted from the party on
1 1 Ph. Ev. 552 ; T. E. ss. 338-9 ; Starkie, 586-7 & 748 ; Best, s. 263 ;
and see Abrath v. N. E. Ry., 1 1 Q. B. D. 440, especially the judgment
of Bowen, L. J., 455-462. [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 74-82 ; Veiths v. Hagge, 8 la.
163 ; Wilder v. Cowles, 100 Mass. 487, 490 ; Heinemann v. Heard, 62
N. Y. 448 ; Jones v. Jones, 137 N. Y. 610 ; Judge oj Probate v. Stone,
44 N. H. 593; Lindley v. Sullivan, 133 Ind. 588; Mc Reynolds v.
Burlington, etc. R. Co., 106 111. 152 ; Ay. Mfg. Co. v. Louisville, 97
Ky. 548. If the defendant in an action pleads a traverse or denial
(either with or without pleas by way of confession and avoidance,
counterclaims, etc.), and thus denies the whole or any material part of
the plaintiff's claim, the plaintiff has the burden of proof at first,
for he must prove what is denied in order to establish his cause of
action ; and this is true whether any material averment thus denied is
affirmative or negative in form {Roberts v. Chittenden, 88 N. Y. 33 ;
Lake Ontario Bk. v. Judson, 122 X. Y. 278; Schutz v. Jordan, 141
U. S. 213 ; RaJnn v. Deeg, 121 Ind. 283 ; Carpenter v. First Nat. Bk.,
119 111. 352; Boston Relief Co. v. Burnett, 1 Allen, 410; Button v.
Frink, 51 Ct. 342 ; see Art. 96, Illustration c). But where the defend-
ant so pleads (as by confession and avoidance or other affirmative
defence, without a denial) as to admit all the allegations of the com-
plaint or declaration which are essential to the cause of action, the
burden of proof lies upon him, the issue then being upon such matter
of defence {Murray v. X. Y. Life Ins. Co., 85 N. Y. 236 ; Conselyea v.
Swift, 103 X. Y. 604 ; Kent v. Mason, 79 111. 540 ; Phenix Ins. Co. v.
Pickel, 119 Ind. 156; Bixby v. Carskaddon, 70 la. 726; Clark v.
Murphy, 164 Mass. 490); if, however, the action is for unliquidated
damages and the defendant pleads only an affirmative defence, it is
held in a number of our States that the plaintiff, if he seeks sub-
stantial damages, has the burden of proof and the right to begin,
since the amount recoverable is not admitted upon the pleadings, and
Chap. XIII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 243
whom it rested at first by his proving facts which raise a
presumption in his favor.1
the plaintiff must therefore prove his damages {Johnson v. Josephs,
75 Me. 544 ; Dille v. Lovell, 37 O. St. 415 ; Waiisan Boom Co. v.
Dunbar, 75 Wis. 133; Young v. Highland, 9 Gratt. 16; Talhnadge
v. Press Pubg Co., 14 N. Y. S. 331 ; but see McCoy v. McCoy, 106
Ind. 492). The party having the right to begin has also, in general,
the right to close the case (see all the cases supra), but in some States
the court may, in its discretion, vary this order, if the other side is not
prejudiced thereby {Carpenter v. First Nat. Bk., 119 111. 352). In
Massachusetts it is a general rule that the right to open and close be-
longs to the plaintiff. Dorr v. Tremont Nat. Bk., 128 Mass. 349, 358.]
1 [The general burden of proof upon the main issue does not really
shift from the party upon whom it rests at the beginning, but remains
upon him throughout the trial (Gr. Ev. i. 74, n.; Heincmann v. Heard,
62 N. Y. 448; Fanners L. &> T. Co. v. Siefke, 144 N. Y. 355 ; Tarbox v.
Eastern Steamboat Co., 50 Me. 339 ; Phipps v. Mahon, 141 Mass. 471 ;
Atkinson v. Goodrich Transp. Co., 69 Wis. 5 ; Scott v. Wood,%\ Cal. 398 ;
Central Bridge Corp. v. Butler, 2 Gray, 132). In criminal cases it re-
mains on the government throughout the trial {Lilienthal's Tobacco v.
U. S., 97 U. S. 237, 266 ; Tiffany v. Comm., 121 Pa. 165 ; People v. Mc-
Whorter, 93 Mich. 641 ; People v. Ribolski, 89 Cal. 493 ; State v. Wingo,
66 Mo. 181 ; O' Connelly. People, 87 N. Y. 377). But after such party has
given evidence, which, in the absence of further proof, would be suffi-
cient to entitle him to recover, the other party will then need to give
evidence in rebuttal or defence, whereupon the former may need to
furnish additional evidence to complete the requisite proof of his alle-
gations. And this successive transfer from one party to the other of
the obligation to submit evidence is what is often called the "shifting
of the burden," though in fact what really takes place is rather a shift-
ing of the weight of evidence as the trial progresses {Lamb v. Camden,
etc. R. Co., 46 N. Y. 271 ; Pease v. Cole, 53 Ct. 53; Burnham v. Allen, 1
Gray, 496; Agneru v. U. S., 165 U. S. 36; Clark v. Hills, 67 Tex. 141).
Sometimes, upon the principle, res ipsa loquitur, the party holding
the affirmative upon the issue can establish a sufficient prima facie
case by showing the mere occurrence of acts which raise a presump-
tion in his favor (Illustration (_/); Gleeson v. Va. R. Co., 140 U. S. 435 ;
Houston v. Brush, 66 Vt. 331 ; Graham v. Badger, 164 Mass. 42 ; Len-
71011 v. Rawitzer, 57 Ct. 583 ; Volkmar v. Manhattan R. Co., 134 N. Y.
418 ; Excelsior Elec. Co. v. Sweet, 57 N. J. L. 224 ; Shafer v. Lacock,
168 Pa. 496; Howserv. Cumberland, etc. R. Co., 80 Md. 146; Och v.
Mo, etc. R. Co., 130 Mo. 27). But ordinarily he must give sufficient
244 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
Where there are conflicting" presumptions, the case is
the same as if there were conflicting evidence.1
Illustrations.
(a) It appears upon the pleadings that A is indorsee of a bill of ex-
change. The presumption is that the indorsement was for value, and
the party interested in denying this must prove it.3
(ab) [A, the indorsee of a negotiable instrument, produces it in
evidence in an action against the maker. The presumption is that he
acquired it bona fide for value before maturity. The defendant may
then prove that the instrument had been lost or stolen before A
acquired it, or that there was fraud or illegality in its inception. The
burden then falls upon A to prove that he obtained the instrument for
value before maturity and in good faith, without knowledge or notice
of the facts impeaching its validity.] 3
(b) A, a married woman, is accused of theft and pleads not guilty.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution. She is shown to have
been in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft. The bur-
den of proof is shifted to A. She shows that she stole them in the
evidence to prove all the material allegations of his case, regard
being had to the different degrees of proof required in civil and
criminal cases. Comm. v. McKie, I Gray, 6 1 ; Cosulich v. Standard
Oil Co., 122 N. Y. 1 1 8 ; Ba/irv. Lombard, 53 N. J. L. 233 ; Mixter
v. Imperial Coal Co., 152 Pa. 395 ; Hart v. Washington Club, 157 111.
9 ; Doivell v. Guthrie, 116 Mo. 646.]
1 See Illustration (/).
8 Mills v. Barber, 1 M. & W. 425. [Harger v. Worrall, 69 X. Y. 370 ;
Gray's Admr. v. Bk. of Kentucky, 29 Pa. 365 ; Estabrook v. Boyle, 1
Allen, 412 ; cf. Smith v. Sac Co., 11 Wall. 139.]
:i [Canajoharie Nat. Bk. v. DiefendorJ, 123 N. Y. 191 ; Smith x. Liv-
ingston, 11 1 Mass. 342 ; Lerch Hardware Co. v. First Xat. Bk., 109
a. 240; A f c Corker v. Banks, 84 Md. 292 ; Giberson v./olley, 120 Ind.
301 ; Horrigan v. Wymant 90 Mich. 121 ; Bank of Montreal x. Richter,
55 Minn. 362 ; Campbell x. Hoff, 129 Mo. 317 ; cf. Amer. Ex. Xat. Ilk.
v. N. Y. Belting Co , 148 N. Y. 698. This is the generally accepted
rule, though a few authorities state that ultimately the burden is on
defendant to show that plaintiff had notice of impeaching facts, in-
-tt .id of on plaintiff to show that he had no notice. Todd x Wich
Bros., 36 O. St. 370, 390; Kellogg x. Curtis, 6g Me 212.]
Chap. XIII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 245
presence of her husband. The burden of proving that she was not
coerced by him is shifted on to the prosecutor.1
(c) A is indicted for bigamy. On proof by the prosecution of the
first marriage, A proves that at the time he- was a minor. This
throws on the prosecution the burden of proving the consent of A's
parents.2
(cc) [A, the owner of goods, sues B, a bailee, to whom he has
entrusted them, for the value of the goods, on the ground that they
have been lost or injured through B's neglect. A establishes a prima
facie case of negligence by proving the bailment of his goods and
that B, upon due demand made by A for their delivery, refused to
restore them. The duty then resting on B to explain the loss or de-
struction, he shows that the goods were taken by thieves or were
destroyed by fire. It then devolves upon A to prove that such theft
or fire was the result of defendant's negligence.]3
1 1 Russ. Cri. 33 ; 2 id. 337. [The old rule that the recent exclusive
possession of stolen goods raises a legal presumption of guilt, is still
maintained in Missouri (State v. Jennings, 81 Mo. 185 ; Slate v. War-
ford, 106 Mo. 55). But the rule now generally established in this coun-
try is that such possession only raises a presumption oifact, or affords
prima facie evidence of guilt, to be considered by the jury, and juries
are instructed that if the possession is not satisfactorily explained, they
may infer guilt or are authorized to find guilt (Wilson v. U. S., 162
U.S. 613; Coram, v. McGorty, 114 Mass. 299; Stover v. People, 56
N. X. 315 ; People v. Weldon, in N. Y. 569 ; Blaker v. State, 130 Ind.
203 ; Keating v. People, 160 111. 480 ; State v. Richart, 57 la. 215 ; State
v. Hoffman, 53 Kan. 700 ; Porterfield v. Comm., 91 Va. 801 ; Orr v.
State, 107 Ala. 35 ; Griffin v. State, 86 Ga. 257 ; Bellamy v. State, 35
Fla. 242 ; Harper v. State, 71 Miss. 202). Upon either theory the bur-
den is on the defendant to explain his possession. Some cases regard
the recent possession as simply evidence for the jury tending to show
guilt (State v. Hodge, 50 N. H. 510; People v. Abbott, 161 Cal. 645).
Similar rules are generally applied in trials for burglary, arson and
like offences, but in some States such evidence is not deemed prima
facie evidence of burglary as it is of larceny (State v. Jennings, 79 la.
513 ; People v. Wood, 99 Mich. 620 ; Gravely v. Comm., 86 Va. 396).
As to presumed coercion of wife by husband, see Art. 101, note.]
2 7?. v. Butler, 1 R. & R. 61. [The English Marriage Act, then in
force, provided that the marriage of a minor, without the consent of
parents, should be "null and void."]
3 \Claflin v. Meyer, 75 X. V. 260 ; Stewart v. Stone, 127 N. Y. 500;
246 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
(cd) [When the probate of a will is contested on the ground of the
alleged insanity of the testator, it is for the proponent to establish a
prima facie case in favor of the validity of the will. This he may do
by the evidence of the subscribing witnesses that the testator duly
executed the will and was of sound mind, such evidence being aided
by the usual presumption of sanity. The burden is then upon the
contestant to produce evidence that the testator was of unsound mind.
The proponent may then give evidence in rebuttal. The genera!
burden of proof, however, does not shift during the trial but rests
upon the proponent, and if, when all the evidence on both sides has
been received, the court is not satisfied by a preponderance of the
evidence that the testator was of sound mind, the will should not be
admitted to probate.] '
Dinsmore v. Abbott, 89 Me. 373; Bus-well v. Fuller, 89 Me. 600;
Willettv. Rich, 142 Mass. 356 (where the goods were restored in a
damaged state); Cross v. Brown, 41 N. H. 283 ; Denton v. C, R. I. &*
F. R. Co., 52 la. 161. But in some States the bailee, explaining the
cause of loss or injury, must also show that it was not due to his
negligence {Funkhouser v. Wagner, 62 111. 59 ; Taussig v. Schields,
26 Mo. App. 318 ; Bagley Elev. Co. v. Amer. Exp. Co., 63 Minn. 142 ;
cf. Boies v. Hartford, etc. R. Co., 37 Ct. 272). Similar rules apply to
carriers of goods who are in default as to delivery. Whitworth v.
Erie R. Co., 87 N. Y. 413 ; Buck v. Pa. R. Co., 150 Pa. 170 ; Boehlv.
Chicago, etc.R. Co., 44 Minn. 191 ; Transportation Co. v. Downer, n
Wall. 129 ; Hutchinson on Carriers, 2d ed., §§ 765-768.]
1 \Crowninshield v. Crowninshield, 2 Gray, 524, as modified by
Baxter v. Abbott, 7 Gray, 71 ; Matter of Flansburgh, 82 Hun, 49;
Norton v. Paxton, no Mo. 456; Prentis v. Rates, 93 Mich. 234;
Chrisman v. Chrisman, 16 Or. 127 ; cf. Hardy v. Merrill, 56 N. H.
227; Johnson v. Stivers, 95 Ky. 128. Some States, however, hold
that the testator's sanity is not presumed but is solely a matter for
proof by the proponent {Robinson v. Adams, 62 Me. 369 ; McMechen
v. McMechen, 17 W. Ya 683, 699; Layman's Will, 40 Minn. 371;
Beazleyv. Denson, 40 Tex. 416 ; cf. Williams v. Robinson, 42 Yt. 658).
Other States, on the contrary, hold that on the production^ the will
and proof of its due formal execution, the presumption of sanity
(without proof thereof) makes a sufficient prima facie case (Grubbsv.
McDonald, 91 Pa. 236 ; Higgins v. Carlton, 28 Md. 115; McCulloch
v. Campbell, 49 Ark. 367; Bamewallv. Murrell, 108 Ala. 366; cf.
Elkinton v. Brick, 44 X. J. Eq. 154). In Illinois, if the evidence on
both sides as to the testator's capacity is ecmally balanced, the pre-
sumption of sanity still avails the proponent and the will is admitted
Chap. XIII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 247
(ce) [A is indicted for a crime and pleads not guilty. The burden is
upon the prosecution to prove that he committed the act charged. He
then gives evidence to show that he was insane when the act was
committed. The prosecution may then give evidence to prove that
he was sane, and if the entire evidence does not satisfy the jury of his
sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, A must be acquitted.]1
to probate ; the burden of proof on the whole case is, therefore, said
to lie upon the contestant (Graybeal v. Gardner, 146 111. 337; see
Barber s Appeal, 63 Ct. 393).
The burden of proof as to undue influence is generally held to lie
upon the contestant, after it has been made to appear that the will
was duly executed by a person of competent understanding {Baldwin
v. Parker, 99 Mass. 79 ; Will -of Martin, 98 N. Y. 193 ; Dumont v.
Dumonf, 46 N. J. Eq. 223; Webber v. Sullivan, 58 la. 260; Arm-
strong v. Armstrong, 63 Wis. 162 ; Morton v. Heidorn, 135 Mo. 608;
Prentis v. Bates, 93 Mich. 234, 245 ; McMechen v. McMechen, 17 W.
Va. 683 ; cf. Freeman v. Hamilton, 74 Ga. 317). But when the contestant
has given evidence sufficient to establish undue influence, the burden
of rebutting it lies on the proponent {Matter of Green, 67 Hun, 527;
Loder v.Whelpley, no N. Y. 239, 250; Denning v. Butcher, 91 la.
425, 440). A New York statute provides that, in order that a will may
be admitted to probate, it must appear to the surrogate that it was
duly executed and that the testator was competent to make a will
and not under restraint (Code Civ. Pro. § 2623 ; see Matter of Mabie,
5 Misc. 179).
The existence of a special confidential relation between the testator
and a beneficiary under the will may cast the burden, as to undue in-
fluence or coercion, upon the proponent. Will of Smith, 95 N. Y.
516; Richmond's Appeal, 59 Ct. 226; Miller's Estate, 179 Pa. 645;
Henry v. Hall, 106 Ala. 84 ; cf. Denning v. Butcher, 91 la. 425 ; see
Art. 97 a.]
1 [ Walker v. People, 88 N. Y. 81; People v. Nino, 149 N. Y. 317;
Davis v. U. S., 160 U. S. 469 ; State v. Bartlett, 43 N. H. 224 ; Comm.
v. Pomeroy (Mass.) cited in 160 U. S. 483 ; Plummer v. State, 135 Ind.
308 ; Lilly v. People, 148 111. 467 ; Revoir v. State, 82 Wis. 295 ; State
v. Nixon, 32 Kan. 205; Furst v. State, 31 Neb. 403; Armstrong v.
State, 30 Fla. 170 ; Ford v. State, 73 Miss. 734 ; King v. State, 91 Tenn.
617 ; cf. State v. Schweitzer, 57 Ct. 532. But in most of the States it is
the rule that the defendant, to be acquitted, must prove his insanity
by a preponderance of evidence [State v. Lawrence, 57 Me. 574 ;
Graves v. State, 4; N. J. L. 203 & 347 ; Comm. v. Bezek, 168 Pa. 603 :
Kclch v State, 55 O. St. 146; State v. Trout, 74 la. 545; State v.
248 A DIGEST OF [Part III
(d) A deed of gift is shown to have been made by a client to his
solicitor. The burden of proving that the transaction was in good
faith is on the solicitor.1
Grear, 29 Minn. 221; State v. Lewis, 20 Nev. 333; People v. Ward,
105 Cal. 335 ; State v. Wright, 134 Mo. 404 ; Boiling v. State, 54 Ark.
588 ; Moore v. Comm., 92 Ky. 630 ; Dejarnette v. Comm., 75 Va. 867 ;
State v. Alexander, 30 S. Car. 74; Maxwell v. State, 89 Ala. 150;
Keener v. State, 97 Ga. 388 ; Boren v. State, 32 Tex. Cr. 637. In a
few States he is required to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable
doubt {State v. Hansen, 25 Or. 391; State v. Clements, 47 La. Ann.
1088).
As to the defence of alibi, the burden is also on the defendant to
produce evidence to prove it. In most States, if upon such evidence,
either by itself {Howard v. State, 50 Ind. 190 ; Wallers v. State, 39 O.
St. 216; Bennett v. State, 30 Tex. App. 341), or in connection with the
other evidence in the case, the jury have, at the end of the trial, a rea-
sonable doubt of guilt, they should acquit (Carlton v. People, 150 111.
181; Comm. v. Choate, 105 Mass. 451; State v. Harvey, 131 Mo. 339;
People v. Pong Ah Sing, 64 Cal. 253; Ware v. State, 59 Ark. 379;
Murphy v. State, 31 Fla. 166; State v. Conway, 55 Kan. 323; State v.
Stone, 117 N. Y. 480). In a few States the defendant, to be acquitted,
must prove the alidiby a preponderance of evidence (Stalev.Bcasley,
84 la. 83; State v. Jackson,1^ S. Car. 487). In still other States the
rule is that defendant's evidence as to this defence should preponder-
ate, but if it does not, and yet, with the other evidence in the case, it
leaves a reasonable doubt of guilt, there should be an acquittal (State
v. Ward, 61 Vt. 153 ; Miles v. State, 93 Ga. 117 ; Rudy v. Comm., 128
Pa. 500 ; State v. Freeman, 100 N. C. 429; Prince v. State, 100 Ala. 144).
So as to evidence to show self-defence, the accused is entitled to the
benefit of a reasonable doubt (Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308 ; State
v. Donahoe, 78 la. 486; Hubbard v. State, 37 Fla. 156; People v.
Coughlin, 65 Mich. 704; People v. Riordan, 117 N. Y. 71; Tiffany v.
Comm., 121 Pa. 165; Miller v. State, 107 Ala. 40 ; State v. Wingo, 66
Mo. 181); but in a few States such evidence, adduced by the defend-
ant, must preponderate (Stale v. fones, 20 \V. Va. 764 ; Weaver v.
State, 24 O. St. 584).
In some States it is held that upon all matters of defence, the ac-
cused is entitled to the benefit of a reasonable doubt. People v. Rior-
dan, 1 17 N. V. 71 ; Gravely v. State, 38 Neb. 873 ; People v. Boling, 83
Cal. 380 ; State v. Schweitzer, 57 Ct. 532 ; People v. Coughlin, 65 Mich.
704.]
1 1 Story, Eq. Juris., s. 310, n. 1, quoting Hunter v. Atkins, 3 M. &
Chap. XIII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 249
(if) It is shown that a hedge stands on A's land. The burden of
proving that the ditch adjacent to it is not A's also is on the person
who denies that the ditch belongs to A.1
(/) A proves that he received the rent of land. The presumption
is that he is owner in fee simple, and the burden of proof is on the
person who denies it.'2
(g) A finds a jewel mounted in a socket, and gives it to B to look at.
B keeps it, and refuses to produce it on notice, but returns the socket.
The burden of proving that it is not as valuable a stone of the kind as
would go in the socket is on B.3
(/z) A sues B on a policy of insurance, and shows that the vessel
insured went to sea, and that after a reasonable time no tidings of her
have been received, but that her loss has been rumored. The burden
of proving that she has not foundered is on B.4
(z) Z in 1864 married A. In 1868 he was convicted of bigamy in
having in 1868 married B during the life of A. In 1879 ne married C.
In 1880, C being alive, he married D, and was prosecuted for bigamy
in marrying D in the lifetime of C. The prisoner on his second trial
proved the first conviction, thereby proving that A was living in 1868.
No further evidence was given. A's being alive in 1868 raises a
presumption that she was living in 1879. Z's marriage to C in 1879,
being presumably innocent, raises a presumption that A was then
dead. The inference [z. <?., whether A was alive when Z married C]
ought to have been left to the jury.5
(J) [While A was passing along the street in front of the shop of B,
a dealer in flour, a barrel of flour fell from an upper window of the
shop and striking A knocked him down and injured him. In an action
K. 113. [ Whitehead v. Kennedy, 69 N. Y. 462 ; Dunn v. Record, 63
Me. 17 ; Cuthbertsori s Appeal, 97 Pa. 163 ; see Art. 97 A, post.]
1 Guy v. West, Selw. N. P. 1297.
2 Doe v. Coulthred, 7 A. & E. 235. [Burt v. Panjaud, 99 U. S. 180 ;
cf. Linthicum v. Ray, 9 Wall. 241.]
3 Armoury v. Delamirie, 1 S. L. C. 357. [Gr. Ev. i. § 37 ; Clark v.
Miller, 4 Wend. 628; McCown v. Quigtey, 147 Pa. 307; but see
Berney v. Dinsmore, 141 Mass. 42.]
4 Koster v. Reed, 6 B. & C. 19. [See Gordon v. Bowne, 2 Johns. 150 ;
Berwind v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 114 N. Y. 231.]
5 R. v. If rillshire, 6 Q. B. D. 366. [See Comm. v. McGrath, 140 Mass.
296; Parker v. State, 77 Ala. 47 ; State v. Plym, 43 Minn. 385 ; Williams
v. Williams,6$ Wis. 58; Art.94.rt7/zV, Illustration (c); p 262, post, note.]
250 A DIGEST OF [Pakt III.
£.
by A against B, A proved only the fact of the injury, and this was held
sufficient to establish -a prima facie case of negligence against B, so
that A might recover in the absence of opposing evidence.]1
'ARTICLE 0,6.
BURDEN OF PROOF AS TO PARTICULAR FACT.
The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that
person who wishes the court to believe in its existence,
unless it is provided by any law that the burden of prov-
ing that fact shall lie on any particular person ; 3 but the
burden may in the course of a case be shifted from one
' [Byrne v. Boadle, 2 H. & C. 722 ; see Scott v. Lo7idon, etc. Docks
Co., 3 id. 596 (fall of bags of sugar from warehouse); Kearney v. Lon-
don, etc. ft. Co., L. R. 5 Q. B. 411, 6 id. 759 (fall of brick from bridge
over highway); Hogan v. Manhattan R. Co., 149 N. Y. 23 (fall of
piece of iron from elevated railway); Mullen v. St. John, 57 N. Y.
567 (fall of building into highway); Breen v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 109 N. Y.
297 (injury to passenger by swinging door on train); Uggla v. West
End R. Co., 160 Mass. 351 (fall of electric railway apparatus): Sheri-
dan v.Foley, 58 N.J. L. 230 (fall of bricks from scaffold or hod);
Treadwell v. Whittier, 80 Cal. 574 (fall of elevator); cf. Huey v.
Gahlenbeck, 121 Pa. 238. The maxim res ipsa loquitur is frequently
applied to cases of injury by carriers, especially railroad companies,
to goods or passengers, as by collision, derailment of cars, etc. {Buck
v. Pa. R. Co., 150 Pa. 170; Bush v. Barrett, 96 Cal. 203; Mont-
gomery, etc. R. Co. v. Mallett, 92 Ala. 209 ; Hutchinson on Carriers,
2d ed. §§ 798-801). Oftentimes they are made subject to this rule by
statute. Louisville, etc. R. Co. v. Spencer, 149 111. 97 ; Chicago, etc.
R. Co. v. Mc Bride, 54 Kan. 172.]
2 For instances of such provisions see T. E. ss. 345-6- \_Perley v.
Perley, 144 Mass. 104 ; Fanners' L. &• T. Co. v. Siefke, 144 N. Y. 354;
Phenix Ins. Co. v. Picket, 1 19 Ind. 155. Thus the defendant must prove
any affirmative defences which he sets up, as payment, usury, fraud,
illegality, etc. {Noble v. Fagnant, 162 Mass. 275 ; Spencer v. Citizens
Ins. Co., 142 X. Y. 505; Rosenstein v. Fox, 150 N. Y. 354, 364;
Haughwout v. Garrison, 69 X. Y. 339 ; Godfrey v. Crisler, 121 Ind.
203; .Etna Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 140 U. S. 76.]
Chap. XIII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 251
side to the other, and in considering the amount of evi-
dence necessary to shift the burden of proof, the court
has regard to the opportunities of knowledge with re-
spect to the fact to be proved which may be possessed by
the parties respectively.1
Illustrations.
(a) A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the court to believe that B
admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission.
B wishes the court to believe that, at the time in question, he was
elsewhere. He must prove it.'2
(aa) [A sues B for negligence causing damage. The burden of
proving B's negligence rests upon A, but A need not prove the absence
on his own part of contributory negligence ; such negligence of A is
to be proved by B as matter of defence, unless, indeed, it has been
already sufficiently disclosed by A's evidence.]3
(b) A, a shipowner, sues B, an underwriter, on a policy of insurance
1 [Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 532, 547, 548 ; Selma, etc. R. Co. v. U. S.,
139 U. S. 560 ; Greeley v. Passaic, 42 N. J. L. 87 ; State v. Hathaway,
115 Mo. 36 ; Robinson v. Robinson, 51 111. App. 317. Thus it is held
that in proceedings against a person who has been selling liquor,
exercising a trade or profession, or doing other acts, without having
the license prescribed by law, the burden is on him to prove that he
has a license, not on the prosecutor to prove the want of a license.
U. S. v. Nelson, 29 F. R. 202 ; State v. Nulty, 57 Vt. 543 ; Mass. Pub.
St. c. 214, s. 12 ; Comm. v. Tozule, 138 Mass. 490 ; State v. Higgins, 13
R. I. 330 ; People v. Maxwell, 83 Hun, 157 ; People v. Fulda, 52 Hun,
65 ; Plainfieldw. Watson, 57 N. J. L. 525 ; People v. Nedrow, 16 111.
App. 192 ; State v. Ahem, 54 Minn. 195 ; St Louis v. Weitzel, 130 Mo.
600 ; Evans v. State, 54 Ark. 227 ; State v. Emery, 98 N. C. 668 ; Infor-
mation ag'st Oliver, 21 S. Car. 318 ; cf. People v. Cannon, 139 N. Y.
32, 46 ; contra, Hepler v. State, 58 Wis. 46 ; State v. Kiihuke, 26 Kan.
405.]
2 [See p. 248, note.]
8 [This is the rule in a majority of the States {Indianapolis, etc. R.
Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291; N. J. Exp. Co. v. Nichols, 33 N. J. L. 434 ;
Sopherstein v.' Bertels, 178 Pa. 401 ; State v. Bait. &> P. R. Co., 58 Md.
482 ; Gill v. Homrighousen, 79 Wis. 634 ; Lorimer v. St. Paul Ry. Co.,
48 Minn. 391; St. Louis, etc. R. Co. v. Weaver, 35 Kan. 412; Omaha
R. Co. v. Martin, 48 Neb. 66 ; MacDougall v. Central R. Co., 63 Cal.
431 ; Moffatt v. Tenney, ij Col. 189 ; Ford v. Umatilla Co., 15 Or. 313 ;
252 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
on a ship. B alleges that A knew of and concealed from B material
facts. B must give enough evidence to throw upon A the burden of
disproving his knowledge; but slight evidence will suffice for this
purpose.1
(c) In an action for malicious prosecution the plaintiff must prove
( i ) his innocence ; (2) want of reasonable and probable cause for the
prosecution ; (3) malice or indirect motive ; and he must prove all
that is necessary to establish each proposition sufficiently to throw the
burden of disproving that proposition on the other side.8
{</) In actions for penalties under the old game laws, though the
plaintiff had to aver that the defendant was not duly qualified, and
was obliged to give general evidence that he was not, the burden of
proving any definite qualification was on the defendant.3
Gordon v. Richmond, 83 Va. 436 ; Comer v. Coal, etc. Co., 34 W. Va.
533 '< Jordafi v. Asheville, 112 N. C. 743 ; Donahue v. Railroad Co.,
32 S. Car. 299 ; Cahill v. Cincinnati R. Co., 92 Ky. 345 ; Stewart v.
Nashville, 96 Tenn. 50 ; Jones v. Malvern Co., 58 Ark. 125 ; Hudson v.
Wabash, etc. Ry. Co., 101 Mo. 13; McDonald 'v. Montgomery R. Co.,
1 10 Ala. 162 ; Gulf, etc. R. Co. v. Shieder, 88 Tex. 152). But in some
States A must prove B's negligence and that he was not himself guilty
of contributory negligence. Benson v. Titcomb,J2 Me. 31; Boveev.
Danville, 53 Vt. 183 ; Mayo v. B. &* M. R. Co., 104 Mass. 137 ; Ryan
v. Bristol, 63 Ct. 26 ; Whalen v. Citizens'1 Gas Co., 151 N. Y. 70 ; Thomas
v. Hoosier Co., 140 Ind. 518 ; Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Levy, 160 111. 355 ;
Denman v. Johnston, 85 Mich. 387 ; Gamble v. Muffin, 74 la. 99.]
1 Elkin v.Janson, 13 M. & W. 655. See, especially, the judgment of
Alderson, B., 663-6. [See Insurance Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 237;
Fiske v. New Eng. Ins. Co., 15 Pick. 310; Livingston v. Dclajield, 3
Cai. 49. It is a general rule that in proving a negative averment,
plenary proof is not required. Gr. Ev. i. § 78 ; State v. Foster, 23 N.
H. 348; Schmisseur v. Beatrie, itf 111. 210; but see Colorado Coal
Co. v. U. S., 123 U. S. 307, 318.]
- . lb rath v. North Eastern Ry., 11 Q. B. D. 441. [Good v. French,
1 1 5 Mass. 201 ; Anderson v. How, 116 N. Y. 336 ; McClaJJerty v. Philp,
151 Pa. 86. Plaintiff's innocence is shown by proving the termination
of the alleged malicious proceeding in his favor. O'Brien v. Barry,
106 Mass. 300; Bobbins v. Robbins, 133 N. Y. 597.]
3 1 Ph. Ev. 556, and cases there quoted. The illustration is founded
more particularly on R. v. Jarvis, in a note to R. v. Stone, 1 Ea. 639,
where Lord Mansfield's language appears to imply what is stated
above. [See Potter v. Dcyo, 19 Wend. 361; Bliss v. Brainard, 41
N. H. 256.]
Chap. XIII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 253
Article 97.
burden of proving fact to be proved to make
evidence admissible.
The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved
in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other
fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence.
Illustrations.
{a) A wishes to prove a dying declaration by B.
A must prove B's death, and the fact that he had given up all hope
of life when he made the statement.1
(b) A wishes to prove, by secondary evidence, the contents of a lost
document.
A must prove that the document has been lost.2
Article 97 a.
burden of proof when parties stand in a fiduciary
relation.
When persons stand in a relation to each other of such
a nature that the one reposes confidence in the other, or
is placed by circumstances under his authority, control or
influence, when the question is as to the validity of any
transaction between them from which the person in whom
confidence is reposed or in whom authority or influence
is vested derives advantage, the burden of proving that
the confidence, authority or influence was not abused, and
that the transaction was in good faith and valid, is on the
person in whom such confidence or authority or influence
is vested, and the nature and amount of the evidence re-
1 [See Art. 26, ante.]
2 [See Art. 71, ante; Grimes v. miliary, 150 111. 141; Hansen v.
Amer. Ins. Co., 57 la. 741.]
>54 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
quired for this purpose depends upon the nature of the
confidence or authority, and on the character of the trans-
action.1
1 See Story's Equity, § 307 and following ; also Taylor on Evidence,
s. 129 and following. The illustrations of the principle are innumer-
able and very various. [See Pomeroy's Eq. Jur., §§ 943-963. Such
confidential relations exist between trustee and cestui que trust, attor-
ney and client, physician and patient, priest and penitent, parent and
child, guardian and ward, husband and wife, partner and co-partner,
principal and surety, principal and agent, and generally where per-
sons are associated together in some special relation of trust and con-
fidence. The trustee, attorney, etc., must prove that in dealings with
the other, beneficial to himself, he took no advantage but exercised
entire good faith (Darlington's Estate, 147 Pa. 624 ; Barnard v. Gantz,
140 N. Y. 249; Roby v. Colehour, 135 111. 300). For cases of attorney
and client, see Morrison v. Smith, 130 111. 305 ; Porter v. Bergen, 54
N. J. Eq. 405 ; Burnham v. Heselton, 82 Me. 495 ; Whipple v. Barton,
63 N. H. 613 ; Tancre v. Reynolds, 35 Minn. 476 ; Art. 95, atite, Illus-
tration (d); of parent and child, White v. Ross, 160 111. 56; Clark v.
Clark, 174 Pa. 309 ; of guardian and ward, Gillettv. Wiley, 126 111. 310 ;
McConkcy v, Cockey, 69 Md. 286 ; of priest and confiding parishioner,
Pirofii v. Corrigan, 47 N. J. Eq. 135 ; Marx v. McGlytin, 88 N. Y. 357 ;
of physician and patient, Bogie v. Nolan, 96 Mo. 86 ; of business ad-
viser and aged or feeble-minded person relying upon him, Green v.
Roworth, 1 13 N. Y. 462 ; Zimmerman v. Bitner, 79 Md. 115; Gates v.
Cornell, 72 Mich. 420 ; Mott v. Mott, 49 N. J. Eq. 192 ; Hall v. Knap-
peftberger, 97 Mo. 509 ; Stepp v. Framplon, 179 Pa. 284. J
Chap. XIV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 255
CHAPTER XIV.
ON PRESUMPTIONS AND ESTOPPELS.*
Article 98.
presumption of legitimacy.
The fact that any person was born during the continu-
ance of a valid marriage between his mother and any
man, or within such a time after the dissolution thereof
and before the celebration of another valid marriage,
that his mother's husband could have been his father, is
conclusive proof that he is the legitimate child of his
mother's husband, unless it can be shown
either that his mother and her husband had no access
to each other at any time when he could have been be-
gotten, regard being had both to the date of the birth
and to the physical condition of the husband,
or that the circumstances of their access (if any) were
such as to render it highly improbable that sexual inter-
course took place between them when it occurred.1
* See Note XXXV. [Appendix].
1 [The presumption of legitimacy, it is said, " can only be rebutted
by the most satisfactory and convincing proof that the husband was
not the father of the child," or, as a number of the cases express it,
" by proof beyond a reasonable doubt " (Gr. Ev. i.§ 28, ii. §§ 150-153 ;
Cross v. Cross, 3 Pai. 139 ; Van Aerncuu v. Van At r nam, 1 Barb. Ch.
375 ; Phillips v. Allen, 2 Allen, 453; Egbert v. Greenwalt, 44 Mich.
245 ; Patterson v. Gaines, 6 How. (U. S.) 550 ; Scanlon v. Walshe, 8
Md. 118; State v. Lavin, 80 la. 555 ; Bullock v. Knox, 96 Ala. 195
Grant v. Mitchell, 83 Me. 23 ; Wilson v. Babb, 18 S. Car. 59 ; Scott v.
Hillenberg, 85 Va. 245 ; Watts v. Owens, 62 Wis. 512 ; Goss v. Pro-
man, 89 Ky. 318 ; Pittsford v. Chittenden, 58 Vt. 49 ; see N. Y. Rev. St.
i.642). Legitimacy will be presumed, even in the absence of proof
256 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
Neither the mother nor the husband is a competent
witness' as to the fact of their having or not having had
sexual intercourse with each other,2 nor arc any declara-
tions by them upon that subject deemed to be relevant
facts when the legitimacy of the woman's child is in
question,3 whether the mother or her husband can be
called as a witness or not, provided that in applications for
affiliation orders when proof has been given of the non-
access of the husband at any time when his wife's child
could have been begotten, the wife may give evidence4
as to the person by whom it was begotten.5 Letters
that the child's parents were married ; such former marriage will be
assumed until contrary proof is given. Matter of Matthews, 153
N. Y. 443-]
1 [Boykin v. Boy kin, 70 N. C. 262 ; People v. Court of Sessions, 45
Hun, 54; Abington v. Dnxbury, 105 Mass. 287; Tioga Co. v. South
Creek T'p, 75 Pa. 433 ; Mink v. State, 60 Wis. 583 ; Burnaby v.
Baillic, 42 Ch. D. 282. But in cases between third parties husband
and wife may testify as to the time of their marriage, the time of a
child's birth, and any other independent facts affecting the question
of legitimacy. Janes' s Estate, 147 Pa. 527.J
'2[Here Mr. Stephen inserts a special statutory qualification of the
English law (32 & 33 Vict. c. 68, s. 3), viz., — "unless the proceedings
in the course of which the question arises are proceedings instituted
in consequence of adultery."]
i[Hemmen,way v. Towner, 1 Allen, 209; Shuman v. Shuman, 83
Wis. 250; Dennison v. Page, 29 Pa. 420; Bowles v. Bingham, 2
Munf. 442. But their conduct and declarations, forming part of the
res gesta, and thus tending to show what relations they maintained
towards each other, their recognition of the child's illegitimacy, etc.,
may be proved {Aylesford Peerage Case, 11 App. Cas. 1 ; Gossv.
Pro/nan, 89 Ky. 318; see Janes' s list, r/e, 147 Pa. 527, 531); and the
same has been held as to the declarations of the wife's alleged
paramour that the child was his. Burnaby v. Baillie, 42 Ch D. 282 ;
but see Grant v. Mitchell, 83 Me. 23; Montgomery v . Montgomery,
3 Barb. Ch. 132 ; Sean/on v. II 'a/she, 81 Md. 118.]
4 [Gr. Ev. i. S, 344; State v. McDowell, 101 N. C. 734; People v.
Overseers, etc., 15 Barb. 286; Comm. v. Shepherd, 6 Binn. 283;
cf. Cuppy v. State, 24 Ind. 389; Powers v. Wood, 143 Mass. 182.]
R. v. Luffe, 8 Ea. 207 ; Cope v. Cope, 1 Mo. & Ro. 272-4 ; Legge v.
Chap. XIV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 257
written by the mother may, as part of the res gestce. be
admissible evidence to show illegitimacy, though the
mother could not be called as a witness to prove the
statements contained in such letters.1
Article 99.
presumption of death from seven years* absence.
A person shown not to have been heard of for seven
years by those (if any) who if he had been alive would
naturally have heard of him, is presumed to be dead, un-
less the circumstances of the case are such as to account
for his not being heard of without assuming his death ;
but there is no presumption as to the time when he died,
and the burden of proving his death at any particular
time is upon the person who asserts it.2
Edmonds, 25 L. J. Eq. 125, see p. 135 ; P. v. Mansfield, 1 Q. B. 444;
Morris v. Dairies, 3 C. & P. 215. See, as an illustration of these
principles, Hawes v. Draeger, 23 Ch. D. 173. [These cases are
cited by Mr. Stephen as authorities upon this whole Article.] I am
not aware of any decision as to the paternity of a child born say six
months after the death of one husband, and three months after the
mother's marriage to another husband. Amongst common soldiers in
India such a question might easily arise. The rule in European
regiments is that a widow not remarried within the year (it used to
be six months) must leave the regiment : the result was and is
that widowhoods are usually very short. [In a recent American case
it appeared that a child was born seven months after the mother was
divorced from her first husband and four months and twenty-one
days after her marriage to a second husband. The child being fully
developed at birth was held to be the offspring of the first husband.
Shuman v. Hurd, 79 Wis. 656 ; Shuman v. Shuman, 83 Wis. 250 ; cf.
Drennan v. Douglas, 102 111. 341.]
1 Aylesford Peerage Case, 11 App. Cas. 1, in which the general rule
stated above is considered and affirmed. [See note 3, supra.]
'•' McMahon v. McElroy, 5 Ir. Rep. Eq. 1 ; Hopewell v. De Pinna, 2
Camp. 113 ; Nepean v. Doe, 2 S. L. C. 562, 681 ; Nepean v. Knight, 2 M.
& W. 894, 912 ; P. v. Lumley, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 196 ; and see the caution
of Lord Denman in P. v. Harborne, 2 A. & E. 544. All the cases are
2S8 A DIGEST OF [Part III
There is no presumption as to the age at which a per-
son died who is shown to have been alive at a given
time, or as to the order in which two or more persons
died who are shown to have died in the same accident,
shipwreck, or battle."
collected and considered in In re Pheni's Trust, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 139.
The doctrine is also much discussed in Prudential Assurance Com-
pany v. Edmonds, 2 App. Cas. 487. The principle is stated to
the same effect as in the text in Re Corbishley's Trusts, 14 Ch. D. 846.
[Gr. Ev. i. § 41 ; Davie v. Briggs, 97 U. S. 628 ; Johnson v. Merithew,
80 Me. in ; Winship v. Conner, 42 N. H. 341 ; Stochbridge's Case, 145
Mass. 517 ; O'Gara v. Eisenlohr, 38 N. Y. 296 ; Hoyt v. Newbold, 45
N. J. L. 219 ; Cooper v. Cooper, 86 Ind. 75 ; State v. Henke, 58 la. 457 ;
Flood v. Growney, 126 Mo. 262; Shriverv. Slate, 65 Md. 278; Uni-
versity v. Harrison, 90 N. C. 385 ; Shown v. McMackin, 9 Lea, 601 ;
cf. In re Taylor, 20 N. Y. S. 960. Some American cases hold that the
absent person, unheard from, is presumed to have lived till the end of
the seven years (Excrs. of Clarke v. Canfield, 15 N. J. Eq. 119 ; Mu-
tual Ben. Co.' s Petition, 174 Pa. I ; Schaub v. Griffin, 84 Md. 557 ; Reedy
v. Nullizen, 155 111. 636); but others support the English rule stated
in this Article {Davie v. Briggs, 97 U. S. 628 ; McCartee v. Camel.
1 Barb. Ch. 455 ; Evans v. Stewart, 81 Va. 724 ; Whiteley v. Equita
ble Assur. Soc., 72 Wis. 170 ; cf. Corley v. Holloway, 12. S. Car. 380).
From special circumstances justifying such a conclusion, thejurl
may infer death from an absence of less than seven years ; thus, e.g -,
death was inferred after six months in regard to a person who ha-i
sailed on a voyage usually taking 25 to 40 days, no tidings of thv
vessel having been received. Johnson v. Merithew, 80 Me. m ; ses
Waitev. Coaracy, 45 Minn. 159; Matter of Stewart, 1 Connol. 86; Cox
v. Ellsworth, 18 Neb. 664 ; Hancock v. A/ner. Life Ins. Co. ,62 Mo. 26. \
1 Wing v. Angrave, 8 H. L. C. 183, 198 ; and see authorities in lasl
note. [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 29, 30 ; Newell v. Nichols, 75 N. Y. 78 ; Russell v
Hallett, 23 Kan. 276 ; Cove v. Leach, 8 Met. 371 ; Padcn v. Briscoe, 81
Tex. 563; see Fuller v.Linzee, 135 Mass. 468. The question of
survivorship is wholly one of fact, depending upon evidence, and the
burden of proof lies upon him who asserts that one person survived
the other. In the absence of evidence, property rights are disposed
of as if all died at the same time (Id.; Johnson v. Merithew, 80 Me,
hi; Elite's Will, 73 Wis. 445).
In California and Louisiana there are special legal presumptions as
to survivorship, depending on the age and sex of the persons who
Chap. XIV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 259
Article 100.
presumption of lost grant.1
When it has been shown that any person has, for a
long period of time, exercised any proprietary right
which might have had a lawful origin by grant or license
from the Crown or from a private person, and the ex-
ercise of which might and naturally would have been
prevented by the persons interested if it had not had a
lawful origin, there is a presumption that such right had
a lawful origin and that it was created by a proper in-
strument which has been lost.2
Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether B is entitled to recover from A the pos-
session of lands which A's father and mother successively occupied
from 1754 to 1792 or 1793, and which B had occupied (without title)
from 1793 to 1809. The lands formed originally an encroachment on
the Forest of Dean.
The undisturbed occupation for thirty-nine years raises a presump-
tion of a grant from the Crown to A's father.3
perished. Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 1963, subd. 40 ; Hollister v. Cordero,
76 Cal. 649 ; La. Civ. Code, Art. 938.]
1 The subject of the doctrine of lost grants is much considered in
Angus v. Dalton, 3 Q. B. D. 84, 6 App. Cas. 740. [See Lehigh R. Co.
v. McFarlan, 43 N. J. L. 605 ; McRoberts v. Bergman, 132 N. Y.73.]
'2 [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 46, 47 ; Jackson v. McCall, 10 Johns. 377 ; Fletcher v.
Fuller, 120 U. S. 534 ; Roe v. Strong, 1 19 N. Y. 316 ; Texas Mex. Ry.
Co. v. Uribe, 85 Tex. 386; Carter \. Fishing Co., jj Pa. 310; Oak-
smith's Lessee v. Johnston, 92 U. S. 343. It is said in this last case that
in this country there can seldom be occasion to presume a grant from
the government, except in cases of very ancient possessions running
back to colonial days, since, from the beginning of the century, a
record has been preserved of all such grants. See Mission of the I. V.
v. Cronin, 143 N. Y. 524.]
3 Goodtitle v. Baldwin, 11 Ea. 488. The presumption was rebutted
in this case by an express provision of 20 Ch. II. c. 3, avoiding grants
of the Forest of Dean. See also Doe d. Devine v. Wilson, 10 Moo. P,
C. 502.
260 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
(b) A fishing mill dam was erected more than 1 10 years before 1861
in the River Derwent, in Cumberland (not being navigable at that
place), and was used for more than sixty yfears before 1861 in the man-
ner in which it was used in 1861. This raises a presumption that all
the upper proprietors whose rights were injuriously affected by the
dam had granted a right to erect it.1
(<r) A borough corporation proved a prescriptive right to a several
oyster fishery in a navigable tidal river. The free inhabitants of an-
cient tenements in the borough proved that from time immemorial and
claiming as of right they had dredged for oysters, within the limits of
the fishery, from February 2 to Easter Eve in each year. The court
presumed a grant from the Crown to the corporation before legal
memory of a several fishery, with a condition in it that the free in-
habitants of ancient tenements in the borough should enjoy such a
right.2
(d) A buikfs a windmill near B's land in 1829, and enjoys a free cur-
rent of air to it over B's land as of right, and without interruption till
i860. This enjoyment raises no presumption of a grant by B of a
right to such a current of air, as it would not be natural for B to inter-
rupt it.3
(<?) No length of enjoyment (by means of a deep well), of water
percolating through underground undefined passages, raises a pre-
sumption of a grant from the owners of the ground under which the
water so percolates of a right to the water.4
1 Leconfichi v. Lonsdale, L. R. 5 C. P. 657.
'J Goodman v. Mayor of Sa/tas/i, 6 App. Cas. 633 (see especially 650).
Lord Blackburn dissented on the ground that such a grant would not
have been legal (pp. 651-662). See same case in 6 Q. B. D. 106, and
5 C. P. D. 431, both of which were reversed.
:; Webb v. Bird, 13 C. B. (N. S ) 841. [As to the reasons upon which
this and the following decision are to be supported, see Dalton v.
Angus, 6 App. Cas. 796, 798, 824. As the English doctrine that a right
to light and air can be gained by prescription is generally discarded
in this country, the decision in Webb v. Bird would apply here a for-
tiori. See Parker x. Foote, 19 Wend. 309; Gilmore v. Drisccll, viz
Mass. 199, 207.]
4 Chascmore v. Richards 7 H. L. C. 349. [Mayor of Bradford v.
Pickles, [1895] A. C. 587; Chatfield v. Wilson, 2S \'t. 49; Wilson v.
New Bedford, 108 Mass. 265 ; Frazierv. Brown, 12 O. St. 294 ; Roalh
v. Driscoll, 20 Ct. 533 ; Wheatly v. Bough, 25 Pa. 528 ; Ellis v. Dun-
can, 21 Barb. 230, 29 N. Y. 466 ; see Phelps v. Nowlen, 72 N. Y. 39.]
Chap. XIV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 261
Article ioi.*
presumption of regularity and of deeds to complete
TITLE.
When any judicial or official act is shown to have been
done in a manner substantially regular, it is presumed
that formal requisites for its validity were complied with.1
When a person in possession of any property is shown
to be entitled to the beneficial ownership thereof, there
is a presumption 2 that every instrument has been exe-
cuted which it was the legal duty of his trustees to exe-
cute in order to perfect his title.3
* See Note XXXVII. [Appendix], and Macdougall v. Purrier, 3
Bligh, N. S. 433. R. v. Cresswell, 1 Q. B. D. (C. C. R.) 446, is a recent
illustration of the effect of this presumption.
1 [ Wood v. Morehouse, 45 N. Y. 368 ; State v. Potter, 52 Vt. 33 ; Mo-
Murray's Heirs v. Erie, 59 Pa. 223; Nofire v. U. S., 164 U. S. 657;
Piatt v. Grover, 136 Mass. 115 ; Browne// v. Pa/mer, 22 Ct. 107, 119.
The maxim in such cases is Omnia prcesumuntur rite esse acta (Id.;
Sche//'s Excrs. v. Fanche, 138 U. S. 562). Thus it is presumed that
public officers perform their duty and do not exceed their lawful au-
thority ; also that corporations act within their lawful powers, etc. (Id.
Hoguc v. Corbitt, 156 111. 540; State v. Williams, 99 Mo. 291; Swar-
thout v. Panic r, 143 N. Y. 499, 504 ; Sine/air v. Learned, 51 Mich. 335 ;
Kent v. Quicksilver Mining Co., 78 N. Y. 159, 183; cf. Murphy v.
Chase, 103 Pa. 260 ; Gr. Ev. i. §§ 38, n., 40, n.). As to similar presump-
tions from lapse of time, see Gr. Ev. i. § 20 ; Hilton v. Bender, 69 N. Y.
75-]
1 Doe d. Hammond v. Cooke, 6 Bing. 174, 179. [Jackson v. Cole, 4
Cow. 587 ; Jackson v. Moore, 13 Johns. 513; Lincoln v. French, 105
N. Y. 614 ; Perry on Trusts, i. § 349, 4th ed.]
3 [Other important presumptions are : ( 1) That a previously existing
personal relation or state of things continues to exist, until the contrary
is shown, as e.g., a relation between parties {Eames v. Eames, 41 N.
H. 177); a law {Matter of Huss, 126 N. Y. 537); residence ( Greenfield
v. Camden, 74 Me. 56; Nixon v. Palmer, 10 Barb. 175); character
(Graham v. Chrystal, 2 Abb. Dec. 263); habits and personal appear-
ance (Marston v. Dingier, 88 Me. 546); insanity, if it be of a fixed and
262 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
Article 102.*
estoppel by conduct.
When one person by anything which he does or says,
or abstains from doing or saying, intentionally causes or
permits another person to believe a thing to be true, and
to act upon such belief otherwise than but for that belief
* See Note XXXVIII. [Appendix],
permanent character, and not simply temporary or occasional ( Taylor
v. Pegram, 151 111. 107; Wright v. Wright, 139 Mass. 177; Wat/is v.
Lnhring, 134 Ind. 447; People v. Lane, 101 Cal. 513; State v. Hay-
ward, 62 Minn. 474) ; status (Kidder v. Stevens, 60 Cal. 414); and many
other matters (Gr. Ev. i. § 41 ; Cohoes v. D. &°H Canal Co., 134 X. V.
397). The presumption is rebuttable. Its force and duration will be
affected by the transient or permanent nature of the subject-matter
(Donahue v. Coleman, 49 Ct. 464 ; High v. Bk. of Commerce, 103 Cal.
525, and cases supra). It has also been often held that there is a
legal presumption that life continues (within the usual limits of hu-
man existence) until the contrary is shown, or until the presumption
of death attaches under the rule stated in Article 99 (Stevens v. Mc-
Namara, 36 Me. 176; Shriverv. State, 65 Aid. 278; Montgomery v.
Bevans, 1 Sawy. 653); but the modern English and some American
authorities regard it as a presumption of fact, to be weighed by the
jury with all the evidence in the case bearing upon the probability that
life still continues (/// re Pheni's Trusts, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 139; State
v. Plym, 43 Minn. 385 ; Comui. v. McGrath, 140 Mass. 296; Whiteley
v. Equitable . Issur. Soc, J2 Wis. 170 ; see Art. 95, Illustration (/), ante).
(2) That the regular course of business in a public office or in the
course of trade or conduct of affairs is followed (Gr. Ev. i. §§ 38, 40);
zse.g., that letters properly mailed reach their destination (see Art. 13,
ante ; - lustin v. Holland, 69 N. Y. 571); that a bill or note found after
circulation in the hands of the acceptor or maker has been paid
(Crimes v. Hilliary, 150 111. 141; Connelly v. McKean, 64 Pa. 113);
that a person having the possession of property is the owner {Rawley
v. Brown, 71 X. Y. 85; Anderson v. McCormick, 129 111. 308; Tre-
vorrowv. Trevorrow, 65 Mich. 234; McClellan v. St. Paul, etc. R.
Co., 58 Minn. 104). These are disputable presumptions, and are
often called presumptions of fact (Id.).
(3) That a man intends the natural and probable consequences of his
Chap. XIV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 263
he would have acted, neither the person first mentioned
nor his representative in interest is allowed, in any suit
or proceeding between himself and such person or his
acts (Filkins v. People, 69 N. Y. 101 ; State v. Patterson, 116 Mo. 513).
The presumption is rebuttable (Roberts v. Buckley, 145 N. Y. 215).
(4) That, in trials for homicide, malice is to be presumed from the
deliberate use of a deadly weapon against another, in the absence of
evidence of explanatory circumstances (Comm. v. Hawkins, 3 Gray,
463 ; Friederich v. People, 147 111. 310; State v. Hockett, 70 la. 442 ;
State v. Mustek, 101 Mo. 260 ; Hale v. Comm., 89 Va. 171, 178 ; State
v. Fuller, 1 14 N. C. 885 ; Robinson v. State, 108 Ala. 14 ; Hawthorne
v. State, 58 Miss. 778). The presumption is rebuttable (Id.; Tiffany v.
Comm., 121 Pa. 165; People v. Wolf, 95 Mich. 625). But in some
States such killing with a deadly weapon is simply held to furnish
presumptive evidence for the jury of an intent to kill ( Thomas v.
People, 67 N. Y. 218 ; People v. Fish, 125 N. Y. 136 ; Newport v. State,
140 Ind. 299 ; cf. State v. Earnest, 56 Kan. 31).
(5) That a wife committing a crime (except treason, murder, and
perhaps robbery) in the presence of her husband, acts under his
coercion. The presumption is disputable (People v. Ry land, 97 N.Y.
126; Comm. v. Moore, 162 Mass. 441; State w.Shee, 13 R. I. 535;
State v. Ma. Foo, no Mo. 7). In New York this presumption has
been abolished (Penal Code, §24).
(6) Omnia proesumuntur contra spoliatorem ; hence from the de-
struction, suppression or fabrication of evidence, unfavorable in-
ferences may be drawn, to the disadvantage of the person committing
such acts (Allen v. U. S., 164 U. S. 492, 500; Simes v. Rockwell, 156
Mass. 373 ; Eckel v. Eckel, 49 N. J. Eq. 587 ; Winchell v. Edwards,
57 111. 41 ; In re Lambie, 97 Mich. 54; Diamond v. Henderson, 47
Wis. 172 ; Pomeroy v. Benton, 77 Mo. 86). The presumption may be
rebutted (Id.; Drosten v. Mueller, 103 Mo. 624).
(7) From identity of name, identity of person is, in general, pre-
sumable (Aultman v. Ti/nm, 93 Ind. 158; Goodell v. Hibbard, 32
Mich. 47 ; People v. Riley, 75 Cal. 98 ; cf. Linck v. Litchfield, 141 111.
469); but the contrary may be shown (Id.).
(8) A debt by record or specialty, if unclaimed or unrecognized for
twenty years, is, though the Statute of Limitations does not include
such debts, presumed to have been paid ; but the presumption may
be rebutted (Barker v. Jones, 62 N. H. 497 ; Fanton v. Middlebrook,
50 Ct. 44 ; Gregory v. Comm., 121 Pa. 611). In some States, however,
such debts are now included within the Statute of Limitations. IValker
V. Robinson, 136 Mass. 280 ; Martin v. Stoddard, 127 N. Y. 61.]
264 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
representative in interest, to deny the truth of that
thing.1
When any person under a legal duty to any other per-
son to conduct himself with reasonable caution in the
transaction of any business neglects that duty, and when
the person to whom the duty is owing alters his position
for the worse because he is misled as to the conduct of
the negligent person by a fraud, of which such neglect is
in the natural course of things the proximate cause, the
negligent person is not permitted to deny that he acted
in the manner in which the other person was led by such
fraud to believe him to act.2
Illustrations.
(a) A, the owner of machinery in B's possession, which is taken in
execution by C, abstains from claiming it for some months, and con-
verses with C's attorney without referring to his claim, and by these
means impresses C with the belief that the machinery is B's. C sells
the machinery. A is estopped from denying that it is B's.3
(o) A, a retiring partner of B, gives no notice to the customers of the
firm that he is no longer B's partner. In an action by a customer, he
cannot deny that he is B's partner.4
1 [Dickerson v. Colgrove, ioo U. S. 578 ; Morgan v. Railroad Co.,
96 Id. 716 ; Carroll v. M. &* R. R. Corp., 1 1 1 Mass. 1 ; Chase s Ap-
peal, 57 Ct. 236 ; Andrews v. AZtna Ins. Co., 85 N. Y. 334 ; Union
Dime Sav. hist. v.Wilmot, 94 N. Y. 221 ; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v.
Norris, 31 N. J. Eq. 583 ; Slocumb v. Railroad Co., 57 la. 675 ; Stevens
v. Ludlum, 46 Minn. 160 ; Bates v. Swiger, 40 W. Va. 421.]
8 [Putnam v. Sullivan, 4 Mass. 45 ; Chapman v. Rose, 56 N. Y. 137 ;
Ruddell v. Fhalor, 72 Ind. 533 ; Ross v. Doland, 29 O. St. 473 ; Shirts
v. Overjohn, 60 Mo. 305 ; cf. Nance v. Lary, 5 Ala. 370 ; Nat. Bk.
v. Zeims, 93 la. 140. An estoppel may be created by silence, when
there is a duty and opportunity to speak. Leather Mfrs. Bk. v.
Holley, 117 U. S. 96 ; Thompson v. Simpson, 128 N. Y. 270 ; O'Mulcahy
v. Holley, 28 Minn. 31 ; Allen v. Shaw, 61 N. H. 95.]
:i Pickardv. Sears, 6 A. & E. 469, 474. [See Thompson v. Blanchard,
4 N. Y. 303 ; Fall Riv. Bk. v. Buffinton, 97 Mass. 500 ; Miles v. Lefi,
60 la. 168 ; Reiss v. Hanchett, 141 111. 419 ; Putnam v. Tyler, 117 Pa.
570 ; cf. Bray v. Flickinger, 69 la. 167.]
4 (Per Parke, B.) Freetnan v. Cooke, 2 Ex. 661. [Elmira, etc. Co.
Chap. XIV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 265
{c) A sues B for a wrongful imprisonment. The imprisonment was
wrongful, if B had a certain original warrant ; rightful, if he had only
a copy. B had in fact a copy. He led A to believe that he had the
original, though not with the intention that A should act otherwise
than he actually did. B may show that he had only a copy and not
the original.1
{d) A sells eighty quarters of barley to B, but does not specifically
appropriate to B any quarters. B sells sixty of the eighty quarters to
C. C informs A, who assents to the transfer. C being satisfied with
this, says nothing further to B as to delivery, B becomes bankrupt.
A cannot, in an action by C to recover the barley, deny that he holds
for C on the ground that, for want of specific appropriation, no prop-
erty passed to B.2
(e) A signs blank cheques and gives them to his wife to fill up as
she wants money. A's wife fills up a cheque for ,£50 2s. so carelessly
that room is left for the insertion of figures before the "50 "and for
the insertion of words before the "fifty." She then gives it to a clerk
of A's to get it cashed. He writes 3 before "50" and "three hundred
and" before "fifty." A's banker pays the cheque so altered in good
faith. A cannot recover against the banker.3
v. Harris, 124 N, Y. 280; Backus v. Taylor, 84 Ind. 503 ; Lovejoy v.
Spafford, 93 U. S. 430. So one who has permitted himself to be held
out to the world as a partner in a firm is estopped from denying that
he is one as against those who have dealt with the firm in the bona
fide belief that he is a partner. Fletcher v. Pullen, 70 Md. 205 ;
Brown v. Grant, 39 Minn. 404.]
1 Howard v. Hudson, 2 E. & B. 1. [See Audenried v. Betteley, 3
Allen, 382.]
2 Knights v. Wiffen, L. R. 5 Q. B. 660. [See Kent's Comm. iii. 85,
note 1 (14th ed.); Barnard v. Campbell, 55 N. Y. 456; Anderson v.
Read, 106 N. Y. 333, 353.]
3 Young v. Grote, 4 Bing. 253. [This case has been much considered
of late and its authority is carefully limited to its special facts {Green-
field Sav. Bk. v. Stowell, 123 Mass. 196; Lehman v. Central R. Co.,
12 F. R. 595 ; McGrath v. Clark, 56 N. Y. 34 ; Holmes v. Trumpcr,
22 Mich. 427 ; cf. Leas v. Walls, 101 Pa. 57 ; Yocum v. Smith, 63 111.
321; Belknap v. Nat. Bk. of N. America, 100 Mass. 376; Craw-
ford v. West Side Bk., 100 N. Y. 50). In a recent English case it is
shown to be doubtful on what ground Young v. Grote was decjded,
whether on the theory of estoppel arising out of the special duty of a
customer to protect his banker against danger from " raised" checks,
266 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
(/) A railway company negligently issues two delivery orders for
the same wheat to A, who fraudulently raises money from B as upon
two consignments of different lots of wheat. The railway is liable to
B for the amount which A fraudulently obtained by the company's
negligence.1
(g) A carelessly leaves his door unlocked, whereby his goods are
stolen. He is not estopped from denying the title of an innocent pur-
chaser from the thief.2
Article 103.
estoppel of tenant and licensee.
No tenant, and no person claiming through any tenant,
of any land or hereditament of which he has been let into
possession, or for which he has paid rent, is, till he has
given up possession, permitted to deny that the landlord
had, at the time when the tenant was let into possession
or paid the rent, a title to such land or hereditament ; 3
or on the ground that any one who signs a blank check authorizes the
person in whose hands it is to fill it up as his agent (Scholfield v . Earl
of Londesborough, [1896] A. C. 514; see p. 218, n. 2, ante). In this recent
case and in similar American cases the sum stated in a bill or note was
increased by the filling in of unwritten spaces by a forger, but the ac-
ceptor or maker was held not liable. The proximate cause of loss to
the purchaser of the bill or note was the forgery. Burrows v. Klunk,
70 Md. 451; Knoxville Nat. Bk. v. Clark, 51 la. 264 ; Simmons v. At-
kinson, 69 Miss. 862 ; and cases supra.]
1 Coventry v. Gt. Eastern Ry. Co., 1 1 Q. B. D. 776.
2 Per Blackburn, J., in Swan v. N. B. Australasian Co., 2 H. & C.
181. See Baxendale v. Bennett, 3 Q. B. D. 525. The earlier cases on
the subject are much discussed mjorden v. Money, 5 H. & C. 209-16,
234-5. [Cf. People v. Bank N. America, 75 N. Y. 547 ; Lowery v.
Telegraph Co., 60 N. Y. 198 ; Knox v. Eden Musie Co., 148 N. Y. 441 ;
Dist. of Columbia v. Cornell, 130 U. S. 655 ; Zell's Appeal, 103 Pa. 344.]
3 Doe v. Barton, 1 1 A. & E. 307 ; Doe v. Smyth, 4 M. & S. 347 ; Doe
v. Pegg, I T. R. 760, note. [Stott v. Rutherford, 92 U. S. 107 ; Prevot
v. Lawrence, 51 N. Y. 219 ; Tilyou v. Reynolds, 108 N. Y. 558 ; Streeter
v. Ilsley, 147 Mass. 141; Sexton v. Car ley, 147 111. 269; Derrick v.
Luddy,6\ \'t. 462; Washb. R. P. i. 588 601, 5th ed. ; cf. Robertson v.
Chap. XIV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 267
and no person who came upon any land by the license of
the person in possession thereof, is, whilst he remains on
it, permitted to deny that such person had a title to such
possession at the time when such license was given.1
Article 104.
estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange.
No acceptor of a bill of exchange is permitted to deny
the signature of the drawer or his capacity to draw, or if
the bill is payable to the order of the drawer, his capacity
to indorse the bill, though he may deny the fact of the
indorsement ; 2 nor if the bill be drawn by procuration,
the authority of the agent, by whom it purports to be
drawn, to draw in the name of the principal,3 though he
may deny his authority to indorse it.4 If the bill is ac-
cepted in blank, the acceptor may not deny the fact that
the drawer indorsed it.5
Article 105.
estoppel of bailee, agent, and licensee.
No bailee, agent, or licensee is permitted to deny that
the bailor, principal, or licensor, by whom any goods were
Pickreh, 109 U. S. 608. As to the limitations of the doctrine, see Cor-
rigan v. Chicago, 144 111. 537.]
1 Doe v. Baytup, 3 A. & E. 188. [Glynn v. George, 20 N. H. 114;
Hamilton, etc., Co. v. Railroad Co., 29 O. St. 341.]
2 Garland v./acomd, L. R. 8 Ex. 216. [ White v. Continental Nat.
Bk., 64 N. Y. 316; Marine Nat. Bk. v. Nat. City Bk., 59 N. Y. 67;
Hoffman v. Bank of Milwaukee, 12 Wall. 181; National Bank v.
Bangs, 106 Mass. 441. See as to this whole Article, Daniel Neg. Inst.
i- §§ 532-541.]
3 Sanderson v. Coleman, 4 M. & G. 209.
4 Robinson v. Yarrow, 7 Tau. 455.
6 L. &* S. IV. Bank v. Wentworth, 5 Ex. D. 96. [In this case the
268 A DIGEST OF [Pari !!!
entrusted to any of them respectively, was entitled to
those goods at the time when they were so entrusted.'
Provided that any such bailee, agent, or licensee, may
show that he was compelled to deliver up any such goods
to some person who had a right to them as against his
bailor, principal, or licensor, or that his bailor, principal,
or licensor, wrongfully and without notice to the bailee,
agent, or licensee, obtained the goods from a third person
who has claimed them from such bailee, agent, or licen-
see.2
Every bill of lading in the hands of a consignee or in-
dorsee for valuable consideration, representing goods to
have been shipped on board a vessel, is conclusive proof
of that shipment as against the master or other person
signing the same, notwithstanding that such goods or
some part thereof may not have been so shipped, unless
such holder of the bill of lading had actual notice at the
time of receiving the same that the goods had not been
in fact laden on board, provided that the master or other
person so signing may exonerate himself in respect of
such misrepresentation by showing that it was caused
without any default on his part, and wholly by the fraud
drawer's signature and the indorsement were written upon the bill
after it had been accepted in blank. "The blank acceptance is an
acceptance of the bill which is afterwards put upon it." Schultz v.
Astley, 2 Bing. N. C. 544 ; cf. Weyerhauser v. Dun, 100 N. Y. 150.]
1 {Sinclair v. Murphy, 14 Mich. 392; Osgood v. Nichols, 5 Gray,
420; Roberts v. Noyes, 76 Me. 590; Bricker v. Stroud, 56 Mo. App.
183 ; cf. Jackson v. Allen, 120 Mass. 64, 79.]
2 Dixon v. Hammond, 2 B. & A. 313 ; Crossley v. Dixon, 10 H. L. C.
293; Gosling v. Birnie, 7 Bing. 339; Hardman v. ll'ilcock,g Bing.
382 ; Biddle v. Bond, 34 L. J. Q. B. 137, [6 B. & S. 225] ; Wilson v. An-
derton, 1 B. & Ad. 450. As to carriers, see Sheridan v. New Quay, 4
C. B. (N. S.) 618. [The Idaho, 93 U. S. 575 ; Western Trans. Co. v.
Barber, 56 N. Y. 544; King v. Richards, 6 Whart. 418; Roberts v.
Noyes, 76 Me. 590 ; Dusky v. Rudder, 80 Mo. 400 ; Singer Mfg. Co. v.
King, 14 R. I. 511.]
Chap. XIV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 269
of the shipper or of the holder, or some person under
whom the holder holds.1
' 18 & 19 Vict. c. hi, s. 3. [But it is held that a ship-owner is not
estopped by the signature of a bill of lading by the master from show-
ing that the goods or some of them were never actually put on board.
Brown v. Powell Co., L. R. 10 C. P. 562 ; Cox v. Bruce, 18 Q. B. D.
147 ; see McLean v. Fleming, L. R. 2 Sc. App. 128.
The law of this country is not governed by statutes like the above.
The general rules here in force are stated in Sears v. Wingate, 3 Allen,
103: "(1) The receipt in a bill of lading is open to explanation be-
tween the master and the shipper of the goods. (2) The master is es-
topped, as against a consignee who is not a party to the contract and
as against an assignee of the bill of lading, when either has taken it
for a valuable consideration upon the faith of the acknowledgments
which it contains, to deny the truth of the statements to which he has
given credit by his signature, so far as those statements relate to mat-
ters which are or ought to be within his knowledge. (3) When the
master is acting within the limits of his authority, the owners are es-
topped in like manner with him ; but it is not within the general scope
of the master's authority to sign bills of lading for any goods not actu-
ally received on board." There is, however, a noteworthy difference
of opinion in regard to the rule stated in this last sentence. In the
U. S. Supreme Court and in a number of the States this rule is adopted,
and it isiheld that if the master does sign a bill of lading for goods
not actually received on board, his act does not bind the owner of the
ship even in favor of an innocent purchaser {Pollard v. Vinton, 105
U. S. 7 ; Nat. Bk. of Commerce v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 44 Minn. 224;
Bait. &* O. R. Co. v. Wilkens, 44 Md. 11 ; Dean v. King, 22 O. St.
118; La. Nat. Bk. v. Laveille, 52 Mo. 380). But in New York and
some other States, if the master acts within his apparent authority
in such a case, the owner is held bound by his act on the ground of
estoppel {Bk. of Batavia v. N. Y. etc. R. Co., 106 N. Y. 195 ; Brooke
v.N. Y. etc. R. Co., 108 Pa. 529 ; Sioux City, etc. R. Co. v. First Nat.
Bk., 10 Neb. 556; Sav. Bk. v. Atchison, etc. R. Co., 20 Kan. 519; cf.
Hanover Bk. v. Anier. Dock Co., 148 N. Y. 612). These same rules
are applied to the bills of lading of railroad companies. Id.; Fried-
lander v. Texas, etc. R. Co., 130 U. S. 416.]
270 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
CHAPTER XV.
OF THE COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES*
Article 106.
who may testify.
All persons are competent to testify in all cases except
as hereinafter excepted.1
*See Note XXXIX. [Appendix].
1 [The common law rules disqualifying parties and persons interested
in the e7>e?it of the suit from being witnesses are now almost univer-
sally abolished (see N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. § 828 ; U. S. Rev. St. § 858;
Mass. Pub. St. c. 169, s. 18 ; and generally the statutes of the different
States), though the interest of a witness may still be shown to affect
his credibility {Pennsylvania Co. v. Versten, 140 111. 637 ; Will of Smil-
ing, 136 N. Y. 515 ; Norwood v. Andrews, 71 Miss. 641). But there is
established by statute in the several States one important exception,
prohibiting a party or interested person from testifying in an action
against an executor or administrator concerning a transaction with the
decedent. These statutes differ in details, but their general features
may be well illustrated by the law of New York. This provides that,
in a civil action or special proceeding, a. party or person interested in
the C7'cnt (or a predecessor of such person) shall not be examined as
a witness in his own behalf or interest (or in behalf of his successor in
interest), against the executor, administrator, or survivor of a deceased
person, or the committee of a lunatic (or the successor in interest of
such decedent or lunatic), concerning a personal transaction or com-
munication between the witness and the decedent or lunatic. Such tes-
timony is, however, receivable if the executor, etc., is examined in his
own behalf, or if the former testimony of the decedent or lunatic con-
cerning the same transaction, etc., is given in evidence (N. Y. Code
Civ. Pro. § 829; Rogers v. Rogers, 153 N. Y. 343). The intention of the
statute is that the surviving party to the transaction shall not have the
unfair advantage of giving his version of the matter when the other
party is prevented by death from being heard to contradict or explain
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 271
Article 107.
what witnesses are incompetent.'
A witness is incompetent if in the opinion of the judge
he is prevented by extreme youth, disease affecting his
mind, or any other cause of the same kind, from recollect-
ing the matter on which he is to testify, from understand-
ing the questions put to him, from giving rational answers
it {Card v. Card, 39 N. Y. 317). Thus in an action by an attorney
against the executor of a deceased person to recover for legal services
rendered to the decedent, the plaintiff cannot be a witness and testify
as to advice given by him to the decedent {Prague v. Lord, 67 N. Y.
495); so in proceedings for the probate of a wili, a legatee under the
will may not testify as to personal transactions with the testator {Mat-
ter of Eysaman, 1 13 N. Y. 62). " Personal transaction or communica-
tion" is defined in Heyne v. Doerfler, 124. N. Y. 505, and "interest" in
Connelly v. O' Connor, 117 N. Y. 91; see also Eisenlord v. Clum, 126
N. Y. 552. A release of one's interest may make him a competent
witness {Matter of Wilson, 103 N. Y. 374).
The law of Congress is that in an action by or against an executor,
etc., neither party shall testify against the other as to transactions with
the decedent, unless called to testify thereto by the opposite party or
required to do so by the court (U. S. Rev. St. § 858 ; Potter v. National
Bank, 102 U. S. 163). As to the law of other States, see Gr. Ev. i. § 329,
15th ed.; English v. Porter, 63 N. H. 206; Rowland v. Phila. etc. R.
Co., 63 Ct. 4r5 ; Woolverton v. Van Syckel, 57 N. J. L. 393 ; Stauffer v.
Ins. Ass'n, 164 Pa. 205; Thomas v. Miller, 165 Pa. 216; Webster v.
Le Compte, 74 Md. 249 ; Barker v. Hebbard, 81 Mich. 267 ; Williams
v. Edwards, 94 Mo. 447.
There is a special rule in some States that a party to a negotiable
instrument (as an indorser) cannot be a witness to prove that it was
invalid in its inception (as for usury) to the prejudice of an innocent
holder for value before maturity {Smith v. McGlinchy, 77 Me. 153;
Davis v. Brown, 94 U. S. 423 ; John's Admr. v. Pardee, 109 Pa. 545 ;
cf. Jones v. Matthews, 8 Lea, 84); but in most States such testimony
is admissible. Gr. Ev. i. §§383-385; Haines v. Dennett, 11 N. H.
180; Pecker v. Sawyer, 24 Vt. 459; Williatns v. Walb ridge, 3 Wend.
4I5-]
1 See Note XL. [Appendix]. A witness under sentence of death
was said to be incompetent in R. v. Webb., 11 Cox, 133, sed quare.
272 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
to those questions, or from knowing that he ought to speak
the truth.1
A witness unable to speak or hear is not incompetent,
but may give his evidence by writing or by signs, or in
any other manner in which he can make it intelligible ;
but such writing must be written and such signs made in
open court.3 Evidence so given is deemed to be oral
evidence.3
1 [In the following cases children were deemed competent under
this rule and were allowed to testify ( Wheeler v. U. S., 159 U. S. 523
(child five years of age); Comm. v. Robinson, 165 Mass. 426 (five years
and nine months); People v. Linzey, 79 Hun, 23 (ten years); Draper
v. Draper, 68 111. 17 (ten years); McGuire v. People, 44 Mich. 286 (six
years); State v. Juneau, 88 Wis. 180 (five years); State v. Levy, 23
Minn. 104 (eight years); State v. Doyle, 107 Mo. 36 (nine years); State
v. Douglas, 53 Kan. 669 (nine years); McGuffv. State, 88 Ala. 147
(seven years); see Illustrations (a) and (b)). In some States, by
statute, children may be allowed to testify in special cases without
taking an oath (N. Y. Code Cr. Pro., § 392 ; Hughes v. Detroit, etc. R.
Co., 65 Mich. 16 ; cf. White v. Comm., 96 Ky. 180).
Persons of unsound mind may also testify, if they can appreciate
the obligation of an oath and have sufficient understanding to give
intelligent and reliable answers. The jury may consider their mental
condition as affecting their credibility (Illustration (c); Gr. Ev. i. §365;
District 0/ Columbia v. Armes, 107 U. S. 519; People v. N. Y. Hospi-
tal, 3 Abb. N. C. 229 ; Livingston v. Kriersted, 10 Johns. 362; Pease v.
Burrowes, 86 Me. 153; Kendallx.May, 10 Allen, 59; Holcombx. Hol-
comb, 28 Ct. 177 ; Coleman v. Comm., 25 Gratt. 865 ; Tucker v. Shaw,
158 111. 326; Bowdle v. Railway Co., 103 Mich. 272; Cannaday v.
Lynch, 27 Minn. 435; Worthington v. Mencer, 96 Ala. 310). The same
general rules apply to intoxicated persons. Hartford x. Palmer, 16
Johns. 143; Gould v. Crawford, 2 Pa. 89; cf. State v. Costello, 62 la.
404.]
3 [Gr. Ev. i. § 366 ; Wh. Ev. i. §§ 406, 407 ; Queen v. Halbert, 55 Vt.
224, 57 Vt. 178; Skaggs v. State, 108 Ind. 53; State v. Howard, 118
Mo. 127 ; State v. Weldon, 39 S. Car. 318.]
3 [Persons not believing in the existence of a God who will punish
false swearing are also incompetent witnesses by common law [Blair
v. Seaver, 26 Pa. 274 ; People v. Matteson, 2 Cow. 433 ; Free v. Buck-
ingham, 59 N. H. 219 ; Arnd v. Amling, 53 Md. 192 ; Clinton v. State,
33 O. St. 27 ; Attorney Gen' I v. Bradlaugh, 14 Q. B. D. 667). But this
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 273
Illustrations,
(a) [Upon a criminal trial a girl thirteen years old was offered as a
witness for the prosecution. The defendant objected to the adminis-
tration of an oath to her, on the ground that she was ignorant of the
nature and obligation of an oath. The judge asked her some ques-
tions, to which she replied that she understood that the oath was to tell
the truth, and that she would be punished if she did not tell the truth
after taking it, but that she did not know how or by whom she would
disqualification has been removed in many States or rendered less
stringent (Gr. Ev. i §§ 368-371 ; Wh. Ev. i. §§ 395, 396 ; Percey v. Pow-
ers, 51 N. J. L. 432 ; Hronek v. People, 134 111. 139 ; Londenerv. Lich-
tenheim, 11 Mo. App. 385 ; People v. Copsey, 71 Cal. 548; Bush v.
Comm., 80 Ky. 244). But in some States, where atheism no longer dis-
qualifies, it may nevertheless be shown to affect the witness's credit
(Stanbro v. Hopkins, 28 Barb. 265 ; Searcy v. Miller, 57 la. 613). It is
the general rule, however, that the witness must not himself be exam-
ined as to his religious belief (see all the cases ; Dedric v. Hopson, 62
la. 562).
Infamous persons, i. e., persons convicted of treason, felony, or the
crimen falsi, are also incompetent witnesses at common law in the
State of their conviction. The crimen falsi includes, in general, of-
fences tending to pervert the administration of justice through false-
hood and fraud, as *?.£■., perjury, forgery, bribery of witnesses, etc. (Gr.
Ev. i. §§ 372-376; Wh. Ev. i. § 397 ; Schuylkill Co. v. Copley, 67 Pa.
386 ; State v. Randolph, 24 Ct. 363 ; Benton v. Comm., 89 Va. 570 ; Syl-
vester v. State, 71 Ala. 17; State v. Mullen, 33 La. Ann. 159). This
disability may be removed by a reversal of the judgment or by a full
pardon {Boyd v. U. S., 142 U. S. 450 ; Diehl v. Rodgers, 169 Pa. 316;
Perkins v. Stevens, 24 Pick. 277 ; Werner v. State, 44 Ark. 122 ; Carr
v. State, 19 Tex. App. 635), though, in case of a pardon, it has been
held that the conviction may still be shown to affect credibility {Cur-
tis v. Cochran, 50 N. H. 242). Conviction of an infamous crime by
courts in other States, it is generally held, does not disqualify (Gr. Ev.
i. §§ 376-378 ; Logan v. U. S., 144 U. S. 263 ; Sims v. Sims, 75 N. Y. 466 ;
cf. Pitner v. State, 23 Tex. App. 366). Now, in most States, under
modern statutes, infamy no longer disqualifies, though it may be proved
to affect credibility (Wh.Ev.i.§ 397; N.Y. Code Civ. Pro. §832 ; Mass.
Pub. St. c. 169, s. 19 ; Quigley v. Turner, 150 Mass. 108 ; Card v. Foot,
57 Ct. 427 ; People v. O 'Neil, 109 N. Y. 251; Matter of Noble, 124 111.
266 ; State v. Loehr, 93 Mo. 103 ; Sutton v. Fox, 55 Wis. 531 ; see Art.
130, post, note). In some States, also, conviction for a non-infamous
274 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
be punished. As the district attorney did not care to call her then, the
judge said he would postpone the decision of her competency, and she
could be instructed if necessary. The next day she was offered again,
and it appeared that in the meantime she had been instructed by a
Christian minister. She testified that the minister told her that God
would punish her if, after taking the oath, she testified what was not
true, and that she did not know that before. The judge decided that
she was a competent witness and her testimony was properly re-
ceived.] '
{b) [A girl nine years old was offered as a witness, and being ques-
tioned said that she did not know what the Bible was ; had never been
to church but once and that was to her mother's funeral ; did not know
what book it was she laid her hand on when sworn ; had heard tell
of God, but did not know who it was ; and that, if she swore to a lie,
she would be put in jail, but did not know that she would be punished
in any other way. It was held that she was not a competent witness.] 2
(c) [Upon a trial for manslaughter for the killing of a lunatic patient
in an insane asylum, A, another lunatic patient, was offered as a wit-
ness for the prosecution. Officers of the asylum testified that A was
under a delusion that he had a number of spirits about him which
were continually talking to him, but that they had found him perfectly
rational except for this delusion, and that they believed him to be
crime may be shown to affect credibility {State v. Watson, 63 Me. 128 ;
Comm. v. Ford, 146 Mass. 131 ; People v. Burns, 33 Hun, 296 ; State v.
Sailer, 42 Minn. 258), but not in other States {Card v. Foot, $7 Ct. 427 ;
Coble v. State, 31 O. St. 100 ; Bartholomew v. People, 104 111. 601 (crim-
inal cases); Manners v. McClelland, 74 la. 318; State v. Donelly, 130
Mo. 642). There are a few States, moreover, in which conviction for
perjury or subornation of perjury is declared by statute to render a
witness incompetent. Gr. Ev. i. § 372, note, 15th ed.]
1 [Comm. v. Lynes, 142 Mass. 577; S. P. Day v. Day, 56 N. H. \\<
(ten years old); R. v. Baylis, 4 Cox, 23. But the contrary rule ha;
also been asserted, viz., that it is improper to privately instruct a child
and thus render it a competent witness. Taylor v. State, 22 Tex.
App. 529.]
• [Carter v. Stale, 63 Ala. 52 ; similar cases are McKelton v. State,
88 Ala. 181 (thirteen years old); ^Season v. Stale, 72 Ala. 191 (eleven
years); Adams v. State, 34 Fla. 185 (five years); Statev. Belton, 24
S. Car. 185 (twelve years); Hoist v. State, 23 Tex. App. 1 (seven
years); State v. Michael, 37 W. Va. 565 (five years); Jones v. People,
6 Park. Cr. 126 (nine years).]
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 275
quite capable of giving an account of any transaction that happened
before his eyes. A, being then examined, said : " I am fully aware
that I have a spirit and twenty thousand of them ; they are not all
mine. , . . Those ascend from my stomach to my head and also
those in my ears ; the flesh creates spirits by the palpitation of the
nerves and the rheumatics ; all are now in my body, and round my
head; they speak to me incessantly, — particularly at night ; . . . they
are now speaking to me ; they are not separate from me ; but I can't
be a spirit, for I am flesh and blood. ... I know what it is to
take an oath ; my catechism taught me from my infancy when it is
lawful to swear ; it is when God's honor, our own or our neighbor's
good, require it. . . . When I swear, I appeal to the Almighty ; it is
perjury, the breaking a lawful oath or taking an unlawful one ; he that
does it will go to hell for all eternity." He was then sworn, and gave
a perfectly connected and rational account of a transaction which he
reported himself to have witnessed. It was held on appeal that his
testimony was properly received.] '
Article 108.*
competency in criminal cases.
In criminal cases the accused person and his or her
wife or husband, and every person and the wife or hus-
band of every person jointly indicted with him and tried
at the same time,2 is incompetent 3 to testify.4
Provided that in any criminal proceeding against a
* See Note XLI. [Appendix].
1 [R. v. Hill, 2 Den. C. C. 254; see District of Columbia v. Antics,
107 U. S. 519.]
2 Not if they are tried separately ; Winsor v. R., L. R. 1 Q B. 390 ;
Re Bradlangh, 15 Cox, 217. [See p. 276, note.]
3 R. v. Payne, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 349, and R. v. Thompson, Id. 377.
4 [The general rules of the common law, stated in this Article, are
still in force in the different States, unless abolished or modified by
statute (Gr. Ev. i. §§ 330, 334-346, 362 ; Wh. Cr. Ev. §§ 390-402, 427 ;
Hilcr v. People, 156 111. 511 ; Holley v. State, 105 Ala. 100 ; Holman v.
State, 72 Miss. 108; State v. Pain, 48 La. Ann. 311). But if a co-
defendant be discharged from the record, as by the entry of a nolle
276 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
husband or wife for any bodily injury or violence inflicted
prosequi, or by an acquittal, he may be a witness upon the trial of the
others (Gr. Ev. i. § 363; Wh. Cr. Ev. § 445 ; Linsday v. People, 63 N. Y.
143 ; Love v. People, 160 111. 501 ; State v. Walker, 98 Mo. 95) ; so if he
be convicted, or plead guilty, but be not yet sentenced {Stale v. .1/.
1 17 Mo. 302 ; Brown v. Co)nm., 86 Va. 935 ; contra, Kehoe v. Comm.
85 Pa. 127), or even after sentence, if he is not thereby rendered 1
famous {State v. Jones, 51 Me. 125) ; so if, though jointly indicted with
the others, he is to have a separate trial {Benson v. U. S., 146 U. S. 325 ;
Noyes v. State, 41 N. J. L. 418 ; State v. Bogue, 52 Kan. 79 ; Smith v
Comm., 90 Ya. 759 ; Allen v. State, 10 O. St. 287 ; cf. State v. Chiagk,
92 Mo. 395 ; People v. Van Alstine, 57 Mich. 69; Adams v. State, 28
Fla. 511; contra, Staup v. Comm., 74 Pa. 458).
Husband or wife may testify, by common law, as to assault and
battery upon him or her by the other, or an attempt to murder, and
the like {People v. Northrup, 50 Barb. 147 ; State v.Pennington, 124
Mo. 388 ; Comm. v. Sapp, 90 Ky. 580 ; Johnson v. State, 94 Ala. 53 ;
for a further exception, see page 298, note 2). So if either spouse be
a co-defendant with other persons and be discharged from the record,
as by a. nolle prosequi, a plea of guilty, etc., the other spouse is a com-
petent witness on the trial of the rest {Love v. People, 160 111. 501;
State v. Miller, 100 Mo. 606 ; State v. Guest, 100 N. C. 410 ; Woods v.
State, 76 Ala. 35 ; Carr v. State, 42 Ark. 204).
But it is now provided by the laws of Congress and by the statutes
of many States, that the defendant in a criminal case may be a wit-
ness in his own behalf, though the qualification is generally added
that his failure to testify shall not create any presumption against
him; so comment by the prosecuting officer upon such failure to
testify is often prohibited by these statutes (Act of Congress, Mar. 16,
1878 ; N. Y. Code Cr. Pro. § 393 ; Mass. Pub. St. c. 169, s. 18, par. 3 ;
Wh. Cr. Ev. §§ 428-436; Wilson v. U.S., 149 U. S. 60 ; Comm. v.
Scott, 123 Mass. 239; People v. H ayes, 140N. Y. 484; Showalterv.
State, 84 Ind. 562 ; Watt v. People, 126 111. 9 ; People v. Sansome, 98
Cal. 235; Yarorough v. Slate, 70 Miss. 593); if, however, defendant
docs testify, the jury may consider his interest in the result of the
trial as affecting his credibility (Reagan v. U. S., 157 U. S. 301 ; People
v. Crowley, 102 N. Y. 234 ; Doyle v. People, 147 111. 394 ; State v. Pratt,
121 Mo. 566). So by the statutes of some States, persons jointly in-
dicted may be witnesses for or against each other (People v. Doivling,
84 N. Y. 478 ; Comm. v. Brown, 130 Mass. 279 ; Conway v. State, 1 iS
Ind. 482 ; State v. Smith, 86 N. C. 705 ; Kidwell v. Comm., 97 Ky. 538 ;
Wh. Cr. Ev. § 445); or the husband or wife of the defendant may be
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 277
upon his or her wife or husband,1 such wife or husband is
competent and compellable to testify.3
Article 109.
[husband and wife in civil cases— cases of adultery.]
[In civil cases the lawful husband or wife of a party, or
of a person whose interests are directly involved in the
suit, is an incompetent witness by the common law.3 And
even after the marriage is dissolved by the death of
a witness, except to disclose confidential communications (N. Y. Pen.
Code, § 715 ; Me. Rev. St. c. 134, s. 19 ; Md., Laws of 1888, c. 545, s. 3).
By some statutes husbands and wives may not testify against each
other in criminal cases except for a crime committed by one against
the other. Some States hold that not only criminal acts of violence,
but also adultery, bigamy, and incest are crimes against the other
{State v. Chambers, 87 la. 1; Lord v. State, 17 Neb. 526; cf. Jordan
v. State, 142 Ind. 422 ; Dill v. People, 19 Col. 469); but other decisions
are to the contrary (Bassett v. U. S., 137 U. S. 496; People v.
Quanstrom,^ Mich. 254 ; McLean v. State, 32 Tex. App. 521). Again,
in some States each spouse may be for certain purposes a witness, if
the other consent {People v. Gordon, 100 Mich. 518; State v. Willis,
119 Mo. 485), or is declared competent, but not compellable, to testify
against the other {Comm. v. Moore, 162 Mass. 441 ; State v. McCord,
8 Kan. 232); and there are also other special statutory rules. See the
statutes of the different States.]
1 Reeve v. Wood, 5 B. & S. 364. Treason has been also supposed to
form an exception. See T. E. s. 1237.
2 [At this point Mr. Stephen adds to this Article certain English
statutory qualifications, and also inserts Articles 108 A and 108 B, sum-
marizing the provisions of special English statutes, which provide
that accused persons, and their husbands or wives, may be witnesses in
trials for particular criminal offences. These provisions, as stated
by Mr. Stephen, will be found in the Appendix, Note LI I.]
3[Gr. Ev. i. §§ 334-346; Banister v. Ovit, 64 Vt. 480 ; Johnson v.
Fry, 88 Va. 695 ; Craig v. Miller, 133 111. 300 ; Carney v. Gleissner,
58 Wis. 674 ; Joice v. Branson, 73 Mo. 28 ; Leahy v. Leahy, 97 Ky. 59.
So a wife cannot testify for or against a co-defendant tried with her
husband, where her testimony would concern her husband or affect
278 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
either party or by divorce, neither party thereto can
testify as to the facts learned through the confidence of
the marital relation, but may as to other facts.1 These
rules apply to proceedings instituted in consequence of
adultery 2 as well as to other civil cases.] s
his interests (Gr. Ev. i. § 335; Cornelius v. ffambay, 150 Pa. 364).
But in collateral proceedings, not immediately affecting their mutual
interests, the testimony of husband or wife may be received, though
tending indirectly to criminate the other. Gr. Ev. i. § 342 ; Keep v.
Griggs, 12 111. App. 511; see. post, page 298, note 2.]
1 [French v. Ware, 65 Vt. 338 ; Bigelow v. Sickles, 75 Wis. 427 ;
Toovey v. Baxter, 59 Mo. App. 470 ; Lingreen v. ///. Cent. R. Co., 61
111. App. 174 ; Babcock v. Booth, 2 Hill, 181 ; Dickerman v. Graves,
6 Cush. 308; Robb's Appeal, 98 Pa. 501 ; Wottrich v. Freeman, 71
N. Y. 601 ; Bishop, M. D. & S. ii. §§ 1662-1665 ; but see Rea v. Tucker,
51 111. 1 10 ; Hansehnan v. Dovel, 102 Mich. 505 ; Swan v. Housman, 90
Va. 816. The same rule has been applied in criminal cases. U. S. v.
Guiteau, 1 Mackey, 498 ; Comm. v. Sapp, 90 Ky. 580 ; cf. Owen v.
State, 78 Ala. 425.]
2 [Id. For a special rule in bastardy cases, see Art. 98, ante. The
common law rules, stated in this Article, are still in force in the
different States, unless changed by statute.]
3 [The original article of Mr. Stephen, stating the present English
law, is as follows :
"COMPETENCY IN PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO ADULTERY.
" In proceedings instituted in consequence of adultery, the parties
and their husbands and wives are competent witnesses, provided that
no witness in any (such?) proceeding, whether a party to the suit or
not, is liable to be asked or bound to answer any question tending to
show that he or she has been guilty of adultery, unless such witness
has already given evidence in the same proceeding in disproof of his
or her alleged adultery. 32 & 33 Vict. c. 68, s. 3. (The word 'such'
seems to have been omitted accidentally.)"
In this country also, by modern statutes, husband and wife are in
many States allowed to testify for or against each other in civil
actions, but special limitations are sometimes imposed in cases
grounded upon adultery. Thus in New York, husband or wife cannot
testify against the other in proceedings founded upon an allegation
of adultery, except to prove the marriage or disprove the allegation
of adultery ; and in an action for criminal conversation plaintiff's wife
cannot testify for him, but may for the defendant, except that she
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 279
Article iio.
communications during marriage.
No husband is compellable to disclose any communica-
tion made to him by his wife during the marriage, and no
.rife is compellable to disclose any communication made
to her by her husband during the marriage.1
cannot disclose confidential communications between herself and her
husband without his consent (Code Civ. Pro. § 831). In other cases
they may testify, but neither can disclose confidential communications
without the consent of the other, if living (Id. §§ 828, 831). Similar
provisions are in force in several other States (Ind. Rev. St. §§ 505,
509 ; 3 How. St. (Mich.) § 7546 ; Wis. Rev. St. § 4072 ; Code of N. C.
§ 588). In New Jersey husband and wife may testify in civil actions
generally, including proceedings for divorce on account of adultery,
except as to confidential communications (N. J. Rev. i. p. 378; ii. p.
288; Lippi?icott v . Wikoff, 54 N. J. Eq. 107 ; cf. Br. Purd. Dig. (Pa.)
12th ed. i. p. 817). So in Massachusetts they may testify, except as to
private conversations with each other (Pub. St. c. 169, § 18). It is a
special provision of some statutes that either spouse, having acted as
agent for the other, may testify as to such transactions as agent
{Pfeferle v. State, 39 Kan. 128 ; Reno v. Kingsbury, 39 Mo. App. 240;
111. Rev. St. c. 51, s. 5). So the right of either to testify is sometimes
made to depend upon the other's consent ( Wolford v. Farnham, 44
Minn. 159; 3 How. St. (Mich.) §7546 ; Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 1881). The
statutes of the different States have many diverse provisions, and
should be specially consulted (see Spitz s Appeal, 56 Ct. 184 ; Bitner
v. Boone, 128 Pa. 567 ; Reynolds v. Schaffer, 91 Mich. 494 ; Howard 'v.
Brower, 37 O. St. 402 ; Wh. Ev. i.§ 431 ; Bishop, M. D. & S. ii.§§ 777-
786). But statutes removing the disability of parties ox persons inter-
e<ted to testify do not enable husband and wife to be witnesses ; there
must be special acts for this purpose. Lucas v. Brooks, 18 Wall. 436;
Ah. Ev. i. §430.]
1 16 & 17 Vict. c. 83, s. 3. It is doubtful whether this would apply to
a widower or divorced person, questioned after the dissolution of the
marriage as to what had been communicated to him whilst it lasted.
[Sounder modern statutes in this country, it is the general rule that
confidential communications between husband and wife cannot be
disclosed by either (see Art. 109, note). These do not include all com-
munications made between husband and wife, but only "such as are
280 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
Article hi.*
judges and advocates privileged as to certain questions.
It is doubtful whether a judge is compellable to testify-
as to anything which came to his knowledge in court as
* See Note XLII. [Appendix],
expressly made confidential, or such as are of a confidential nature or
induced by the marital relation " {Parkhurst v. Berdell, 1 10 N. Y. 386 ;
Warner v. Press Co., 132 N. Y. 181 ; Seitz v. Seitz, 170 Pa. 71 ; Schmied
v. Frank, 86 Ind. 250 ; cf. Wood v. Chetivood, 27 N. J. Eq. 311; U. S.
v. Guitean, 1 Mackey, 498). Some statutes omit the word "confiden-
tial," specifying only " communications " as privileged, including there-
fore those which are and those which are not confidential {Campbell
v. Chace, 12 R. I. 333 ; Leppla v. Tribune Co., 35 Minn. 310 ; People v.
Miillings, 83 Cal. 138 ; Comm. v. Sapp, go Ky. 580; S. P. in Mass. as
to "private" conversations, Comm. v. Hayes, 145 Mass. 289). "Com-
munications" includes both oral and written statements {People v. Hayes,
140 N. Y. 484 ; Orrv. Miller, 98 Ind. 436), while "conversations" does
not include writings ( Comm. v. Caponi, 155 Mass. 534). When oral com-
munications are overheard, the hearer {Comm. v. Griffin, 1 10 Mass. 181;
Gannon v. People, 127 111. 507 ; State v. Gray, 55 Kan. 135) or the hus-
band or wife {Lyon w.Prouty, 154 Mass. 488 ; Sessions v. Trevitt, 39 O.
St. 259 ; contra, Ca??ipbell v. Chace, 12 R. I. 333 ; cf. Hopkins v. Grim-
shaw, 165 U. S. 342) may be required to disclose them. So written
communications may be used as evidence, if they have been trans-
ferred to the hands of third persons, not agents or representatives of
the recipient {People v. Hayes, 140 N. Y.484; State v. Buffington, 20 Kan.
599; State v. Hoyt, 47 Ct. 518); but they are privileged, if in the pos-
session of the recipient's attorney or executor {Selden v. State, 74 Wis.
271; Bowman v. Patrick, 32 F. R. 368; cf. Brown v. Brown, 53 Mo.
App 453)- The death of either spouse or a divorce does not destroy
the privilege as to communications between husband and wife {Hitch-
cock v. Moore, 70 Mich. 112; O 'Bryan v. Allen, 95 Mo. 68 ; Hopkins v.
Grimshaw, 165 U. S. 342 ; Stanley v. Montgomery, 102 Ind. 102 ; Goelz
v. Goelz, 157 111. 33). When a husband is made use of by others to per-
petrate a fraud upon his wife, a court of equity may, in order to expose
the fraud, permit both to testify to their conversations about the mat-
ter. Moeckel v. Heim, 134 Mo. 576.]
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 281
such judge.1 It seems that a barrister cannot be compelled
1 R. v. Gazard, 8 C. & P. 595. [A judge sitting alone to try a cause
cannot be a witness on the same trial ; nor when he sits with others and
his presence is necessary to a duly organized court, can he properly
testify in the cause on trial {Dabney v. Mitchell, 66 Ala. 495 ; Rogers
v. State, 60 Ark. 76 ; Baker v. Thompson, 89 Ga. 486 ; People v. Miller,
2 Park. Cr. 197 ; see McMillen v. Andrews, 10 O. St. 112). But if he
does testify when he sits with others, and no exception is taken there-
to, the judgment of the court is not invalidated {People v. Dohring,
59 N. Y. 374 ; Wright v. McCampbell, 75 Tex. 644). These rules
apply also to other judicial officers, as referees, etc. {Morss v. Morss,
11 Barb. 510; see Gr. Ev. i. §§ 249, 364). A judge's testimony as to
the grour.ds of a former decision rendered by him has also been ex-
cluded {Agan v. Hey, 30 Hun, 591 ; but see Supples v. Cannon, 44 Ct.
430; Taylor v. Larkift, 12 Mo. 103; cf. Barrett v. fames, 30 S. Car.
329 ; Appeal of Allen, 38 Atl. R. (Ct.), 701).
A justice may be a witness to verify his minutes or docket entries,
in proving the testimony of a witness in a former case tried before him
{Huff v. Bennett, 4 Sandf. 120, 6 N. Y. 337; Spalding v. Lowe, 56 Mich.
366 ; Zitske v. Goldberg, 38 Wis. 216 ; Welcome v. Batchelder, 23 Me.
85 ; Schallv. Miller, 5 Whart. 156 ; cf. Corby M.Wright, 9 Mo. App.
5); or in proving the proceedings before him or the judgment rendered
{Pollock v. Hoag, 4 E. D. Sm. 473 ; Boomer v. Laine, 10 Wend. 526 ;
McGrath v. Seagrave, 2 Allen, 443 ; Hibbs v. Blair, 14 Pa. 413) ; but
his entries, not so verified, are not good evidence {Schafer v. Schafer,
93 Ind. 586 ; State v. Whelehon, 102 Mo. 17). So a justice may testify
as to the identity of an issue on trial with one formerly tried before
him, if his testimony does not contradict the record {State v. Water-
man, 87 la. 255 ; Black v. Miller, 75 Mich. 323) ; or as to admissions
or contradictory evidence in testimony previously given before him
{State v. Van Winkle, 80 la. 15 ; State v. Duffy, 57 Ct. 525) ; or upon
what papers process was issued by him {Heyward ' s Case, 1 Sandf. 701),
or as to various collateral matters {Highberger v. Stiffler, 21 Md. 338 ;
fackson v. Humphrey, 1 Johns. 498).
Auditors, arbitrators, etc., may not give testimony to impeach their
report or award {Packard v. Reynolds, 100 Mass. 153 ; Schmidt v.
Glade, 126 111. 485 ; Ellison v. Weathers, 78 Mo. 115 ; see Briggs v.
Smith, 20 Barb. 409; aliter, in cases of fraud, Withington v. Warren,
10 Met. 431 ; Pulliam v. Pensoncau, 33 111. 375). But they may testify
as to matters openly occurring before them on the hearing, including
admissions of a party, etc. {Calvert v. Friebus, 48 Md. 44 ; Tobin v.
fones, 143 Mass. 448 ; Graham v. Graham, 9 Pa. 254) ; or in support
282 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
to testify as to what he said in court in his character of a
barrister.1
Article 112.
evidence as to affairs of state.
No one can be compelled to give evidence relating to
any affairs of state, or as to official communications be-
tween public officers upon public affairs, unless the officer
at the head of the department concerned permits him to
do so,2 or to give evidence of what took place in either
or explanation of their award, or as to collateral facts (Gr. Ev. ii. § 78 ;
Wh. Ev. i. § 599; Converse v. Colton, 49 Pa. 346; Hale v. Huse, 10
Gray, 99 ; Robinson v. Shanks, 118 Ind. 125; Duke of Bucclengh v.
Metr. Bd. of Works, L. R. 5 E. & I. App. 418).
A quasi-judicial officer, as a merchant appraiser under tariff laws,
may not testify to his own neglect of duty (Oelberman v. Mcrritt, 19
F. R. 408). In some States, also, an officer who has taken an ac-
knowledgment of a deed is not a competent witness to prove facts
impeaching his certificate. Mutual Ins. Co. v. Corey, 135 N. Y. 334;
Stone v. Montgomery, 35 Miss. 83.]
1 Curry v. Walter, 1 Esp. 456. [A person is a competent witness in
a case in which he is acting as attorney or counsel ; but the practice
is, in general, disapproved, and should only be resorted to in case of
necessity, as where it is requisite to prevent injustice (Gr. Ev. i. § 364 ;
French v. Hall, 1 19 U. S. 152 ; Freeman v. Fogg, 82 Me. 408 ; Con-
nelly v. Straw, 53 Wis. 645 ; Sebree v. Smith, 2 Ida. 330 ; Little v.
McKcon, 1 Sandf. 607 ; Follansbee v. Walker, 72 Pa. 228 ; Potter v.
Ware, 1 Cush. 519; Branson v. Caruthers, 49 Cal. 374; Morgan v.
Roberts, 38 111. 65). The fact of his being attorney in the case, or that
his fee is contingent upon the result, goes to his credibility, not to his
competency (Thon v. Rochester R. Co., 83 Hun, 443 ; C. B. U. P. R.
Co. v. Andrews, 41 Kan. 370 ; Moats v. Rymer, 18 \V. Va. 642). So
the practice is discountenanced of a lawyer's being his own witness,
when he is acting as his own client. Thresher v. Stonington Bk., 68
Ct. 201.]
2 Beatson v. Skene, 5 H. & N. 838. [Cf. Hennessy v. Wright, 21 Q. B.
D. 509. So in this country, the President, the governors of the several
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 283
House of Parliament, without the leave of the House,
though he may state that a particular person acted as
Speaker.1
Article 113.
information as to commission of offences.
In cases in which the government is immediately con-
cerned no witness can be compelled to answer any ques-
tion, the answer to which would tend to discover the names
of persons by or to whom information was given as to the
commission of offences.2
In ordinary criminal prosecutions it is for the judge to
decide whether the permission of any such question would
or would not, under the circumstances of the particular
case, be injurious to the administration of justice.3
States, and their cabinet officers, are not bound to produce papers or
disclose information committed to them, in a judicial inquiry, when in
their own judgment the disclosure would on public grounds be inex-
pedient (Gr. Ev. i. § 251 ; Appeal of Hartranft, 85 Pa. 433 ; Thompson
v. German, etc. R. Co., 22 N. J. Eq. in; cf. Totten v. U. S., 92 U. S. 105).
Nor without permission of government can other persons be compelled
to make such disclosures (see Worthington v. Scribner, 109 Mass. 487).
A foreign ambassador in the United States is not bound to obey a
subpoena, and the same rule is sometimes, by treaty, made applicable
to foreign consuls, hi re Dillon, 7 Sawy. 561 ; U. S. v. Trumbull, 48
F. R. 94.]
1 Chubb v. Salomons, 3 C. & K. 77 ; Plunkett v. Cobbett, 5 Esp. 136. -
2 [At this point Mr. Stephen adds a special rule of the English law,
not applicable here. It will be found in the Appendix, Note LII.]
3 R. v. Hardy, 24 S. T. 811; A. G. v. Bryant, 15 M. & W. 169 ; R. v.
Richardson, 3 F. & F. 693. [Gr. Ev. i. § 250 ; Marks v. Bey/us, 25 Q.
B. D. 494 ; U. S. v. Moses, 4 Wash. C. C. 726 ; Vogelv. Gruaz, 1 10 U. S.
311 ; People v. Laird, 102 Mich. 135 ; State v. Soper, 16 Me. 293; Worth-
ington v. Scribner, 109 Mass. 487. This last case maintains that the
assent of the government is required before a witness can disclose
such information, and R. v. Richardson is questioned.]
284 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
Article 114.
competency of jurors.
A petty juror may not,1 and it is doubtful whether a
grand juror may, give evidence as to what passed be-
1 Vaise v. Delaval, 1 T. R. 11; Burgess v. Langley, 5 M. & G. 722.
[Gr. Ev. i. § 252 a ; Woodward v. Leavitt, 107 Mass. 453; Rowe v. Can-
ney, 139 Mass. 41; Comm. v. White, 147 Mass. 76; Dalrymple v. Wil-
liams, 63 N. Y. 361 ; State v. Pike, 65 Me. in; Hutchinson v. Consum-
ers' Coal Co., 36 N. J. L. 24. It is a general rule, often applied upon
motions for a new trial, that the affidavits or testimony of jurors are
not admissible to impeach their own verdict, as e.g., by showing their
mistakes or misconduct, or their improper methods of reaching a ver-
dict, or the motives which influenced them, or what was said or done
in their deliberations, or that they misunderstood the instructions of
the court or the effect of their verdict, etc. {Bridgewater v. Plymouth,
97 Mass. 382 ; Williams v. Montgomery, 60 N. Y. 648 ; Meade v. Smith,
16 Ct. 346; Shepherd \ . Camden, 82 Me. 535 ; Taylor v. Garnett, no
Ind. 166 ; Sanitary District v. Cullerton, 147 111. 385 ; People v. Stimer,
82 Mich. 17 ; State v. Wood, 124 Mo. 412 ; People v. Kloss, 115 Cal. 567 ;
for a full collection of cases, see 24 Am. Dec. 475 ; 12 Id. 142); nor are
statements of like character made by them out of court after the trial
provable {Comm. v. Meserve, 156 Mass. 61; Warren v. Spencer Co.,
143 Mass. 155 ; State v. Cooper, 85 Mo. 256). But their testimony has
been received to support or establish their verdict, which has been at-
tacked or impeached by evidence aliunde, or to exculpate them from
alleged misconduct {Peck v. Brewer, 48 111. 54; People v. Hunt, 59
Cal. 430; Clement v. Spear, 56 Vt. 401; Chicago, etc. R. Co. v.Mc-
Daniel, 134 Ind. 166; State v. Rush, 95 Mo. 199), though some
authorities exclude even such evidence, when it discloses the conduct
or grounds of action of the jurors in their deliberations ( Woodward v.
Leavitt, supra; Mattox v. U. S., 146 U. S. 140; contra, Knight v.
Epson, 62 N. H. 356 ; Ketinedy v. Kennedy, 18 N. J. L. 450). Jurors
may also give evidence in denial or explanation of acts or declarations
made by them outside of the jury room, which are relied upon to
show bias or prejudice {Chemical Light Co. v. Howard, 150 Mass.
495 ; State v. Harrison, 36 W. Va. 729); or to show the identity of
the subject-matter in different actions, when this is not disclosed by
the record (Stap/eton v. King, 40 la. 278; Follansbce v. Walker, 74
Pa. 306; see Packet Co. v. Sickles, 5 Wall. 580); or to show a juror's
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 285
tween the jurymen in the discharge of their duties.1 It is
also doubtful whether a grand juror may give evidence
as to what any witness said when examined before the
grand jury.
Illustration.
[Upon a motion for a new trial, the moving party offers in evi-
dence the affidavits of some of the jurors who sat upon the original
trial that they arrived at their verdict by agreeing that each juror
acts while separated from his fellows, or that he was improperly ap-
proached outside of the jury room by a party or witness, etc. {HeJJron
v. Gallupe, 55 Me. 563; Johnson v. Witt, 138 Mass. 79); or to show
that the verdict was wrongly announced in court by the foreman or
was wrongly entered {Peters v. Fogarty, 55 N. J. L. 386 ; Dalrymple
v. Williams, 63 N. Y. 361); or to show what testimony was given on a
former trial {Hewett v. Chapman, 49 Mich. 4); and even in some
States to impeach a verdict for grounds not essentially inherent
therein (Swails v. Cissna, 61 la. 693 ; Brothers v. Jasper, 27 Kan. 770 ;
Harris v. Slate, 24 Neb. 803; cf. Mattox v. U. S., 146 U. S. 140).
A juror may be a witness upon the same trial in which he is acting as
juror. Howserx. Comm., 51 Pa. 332; People v. Dohring, 59 N. Y,
374, 378; Schmidt v. N. Y. etc. R. Co., 1 Gray, 529; White v. State,
73 Miss. 50 ; State v. Vari, 35 S. Car. 175 ; N. Y. Code Cr. Pro. § 413 ;
cf. Richards v. State, 36 Neb. 17.]
1 1 Ph. Ev. 140 ; T. E. s. 863. [It is the general rule in this country
that a grand juror cannot give such testimony as to their deliberations,
proceedings, votes, etc. (Gr. Ev. i. § 252 ; Wh. Ev. i. § 601 ; State v.
Hamlin, 47 Ct. 95; People v. Hulbut, 4 Den. 133; State v. Davis, 41 la.
311 ; Lovelandv. Cooley, 59 Minn. 259; State v. Comeau, 48 La. Ann.
249; N. Y. Code Cr. Pro. § 265 ; Mass. Pub. St. c. 213, s. 13) ; nor can
persons who were present in the grand jury room by lawful authority,
as the prosecuting attorney, the clerk, etc. {Gitchell v. People, 146 111.
1 75 ; State v. Johnson, 1 1 5 Mo. 480 ; but see Stale v. Grady, 84 Mo. 220).
But grand jurors, it is now generally held, may testify whether a par-
ticular person did or did not give evidence before them {Comm. v.
Hill, 11 Cush. 137; People v. Northey, 77 Cal. 619); or who was the
prosecutor {Huidckoper v. Cotton, 3 Watts, 56) ; or, in impeachment
of a witness's credibility, may disclose his testimony before them, in
order to show that it differed from that given before the petty jury
{Comm. v. Mead, 12 Gray, 167 ; State v. Benner, 64 Me. 267 ; Stale v.
Wood, 53 N. H. 484 ; Gordon v. Comm., 92 Pa. 216 ; Burdick v. Hunt,
286 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
should write down the sum which he wished to give as damages, that
the aggregate amount should be divided by twelve, and that the sum
so ascertained should be given as the amount of their verdict. Though
such a verdict is void, the affidavits of the jurors are not admissible
to show its invalidity.] '
Article 115.*
PROFESSIONAL COMMUNICATIONS.
• No legal adviser is permitted, whether during or after
the termination of his employment as such, unless with
* See Note XLIII. [Appendix].
43 Ind. 381; Bressler v. People, 117 111. 422 ; State v. Thomas, 99 Mo.
235 ; State v. Brown, 28 Or. 147; Pellum v. State, 89 Ala. 28; N. Y.
Code Cr. Pro. § 266) ; or to show a witness's perjury, confessions, or vol-
untary statements, made before the grand jury (Id.; U. S. v. Negro
Charles, 2 Cr. C. C. 76 ; State v. Coffee, 56 Ct. 399 ; Izer v. State, jj Md.
no; State v. Carroll, 85 la. 1; State v. Moran, 15 Or. 262 ; Covim. v.
Scowden, 92 Ky. 120 ; Jenkins v. Stale, 35 Fla. 737 ; Bishop's New Cr.
Pro. §§ 857, 858); or, in an action for malicious prosecution, to disclose
the evidence given against plaintiff before the grand jury {Hunter v.
Randall, 69 Me. 183; contra, Kennedy v. Holladay, 105 Mo. 24; cf.
Owens v. Owens, 81 Md. 518). It is also held in some States that in a
direct proceeding to set aside or quash an indictment, the testimony
of the grand jurors will be received, that twelve of their number did
not concur in finding it {Low's Case, 4 Me. 439; Territory v. Hart, 7
Mont. 42 & 489 ; People v. S hat tuck, 6 Abb. N. C. 33 ; and so as to other
grounds for quashing, see U. S. v. Farrington, 5 F. R. 343); but some
States refuse to adopt this rule {Gitckell v. People, 146 111. 175 ; State
v. Grady, 84 Mo. 220 ; see, as to a collateral proceeding, People v. Hul-
but, supra; and see 16 Am. Dec. 281). Some States declare broadly
that the evidence of grand jurors is admissible wherever it is neces-
sary, (without disclosing their deliberations or their votes), to uphold
public justice or protect private rights. U. S. v. Farrington, 5 F. R.
343; Hunter v. Randall, 69 Me. 183; N. H. Ins. Co. v. Healey, 151
Mass. 537 ; State v. Coffee, 56 Ct. 399.J
1 [Sawyer v. Hannibal, etc. R. Co., 37 Mo. 240 ; Moses v. Cromwell,
78 Va. 1 ; Palmer v. People, 138 111. 356; cf. People v. Azoff, 105
Cal. 632. But the officer in charge of the jury may testify that they
rendered such a "chance" or "quotient" verdict, as it is called
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 287
his client's express consent, to disclose any communica-
tion, oral or documentary, made to him as such legal ad-
viser, by or on behalf of his client, during, in the course,
and for the purpose of his employment, whether in refer-
ence to any matter as to which a dispute has arisen or
otherwise, or to disclose any advice given by him to his
client during, in the course, and for the purpose of such
employment. It is immaterial whether the client is or is
not a party to the action in which the question is put to
the legal adviser.1
( Wright v. Abbott, 160 Mass. 395 ; Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Mc Daniel,
134 Ind. 166). By some decisions a verdict reached by this method is
valid, if the jurors did not agree beforehand to be bound by the
quotient, but left its adoption to subsequent deliberation. Luft v.
Lingane, 1 7 R . I. 420 j Dana v. Tucker, 4 Johns. 487 ; Knight v. Epsom,
62 N. H. 356; see Moses v. Central Pk. etc. R. Co., 3 Misc. 322.]
1 [Gr. Ev i. §§ 237-246 ; Wh. Ev. i. §§ 576-594 ; N. Y. Code Civ. Pro.
§§ 835, 836 ; Bacon v. Frisbie, 80 N. Y. 394 ; Root v. Wright, 84 Id. 72 ;
Higbce v. Dresser, 103 Mass. 523 ; Conn. Life Ins. Co. v. Schacfer, 94
U. S. 457 ; Earle v. Grout, 46 Vt. 113 ; People v. Barker, 56 111. 299;
Sweet v. Owens, 109 Mo. 1; McLellan v. Longfellow, 32 Me. 494 ; cf.
Wade v. Ridley, 87 Me. 368 ; Blount v. Kimpton, 155 Mass. 378. The
privilege is that of the client alone, and if he voluntarily waives it, the
attorney may testify ; other persons have no right to insist upon it
{Hunt v. Blackburn, 128 U. S. 464 ; Passmore v. Passmore's Estate, 50
Mich. 626). The client's waiver may in some cases be implied, as
well as express, as e.g., by failing to object on the trial to the attor-
ney's testifying {Sleeper v. Abbott, 60 N. H. 162; Hoyt v. Hoyt, 112
N. Y. 493, 515). But the client's becoming himself a witness in the
case in his own behalf does not amount to a waiver {Montgomery v.
Pickering, 116 Mass. 227; see Duttcnhofer v. State, 34 O. St. 91). If
a testator has his attorney become a subscribing witness to his will,
this is a waiver and the attorney may testify as to the execution of the
will on the proceedings for probate {Re Coleman, 1 1 1 N. Y. 220; Pence
v. Waugh, 135 Ind. 143; Denning v. Butcher, 91 la. 425 ; McMaster
v. Scrive?i, 85 Wis. 162 ; In re Mullin, 1 10 Cal. 252).
In some cases, statements made to an attorney with a view to re-
taining him have been held privileged, though the relation was never
in fact established. Sargent v. Hampden, 38 Me. 581 ; State v. Tally,
102 Ala. 25 ; Denver Tramway Co. v. Owens, 20 Col. 107.]
288 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
This Article does not extend to—,
(i) Any snch communication as aforesaid made in fur-
therance of any criminal purpose, whether such purpose
was at the time of the communication known to the pro-
fessional adviser or not ; '
(2) Any fact observed by any legal adviser, in the course
of his employment as such, showing that any crime or
fraud has been committed since the commencement of
his employment, whether his attention was directed to
such fact by or on behalf of his client or not ; a
(3) Any fact with which such legal adviser became ac-
quainted otherwise than in his character as such.3 The
1 R. v. Cox &* Railton, 14 Q. B. D. 153. The judgment in this case
is that of ten judges in the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, and ex-
amines minutely all the cases on the subject. These cases put the
rule on the principle, that the furtherance of a criminal purpose can
never be part of a legal adviser's business. As soon as a legal
adviser knowingly takes part in preparing for a crime, he ceases to
act as a lawyer and becomes a criminal, — a conspirator or accessory,
as the case may be. [People v. Blakeley, 4 Park. Cr. 176; People v.
I an . llstine, 57 Mich. 69 ; State v. Kidd, 89 la. 54 ; Dudley v. Beck,
3 Wis. 274 ; Orman v. State, 22 Tex. App. 604 ; cf. State v. Barrows,
52 Ct. 323. The English decisions include cases of fraud within this
exception {In re Postlethwaite, 35 Ch. D. 722 ; R. v. Cox &•» Railton,
supra), and recent American cases have adopted the same doctrine
( Matthews v. Hoagland, 48 X. J. Eq. 455 ; Hajnil v. England, 50 Mo.
App. 338; see Bank of Utica v. Mersereau, 3 Barb. Ch. 528, 598).
But an attorney cannot disclose statements made to him by his client
about a crime committed by the latter, which were not made till after
the crime was committed. Alexander v. U, S., 138 U. S. 353.]
8 [See Illustration (a).]
[Or. Ev. i. §§ 244, 245 ; Wh. Ev. i. §§ 588, 589; State v. Fitzgerald, 68
Vt. 125 ; as e.g., communications made to him before he became legal
adviser, or after the relation ceased {Jennings v. Sturdevant, 140 Ind.
641 ; Tkeisen v. Dayton, 82 la. 74; Brady v. State, 39 Neb. 529); or
while he was acting in some other capacity than as attorney, as e.g.,
as a friend, agent, etc. (Coon \. Swan, 30 Vt. 6; Patten v. Glover, 1
App. D. C. 466); so as to communications not relating to the pro-
fessional employment {Mowell v. Van Buren, 77 Hun, 569; Mc-
Donald v. McDonald, 142 Ind. 55 ; State v. Mewherter, 46 la. 88;
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 289
expression "legal adviser" includes barristers and solici-
tors,1 their clerks,2 and interpreters2 between them and
their clients. It does not include officers of a corporation
Carroll v. Sprague, 59 Cal. 655 ; cf. State v. Hedgepeth, 125 Mo. 14).
So an attorney may be required to testify as to many collateral mat-
ters : as the name of his client {Harriman v. Jones, 58 N. H. 328), or
his residence {Alden v. Goddard, 73 Me. 345), or his signature {Brown
v. Jeivett, 120 Mass. 215); or that in collecting a claim he acted for his
client {Mulfordv. Mullet; 3 Abb. Dec. 330); or the fact of his employ-
ment as attorney {Hampton v. Boy Ian, 46 Hun, 151; Eickman v. Troll,
29 Minn. 124); or that he has the client's papers in his hands {Stokoe
v. St. Paul, etc. R. Co., 40 Minn. 545 ; see Art. 1 19); so as to communi-
cations which are not of a private or confidential nature, or which have
ceased to be such {Snow v. Gould, 74 Me. 540; Rosseau v. Bleau, 131
N. Y. 177 ; Roper v. State, 58 N. J. L. 420), or as to communications
made to him by persons other than his client ( Turner s Estate, 167 Pa.
609; State v. Hedgepeth, 125 Mo. 14), and many like matters (see p.
290, note 2, post ; Co/nm. v. Goddard, 14 Gray, 402 ; Crosby v. Berger,
11 Pai. 377 ; Hughes v. Boone, 102 N. C. 137).
A communication made to counsel by one party to a controversy
while the others are present is not privileged from disclosure in a sub-
sequent suit between such parties themselves {Hurlbut v. Hurlbut,
128 N. Y. 420 ; Goodwin Cols Appeal, 117 Pa. 514; Colt v. JMcConnell,
116 Ind. 249; Lynn v. Lyerle, 113 111. 128 ; Sparks v. Sparks, 51 Kan.
195; Cadyv. Walker, 62 Mich. 157; Murphy v. JVaterhouse, 113 Cal.
467); so, where two persons employ an attorney in the same business,
as to communications made to him by either of them concerning such
business {Gulick v. Gitlick, 39 N. J. Eq. 516; Deip"s Estate, 163 Pa.
423 ; In re Batter, 79 Cal. 304); but in an action between such persons
and a stranger, the communications are protected (Id.; Root v. I Wright,
84 N. Y. 72).
It is held in some States that, after a testator's death, his attorney
may, in support of the will or to carry out the testator's intentions as
respects those claiming under him, testify as to directions, communica-
tions, etc. made by said testator. Blackburn v. Cratvfords, 3 Wall.
!75> !93 ; Doherty v. O'Callaghan, 157 Mass. 90 ; /;/ re Austin, 42 Hun,
516; Scott v. Harris, 113 111. 447 ; Thompson v. Ish, 99 Mo. 160, 176;
Layman's Will, 40 Minn. 371; Olmstcad v. Webb, 5 A pp. D. C. 38.]
1 Wilson v. Rastall, 4 T. R. 753. As to interpreters, Id. 756. [All
attorneys and counselors are included in this country.]
- Taylor v. Foster, 2 C. & P. 195 ; Foote v. Hayne, 1 C. & P. 545.
Quaere, whether licensed conveyancers are within the rule ? Parke, B.,
29o A DIGEST OF [Part III.
through whom the corporation has elected to make state-
ments.'
Illustrations.
(a) A, being charged with embezzlement, retains B, a barrister, to
defend him. In the course of the proceedings B observes that an entry
has been made in A's account book, charging A with the sum said to
have been embezzled, which entry was not in the book at the com-
mencement of B's employment.
This being a fact observed by B in the course of his employment,
showing that a fraud has been committed since the commencement of
the proceedings, is not protected from disclosure in a subsequent action
by A against the prosecutor in the original case for malicious prose-
cution.2
in Turquand v. Knight, 7 M. & W. 100, thought not. Special pleaders
would seem to be on the same footing. [Gr. Ev. i. § 239. Communi-
cations to lawyers' clerks, agents, and interpreters are protected
(Sibley v. Waffle, 16 N. Y. 180 ; Jackson v. French, 3 Wend. 337); but
statements to an attorney's clerk by one who did not know him to be
such, but who did know he was not a lawyer, have been held not
privileged (Hawes v. State, 88 Ala. 37); so a law student to whom a
communication is made, not being the clerk or agent of the attorney,
may be required to testify as to such communication (Barnes v. Har-
ris, 7 Cush. 576; Schubkagel x. Dierstcin, 131 Pa. 46; Holman v.
Kimball, 22 \'t. 555) ; and so may a person who overhears a client's
statements to his lawyer (Hoy v. Morn's, 13 Gray, 519 ; Goddardx.
Gardner, 28 Ct. 172 ; People v. Buchanan, 145 N. Y. 1 ; Tyler v. Hall,
106 Mo. 313). A lawyer simply employed to draft deeds or other
papers, without giving legal advice, is not generally within the rule of
privilege. Todd v. Munson, 53 Ct. 579 ; Childs v. Merrill, 66 Yt. 302 ;
Han ion v. Dolierty, 109 Ind. 37; Stall iugs v. Hullum, 79 Tex. 42 i ;
Smith v. Long, 106 111. 485; Hatton v. Robinson, 14 Pick. 416; hut
see Linthicum v . Remington, 5 Cr. C. C. 546 ; Carter v. West, 93 Ky.
211.]
1 Mayor oj Swansea v. Quirk, 5 C. P. D. 106; nor pursuivants of the
Herald's College, Slade v. Tucker, 14 Ch. D. 824 ; [nor a solicitor of
patents who is not an attorney at law (Brungger v. Smith, 49 F. K.
1241; nor a person supposed to be a lawyer but who is not one in fact
( Barnes v. Han is, 7 Cush. 576). But in Benedict x. State, 44 O. St.
679, communications to one whose regular business had been for
years practising law before justices of the peace were held privileged,
though he had not been admitted to the bar.]
3 Brown v. Foster, 1 H. & N. 736. [This case was so decided be-
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 291
(b) If a legal adviser witnesses a deed, he must give evidence as to
what happened at the time of its execution.1
(c) A retains B, an attorney, to prosecute C (whose property he had
fraudulently acquired) for murder, and says, " It is not proper for me
to appear in the prosecution for fear of its hurting me in the cause
coming on between myself and him ; but I do not care if I give ,£10,000
to get him hanged, for then I shall be easy in my title and estate."
This communication is not privileged.2
Article 116.
confidential communications with legal advisers.
No one can be compelled to disclose to the court any
communication between himself and his legal adviser,
which his legal adviser could not disclose without his per-
mission, although it may have been made before any dis-
pute arose as to the matter referred to.3
cause the fact in question was not information communicated by the
client, but knowledge which counsel acquired by his own observation.
For a like rule, see Patten v. Moor, 29 N. H. 163 ; Daniel v. Daniel,
39 Pa. 191; Hcbbardx. Haughian, 70 N. Y. 54 ; Comm. v. Bacon, 135
Mass. 521 ; Swaim v. Humphreys, 42 111. App. 370.]
1 Crawconr v. Salter, 18 Ch. D. 34.
2 Annesley v. Anglesea, 17 S. T. 1223-4.
3 Minet v. Morgan, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 361, reviewing all the cases,
and adopting the explanation given in Pearse v. Pearse, 1 De G. & S.
18-31, of Radcliffe v. Fursman, 2 Br. P. C. 514. A recent illustration
will be found in Mayor of Bristol v. Cox, 26 Ch. D. 678. [This rule ap-
plies though parties to actions are now competent witnesses (Hemen-
way v. Smith, 28 Vt. 701 ; Barker v. Kuhn, 38 la. 392; Swenk v.
People, 20 111. App. in ; Verdelli v. Grays Harbor Co., 115 Cal. 517 ;
Duttenhofer v. State, 34 O. St. 91). A party does not waive the
privilege by voluntarily becoming a witness in his own behalf (Id.;
State M.White, 19 Kan. 445 ; Carnes v. Piatt, 15 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 337;
contra, Inhab. of Woburn v. Henshaw, 101 Mass. 193) ; but it is
deemed a waiver, if he voluntarily testifies to confidential communi-
cations made by him to his attorney {Oliver v. Pate, 43 Ind. 132 ; cf.
State v. Tall, 43 Minn. 273). So where an accomplice turns " State's
evidence," he may be compelled to disclose communications to his
2c,* A DIGEST OF [Part III.
Illustration.
[in an action for the conversion of goods, plaintiff became a wit-
ness m his own behalf, and, having given his evidence in chief, he was
askea on cross-examination as to statements made by him to his law-
yer, on the day the goods were taken, as to trading the goods for a
note and as to the validity of the note. Due objection being made,
the witness was held not bound to answer the question.] '
Article 117.*
CLERGYMEN AND MEDICAL MEN.
Medical men2 and (probably) clergymen maybe com-
pelled to disclose communications made to them in pro-
fessional confidence.3
* See Note XLIV. [Appendix],
counsel as to the offence charged {Jones v. State, 65 Miss. 179; People
v. Gallagher, 75 Mich. 512). But a party to an action cannot be com-
pelled to testify as to knowledge, information, or belief, which he de-
rived solely from privileged communications made to him by his
attorney. Lyell v. Kennedy, L. R. 9 App. Cas. 81.]
1 [fiigler v. Reyher, 43 Ind. 112. So a patient cannot be compelled
to disclose communications made by him to his physician which the
physician could not disclose. Post v. State, 14 Ind. App. 452 ; see
next Article.]
2 Duchess of Kingston s Case, 20 S. T. 572-3. As to clergymen, see
Note XLIV. [Appendix].
8 [This is the general rule of the common law (Gr. Ev. i. § 247).
But in a number of the States of this country, a different rule has been
established by statute. In New York, e.g., it is provided that a
clergyman shall not be allowed to disclose a confession made to him
in his professional character, in the course of discipline enjoined by
the rules or practice of his religious body ( NT. Y. Code Civ. Pro. § 833 ;
see People v. Gates, 13 Wend. 311); and that a person duly authorized
to practise physic or surgery shall not be allowed to disclose any in-
formation which he acquired in attending a patient in a professional
capacity, and which was necessary to enable him to act in that
capacity (Code Civ. Pro. § 834 ; see People v. Schuyler, 106 X. Y. 298;
People x. Murphy, 101 N. Y. 126; Fisher v. Fisher, 129 N. Y. 654).
But this privilege may be waived by the person confessing or by the
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 293
Article 118.
production of title-deeds of witness not a party.
No witness who is not a party to a suit can be com-
pelled to produce his title-deeds to any property,1 or any
patient (Code Civ. Pro. § 836 ; as to what will be deemed a waiver,
see Morris v. N. Y. etc. R. Co., 148 N. Y. 88 ; Alberti v. N. Y. etc. R.
Co., 118 N. Y. 77 ; McKinney v. Grand St. etc. R. Co., 104 N. Y. 352).
This rule as to physicians applies to " information " obtained by them,
in attending a patient, by their own observation or the statements of
others, as well as to communications frcm the patient himself (Eding-
ton v. Life Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 185 ; Rcnihan v. Dennin, 103 N. Y. 573 ;
S. P. Heuston v. Simpson, 1 15 Ind. 62 ; Briesenmeister v. Knights, 81
Mich. 525 ; Gartside v. Conn. Ins. Co., 76 Mo. 446). But it does not
prevent a physician from testifying upon a trial for murder as to the
condition of the person injured whom he attended before death ensued
{Pierson v. People, 79 N. Y. 424 ; People v. Harris, 136 N. Y. 423 ; cf.
People v. West, 106 Cal. 8q); nor, in some States, does it exclude the
testimony of physicians, in probate proceedings, to show the condition
of the decedent as bearing upon his testamentary capacity, his rep-
resentatives waiving the privilege (Eraser v. Jennison, 42 Mich. 206;
Morris v. Morris, 119 Ind. 341 ; Denning v. Butcher, 91 la. 425;
Thompson v. Ish, 99 Mo. 160; N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §836; contra,
In re Flint, 100 Cal. 391).
Similar statutes have been passed in Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, California, Oregon, etc. See Conn. Ins. Co.
v. Union Trust Co., 112 U. S. 250; Gurlcy v. Park, 135 Ind. 440; Ex-
celsior Ass'n v. Riddle, 91 Ind. 84 ; Kansas City, etc. R. Co. v. Murray,
55 Kan. 336; People v. Lane, 101 Cal. 513; as to clergymen, see
Gillooley v. State, 58 Ind. 182 ; as to modes of waiver in regard to
physicians, see Lane v. Boicourt, 128 Ind. 420 ; Penn. Ins. Co. v. // 'ilcr,
100 Ind. 92 ; McConnell v. Osage, 80 la. 293 ; Mellor v. Mo. Pac. R.
Co., 105 Mo. 455 ; Carrington v. St. Louis, 89 Mo. 208 ; /// re Mullin,
no Cal. 252.]
1 Pickering v. Noyes, 1 B. & C. 263 ; Adams v. Lloyd, 3 H. & N. 351.
[It is a rule of chancery practice that a party shall not be compelled
to make discovery of his title-deeds when they simply support his own
title, but only when they support the title of his adversary; and a simi-
lar rule applies to other documents (Story, Eq. Jur. ii. § 1490 ; Thomp-
son v. Engle, 4 N. J. Eq. 271 ; Cullison v. Bossom, 1 Md. Ch. 95 ; Adams.
294 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
document the production of which might tend to crimi-
nate him, or expose him to any penalty or forfeiture; ' but
v. Porter, i Cush. 170; Machine Co. v. Batchcldcr, 68 Vt. 431). The
same rule has been applied in some States under modern statutes al-
lowing the discovery and inspection of documents (Meakings v. Crom-
well, 1 Sandf. 698 ; Shoe &* Leather Ass n v. Bailey, 17 J. & Sp. 385 ;
Stichterv. Tilhnghast, 43 Hun, 95 ; Lester v. People, 150 111. 408 ; Mass.
Pub. St. c. 167, s. 56; Wilson v. Webber, 2 Gray, 558 ; Wetherbee v.
Winchester, 128 Mass. 293; N. H. Pub. St. c. 224, s. 14 (ed. 1891); but
see Seligman v. Real Est. Trust Co., 20 Abb. N. C. 210; Thebaudv.
Hume, 15 N. Y. S. 664; Herbage v. Utica, 109 N. Y. 81).
A person not a party to an action may by subpoena duces tecum be re-
quired to produce his private papers in evidence that are relevant to
the issue, if they do not tend to criminate him or expose him to a pen-
alty or forfeiture (Wh. Ev. i.§ 537 ; Burnham v. Morrissey, 14 Gray,
226, 240 ; In re Dunn, 9 Mo. App. 255 ; U. S. v. Tilden, 10 Ben. 566 ;
cf. Davenbagh v. M'Kinnie, 5 Cow. 27 (deed); Lane v. Cole, 12 Barb.
680 (docket book); Bonestecl v. Lynde, 8 How. Pr. 226, 352 (party
subpeenaed to produce lease and inventory); Wertheim v. Continental
R. Co., 15 F. R. 716 (corporate books); Johnson Co. v. North Branch
Co., 48 F. R. 191 (drawings containing valuable trade secrets as to a
process of manufacture). Liut the court may relieve him from the
obligation of giving them in evidence (though he must bring them into
court), if this would be prejudicial to his rights and interests ; of this
the court is to judge upon inspection (Gr. Ev. i. § 246 ; MiichelVs Case,
12 Abb. Pr. 249, 259 ; In re C Toole, 1 Tucker, 39 ; Bull v. Love land,
10 Pick. 9 ; so now as to a. party, Bonesteelv. Lynde, 8 How. Pr. 226, 233 ;
Champlin v. Stoddart, 17 W. D. 76; cf. Pynchon v. Day, 18 111. App.
1 47 ; Moats v. Rymer, 1 8 W. Va. 642 ; Robinson v. Phila. R. Co. , 28 F. R.
340). Trade secrets have been protected from disclosure, when dis-
closure was not necessary for the determination of the matter before
the court. Dobson v. Graham, 49 F. R. 17; Moxie Co. v. Beach, 35
F. R. 465.]
1 Whitaker v. Izod, 2 Tau. 115. [Byass v. Sullivan, 21 How. Pr. 50 ;
Lawson v. Boyden, 160 111. 613 ; Boyle v. Smithman, 146 Pa. 255 ; John-
son v. Donaldson, 18 Blatch. 287. The seizure or compulsory produc-
tion of a man's private papers, to be used as evidence against him in
a prosecution for a crime, penalty, or forfeiture, is prohibited by the
U. S. Constitution (Boyd v. U. S., 1 16 U. S. 616 ; cf. Slate v. Grisivold,
67 Ct. 307), and also by State Constitutions (Lester \. People, 150 111.
408; cf. People v. Spiegel, 143 N. Y. 107; State v. Pomeroy, 130 Mo.
489 ; State v. Davis, 108 Mo. 666). In this last case, however, this rule
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 29$
a witness is not entitled to refuse to produce a document
in his possession only because its production may expose
him to a civil action,1 or because he has a lien 2 upon it.3
Article 119.
production" of documents which another person, having
possession, could refuse to produce.
No solicitor,4 trustee, or mortgagee can be compelled to
produce (except for the purpose of identification) docu-
ments in his possession as such, which his client, cestui
que trust, or mortgagor would be entitled to refuse to pro-
duce if they were in his possession ; nor can any one who
is entitled to refuse to produce a document be compelled
to give oral evidence of its contents.5
was held not applicable to physicians' prescriptions, which a State
statute required druggists to preserve ; this was because they were
deemed, under the statute, to be public, and not private, papers.]
1 Doe v. Date, 3 Q. B. 609, 618. [Wh. Ev. i. § 537 ; Bull v. Loveland,
10 Pick. 9.]
2 Hope v. Liddell, 7 De G. M. & G. 331; Hunter \. Leathley, 10 B.
& C. 858 ; Brassington v. Brassington, 1 Sim. & Stu. 455. It has been
doubted whether production may not be refused on the ground of a
lien as against the party requiring the production. This is suggested
in Brassington v. Brassington, and was acted upon by Lord Den-
man in Kemp v. King, 2 Mo. & Ro. 437 ; but it seems to be opposed to
Hunter v. Leathley, in which a broker who had a lien on a policy for
premiums advanced was compelled to produce it in an action against
the underwriter by the assured who had created the lien. See Ley v.
Barlow (Judgt. of Parke, B.) 1 Ex. 801. [See Morley v. Green, 11 Pai.
240 ; Bull v. Loveland, 10 Pick. 9.]
3 [Mr. Stephen ends Art. 118 as follows: "No bank is compellable
to produce the books of such bank, except in the case provided for in
Art. 37 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 11)." See Note XLIX., Appendix.]
4 Volant v. Soyer, 13 C. B. 231 ; Phelps v. Prew, 3 E. & B. 431. [Bur-
sill v. Tanner, 16 Q. B. D. 1.]
5 Davies v. Waters, 9 M. & W. 608 ; Few v. Guppy, 13 Beav. 454.
[Formerly when a party to a suit could not be required to give evi-
dence, his legal adviser could likewise not be compelled to produce
296 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
Article 120.
WITNESS NOT TO BE COMPELLED TO CRIMINATE HIMSELF.
No one is bound to answer any question if the answer
thereto would, in the opinion of the judge, have a tend-
in evidence a deed or other document entrusted to him by his client,
nor to disclose its contents. Notice to produce might be given him
(see Art. 72, ante), and he might be examined as to the existence of
the paper, and as to its being in his possession, so as to enable the
other party to give secondary evidence of its contents (Gr. Ev. i. § 241 ;
Mitchell's Case, 12 Abb. Pr. 249, 258; Coveney v. Tannahill, 1 Hill,
33 ; Durkee v. Leland, 4 Vt. 612 ; Lessee of Rhoades v. Selin, 4 Wash.
C. C. 715 ; Stokoe v. St. Paul, etc. R. Co., 40 Minn. 545); and the same
rule was applied to the agent of a party, as e. g., an officer of a cor-
poration (Bank of Utica v. Hillard, 5 Cow. 419 ; Westcott v. Atlantic
Co., 3 Met. 282). In equity, however, it has been the rule that a party
might, in some cases, be required to make discovery of his deeds and
papers (see p. 293, note 1, ante), and, therefore, that his attorney would,
in such cases, be bound to produce them, if they were in the latter's
possession ( Wakeman v. Bailey, 3 Barb. Ch. 482). And now that by
modern statutes parties may be subpoenaed (see Art. 72, ante), it is in
like manner declared that whatever papers a party must produce, his
attorney must produce if he has them (Mitchell's Case, supra; An-
drews v. Ohio, etc. R. Co., 14 Ind. 169 ; In re IVhitlock, 15 N. Y. Civ. Pro.
R. 204 ; Harrisburgh Car Co. v. Sloan, 120 Ind. 156; Steed v. Cruise,
70 Ga. 168 ; cf . Moats v. Rymer, 18 W. Va. 642 ; Hoyt v. Jackson, 3 Dem.
388 ; Prelford's Appeal, 48 Ct. 247); and so an officer of a corporation
may be required to produce the corporate books and papers ( Wertheim
v. Continental R. Co.,l$ F.R.716; seep. 193, note \,ante). A client can-
not combine with his attorney to keep papers from being produced by
putting them in the latter's possession (People v. Sheriff, 29 Barb. 622 ;
Edison Electric Co. v. U. S. Electric Co., 44 F. R. 294 ; Trustees v.
Blount, 70 Ga. 779). But papers which are professional communica-
tions are still protected (Mitchell's Case, supra ; Mallory v. Benja-
min, 9 How. Pr. 419 ; Hubbcll v.Judd Oil Co., 19 Alb. L. J. 97 ; Arnold
v. Chesebrough, 41 F. R. 74 ; Liggett v. Glenn, 51 F. R. 381; Daven-
port Co. v. Pa. R. Co., 166 Pa. 480 ; Pearce v. Foster, 15 Q. B. D. 114;
and see p. 293, note \,ante). In a criminal case an attorney cannot be
compelled by the prosecution to produce papers entrusted to him by
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. . 297
ency to expose the witness,1 (or the wife or husband of
his client, to be used as evidence against the client (Comm. v. Moyer,
15 Phila. 397 ; Anonymous, 8 Mass. 370).
The agents of a telegraph company are bound to produce telegraphic
messages upon a subpcena duces tecum. Ex parte Brown, 72 Mo. 83 ;
State v. Litchfield, 58 Me. 267; In ?-e Storror, 63 F. R. 564 ; cf. Ex parte
Jaynes, 70 Cal. 638 ; see p. 193, note I, ante.]
1 R. v. Boyes, 1 B. & S. 330 ; followed and approved in Ex parte Rey-
nolds, 20 Ch. D. 298, by the Court of Appeal. [Gr. Ev. i.§§ 451-453; Wh.
Ev-'-§§533-54r; N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §837; People v. Forbes, 143 N.Y.
219 ; Comm. v. Trider, 143 Mass. 180; Eckstein 's Petition, 148 Pa. 509;
Temple v. Comm., 75 Va. 892. The rule applies though the testimony
of the witness would only tend to criminate him or would only furnish
a link in a chain of evidence which might lead to his conviction (Id. ;
Illustration (a); State v. Simmons Co., 109 Mo. 118; Stevens v. Slate,
50 Kan. 712 ; Ex parte Boscowitz, 84 Ala. 463). The privilege is that
of the witness and not of the party to the suit, and may be waived
by the witness (Cloyes v. Thayer, 3 Hill, 564 ; Comm. v. Shaw, 4 Cush.
594 ; State • v. Wetitworth, 65 Me. 234; Chesapeake Club v. State, 63 Md.
446; Samuel v. People, 164 111. 379; State v. Van Winkle, 80 la. 15),
and ceases to exist if a criminal prosecution against him is barred by
the Statute of Limitations (Wh. Ev. i. § 540 ; Childs v. Merrill, 66 Vt.
302 ; Lamscn v. Boyden, 160 111. 613 ; Mahanke v. Cleland, 76 la. 401 ;
cf. Southern Ry. News Co. v. Russell, 91 Ga. 808), or if some statute,
requiring criminating evidence to be given in certain cases, affords
to the witness, in return, absolute immunity from prosecution (Brown
w.Walker, 161 U. S. 591; State w.Nowell, 58 N. H. 314 ; Emery s Case,
107 Mass. 172 ; People v. Forbes, 143 N. Y. 219 ; Ex parte Cohen, 104
Cal. 524); the privilege is not lost, however, if the statute simply pro-
vides that the criminating evidence cannot afterwards be used against
the witness (Id.; Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U. S. 547 ; Kendrick v.
Comm., 78 Ya. 490 ; but see People v. Kelley, 24 N. Y. 74 ; Comm. v. Bell,
145 Pa. 374). The privilege is not always to be allowed when claimed,
but only when it appears to the court from the nature of the examina-
tion that the witness is exposed to danger if he should be compelled
to answer ; but this appearing, he need not show how the answer will
criminate him (Ex parte Reynolds, 20 Ch. D. 294 ; Youngs v. Youngs, 5
Redf. 505 ; La Fontaine v. Underwriters, 83 N. C. 132 ; see Illus-
tration (b); Friess v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 67 Hun, 205 ; La?nb v. Minister,
10 Q. B. D. no). If the witness discloses without objection part of a
transaction criminating him, it is the general American rule that he
must disclose the whole (Com m. v. Pratt, 126 Mass. 462; People v.
Freshour, 55 Cal. 375 ; Coburn v. Odell, 30 N. H. 540 ; State v. Fay, 43
298 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
the witness), to any criminal charge, or to any penalty or
forfeiture ' which the judge regards as reasonably likely
to be preferred or sued for ; * but no one is excused from
la. 651 ; State v. Nichols, 29 Minn. 357 ; see Youngs v. Youngs, supra ;
Samuel v. People, 164 111. 379), unless the partial disclosure is made
under innocent mistake {Mayo v. Mayo, 1 19 Mass. 290). But in Eng-
land a partial statement does not forfeit the privilege {R. v. Garbett,
1 Den. C. C. 236 ; S. P. Chesapeake Club v. State, 63 Md. 446). Testi-
mony given under compulsion of the court, contrary to the privilege,
cannot be used against the witness {Horstman v. Kaufman, 97 Pa.
147 ; see Art. 23, ante).
When a defendant, in a criminal trial, voluntarily becomes a witness
in his own behalf, it is held in many States that he thereby waives his
privilege as to criminating himself and maybe cross-examined upon all
facts relevant to the issue (Comm. v. Nichols, 114 Mass. 285 ; State v.
Ober, 52 N. H. 459; State v. Witham, 72 Me. 531 ; State v. Grisivold,
67 Ct. 307 ; People v. Tice, 131 N. Y. 65 1 ; Disque v. State, 49 N. J. L. 249 ;
Thomas v. State, 103 Ind. 419; State v. Wells, 54 Kan. 161 ; State v.
Thomas, 98 N. C. 599; Thomas v. State, 100 Ala. 53 ; see Comm. v.
Smith, 163 Mass. 431 ; Este v. Wilshire, 44 O. St. 636). In some States,
however, the cross-examination must relate to matters as to which he
was examined in chief {People v. Wong Ah Leong, 99 Cal. 440;
State v. Graves, 95 Mo. 510 ; see Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131 ; also,
Articles 127 and 129, post).
Where a defendant, in a criminal trial, was required to stand up in
court to be identified, this was held not to be a violation of the rule
that no person shall be required to give evidence against himself in a
criminal case. People \. Gardner, 144N. Y. 119; but see Cooper v.
State, 86 Ala. 610 ; cf. O'Brien v. State, 125 Ind. 38 ; Williams v. State,
98 Ala. 52 ; Myers v. State, 97 Ga. 99; see p. 177, note, ante.}
1 [See page 294, note 1, ante.]
3 As to husbands and wives, see 1 Hale, P. C. 301 ; R. v. Cliviger, 2
T. R. 263 ; Cartwrightv. Green, 8 Ves. 405 ; R. v. Bathivick, 2 B. & Ad.
639 ; R. v.AH Saints, Worcester, 6 M. & S. 194. These cases show that
even under the old law which made the parties and their husbands
and wives incompetent witnesses, a wife was not incompetent to
prove matter which might tend to criminate her husband. R. v.
Cliviger assumes that she was, and was to that extent overruled. As
to the later law, see R. v. Halliday, Bell, 257. The cases, however,
do not decide that if the wife claimed the privilege of not answering
she would be compelled to do so, and to some extent they suggest
that she would not. [See State v. Briggs, 9 R. I. 361 ; State v.Bridg-
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 299
answering any question only because the answer may
establish or tend to establish that he owes a debt, or is
otherwise liable to any civil suit, either at the instance of
the Crown or of any other person.1
Illustrations.
(a) [A, testifying before the grand jury in regard to a charge under
investigation by them whether certain persons had been guilty of
gambling by playing with cards for money, was asked, " Do you
know of any person playing at a game of cards for money in this
county within eighteen months past ? " He answered, " I do." The
foreman then asked him, " Whom did you see playing ? " He refused
to answer on the ground that he could not do so without giving
evidence against and tending to criminate himself. The court
adjudged him guilty of contempt for refusing to answer; but it was
held on appeal that he rightfully claimed his privilege ; that, as he
himself had played in the game with the persons to whom his first
answer related, he could not disclose their names without thereby
furnishing a link in a chain of testimony tending to establish his own
guilt.]2
(b) [A was indicted and put on trial for forgery of a promissory
note purporting to have been executed by B. The prosecuting
attorney called B as a witness, exhibited the note to him and asked
him if the name affixed was his signature. He declined to answer
because it might criminate himself, and the court excused him from
answering. The attorney then asked, " Have you ever seen this note
before?" He refused to answer for the same reason; but the court
man, 49 Vt. 202 ; Royal Ins. Co. v. Noble, 5 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 54 ; State
v. Wilson, 31 N. J. L. 77 ; Cornelius v. Hambay, 150 Pa. 359 ; State v.
Welch, 26 Me. 30 ; Comm. v. Sparks, 7 Allen, 534 ; Keep v. Griggs,
12 111. App. 511 ; State v. Vol 'lander, 57 Minn. 225 ; People v. Langtree,
64 Cal. 256 ; Woods v. Slate, 76 Ala. 35 ; p. 277, note 3, ante.]
1 46 Geo. III. c. 37. See R. v. Scott, 25 L. J. M. C. 128, 7 Cox, 164, and
subsequent cases as to bankrupts, and Ex parte Scholfield, 6 Ch. D.
230. Qucere, Is he bound to produce a document criminating himself ?
See Webb v. East, 5 Ex. D. 23 & 109. [Gr. Ev. i. § 452 ; N. Y. Code
Civ. Pro. § 837 ; In re Kip, 1 Pai. 601; Bull v. Loveland, 10 Pick. 9;
Lovvney v. Perham, 20 Me. 235 ; Lees v. U. S., 150 U. S. 476 ; Gadsden
v. Woodward, 103 N. Y. 242.]
- [Minters v. People, 139 111. 363 ; cf. Wardv. Slate, 2 Mo. 120; Peo-
ple v. Forbes, 143 N. Y. 219.]
300 A DIGEST OF [Part III,
ruled that he must answer, and he then replied, " Yes." The attorney
then asked, " When ? " and he again asserted a like claim of privilege.
The court again ruled that he must answer, and he then stated when
he saw the note. On appeal it was held that the witness was not
entitled to a privilege as respects any of the questions asked, since
there was nothing in the circumstances of the case, or in the nature
of the questions, to suggest any reasonable apprehension of danger to
him from being compelled to answer. The very nature of the offence
charged against defendant negatived the idea of the witness's being
a party to it, and there was nothing in the character of the evidence
sought to be elicited from him that would reasonably suggest any real
or appreciable danger that it would or could tend to inculpate him in
any other offence.] '
Article 121.
corroboration, when required.8
When the only proof against a person charged with
a criminal offence is the evidence of an accomplice,
1 [State v. Thaden, 43 Minn. 253, following the English rule. Some
American decisions state the rule in a different form, saying that "the
witness may be compelled to answer when he contumaciously refuses,
or when it is perfectly clear and plain that he is mistaken, or that the
answer cannot possibly injure him or tend in any degree to subject him
to the peril of prosecution. Where it is not so perfectly evident that
the answer called for cannot incriminate as to preclude all reasonable
doubt or fair argument, the privilege must be recognized and pro-
tected." People v. Forbes, 143 N. Y. 219; Janvrin v. Scamtnon, 29
N. H. 280.]
2 [Mr. Stephen begins this Article with the following special
statutory rules of the English law, (adding also another rule, which will
be found in the Appendix, Note LI 1 1.) : — " No plaintiff in any action for
breach of promise of marriage can recover a verdict, unless his or
her testimony is corroborated by some other material evidence in
support of such promise (32 & 33 Vict. c. 68 s. 2). The fact that the
defendant did not answer letters affirming that he had promised to
marry the plaintiff is not such corroboration ( Wiedemann v. Walpole,
[1891] 2 Q. B. 534).
" No order against any person alleged to be the father of a bastard
child can be made by any justices, or confirmed on appeal by any
Court of Quarter Session, unless the evidence of the mother of the
said bastard child is corroborated in some material particular to the
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 301
uncorroborated in any material particular, it is the duty
of the judge to warn the jury that it is unsafe to convict
any person upon such evidence, though they have a legal
right to do so.1
satisfaction of the said justices or court respectively (8 & 9 Vict. c.
"10, s. 6 ; 35 & 36 Vict. c. 6, s. 4)."
Generally in this country the common-law rule applies in these cases
and no corroboration is required. It has been so held as to an action
for breach of promise of marriage {Giese v. Schultz, 65 Wis. 487 ; cf.
Ho m an v. Earle, 53 N. Y. 267), and as to bastardy proceedings {State
v. Nichols, 29 Minn. 357 ; State v. McGlothlen, 56 la. 544 ; Olson v.
Peterson, 33 Neb. 358 ; People v. Lyon, 83 Hun, 303 ; State v. Tipton,
15 Mont. 74 ; for a special rule in Massachusetts and Connecticut, see
Mass. Pub. St. c. 85, s. 16 ; Leonard v. Bolton, 148 Mass. 66 ; Benton
v. Starr, 58 Ct. 285).
In some analogous cases corroboration is required. Thus in New
York and some other States, seduction under promise of marriage is
declared to be a crime, but no conviction can be had on the testimony
of the female seduced, uncorroborated by other evidence {People v.
Kearney, no N. Y. 188; Zabriskie v. State, 43 N. J. L. 640; Rice v.
Coinm., 100 Pa. 28 ; State v. McCaskey, 104 Mo. 644 ; State v. Lockerby,
50 Minn. 363 ; State v. Smith, 34 la. 522 ; La Rosae v. State, 132 Ind.
219; Mill's Case, 93 Va. 815); so in some States as to criminal pros-
ecutions for abduction, rape, and like offences (N. Y. Pen. Code, § 283;
People v. Plath, 100 N. Y. 590 ; State v. Keith, 47 Minn. 559 ; Stale v.
Grossheim, 79 la. 75); in a number of the States, however, no corrobo-
ration is required in trials for rape {State v. Dusenberry, 112 Mo.
277; State v. Juneau, 88 Wis. 180; State v. Connelly, 57 Minn. 482;
Bamett v. State, 83 Ala. 40).
So in some States it is a general rule not to grant a divorce upon the
uncorroborated testimony of the complainant (Robbins v. Robbins, 100
Mass. 150 ; Mc Shane v. Mc Shane, 45 N. J. Eq. 341 ; Cooper v. Cooper,
88 Cal. 45 ; Lewis v. Lewis, 75 la. 200 ; Rie v. Rie, 34 Ark. 37 ; contra,
Flattery v. Flattery, 88 Pa. 27; Sylvis v. Sylvis, 1 1 Col. 319), or upon the
uncorroborated confessions of the defendant {Suiiaiierbellv. Summer-
bell, 37 N. J. Eq. 603 ; Madge v. Madge, 42 Hun, 524 ; Cal. Civ. Code,
§ 130; cf. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. § 1753); so, in actions for divorce, the
evidence of prostitutes and private detectives has been held to need
corroboration {Moller v. Moller, 115 N. Y. 466 ; McCarthy v. McCar-
thy, 143 N. Y. 235 ; McGrailv. McGrail, 48 N. J. Eq. 532).
For other cases, in which corroboration is required, see Article 122.]
'i Ph. Ev. 93-101; T. E. ss. 887 891; 3 Russ. Cri. 600-611. [Gr. Ev.
302 A DIGEST OF ^ . [Part III.
Article 121 a.
claim on estate of deceased person.
Claims upon the estates of deceased persons, whether
founded upon an allegation of debt or of gift, ought not
to be maintained upon the uncorroborated testimony of
i- §§ 45. 380-382 ; State v. Woolard, 1 1 1 Mo. 248 ; State v. Patterson,
52 Kan. 335. It is held, however, in many States to be a rule of prac-
tice to warn the jury, not a rule of law, and to be discretionary with
the court ( Comm. v. Wilson, 152 Mass. 12 ; Comm. v. Bishop, 165 Mass.
148; Collins v. State, 98 111. 584; Cheatham v. State, 67 Miss. 335;
State v. Barber, 113 N. C. 711; State v. Kibling, 63 Vt. 636; Itigalls
v. State, 48 Wis. 647). Whether such warning be given or not, how-
ever, the jury may convict on the uncorroborated testimony of the
accomplice, if they are convinced by it beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant is guilty (Id.; Cox v. Comm., 125 Pa. 94 ; Hoyt v.
People, 140 111. 588 ; Ayers v. State, 88 Ind. 275 ; State v. Maney, 54 Ct.
178; People v. Gallagher, 75 Mich. 512; State v. Dana, 59 Vt. 614;
Lamb v. State, 40 Neb. 312 ; Campbell v. People, 159 111. 9). Evidence
is deemed properly corroborative which tends to connect the accused
with the commission of the crime {Comm. v. Holmes, 127 Mass. 424;
State v. Maney, 54 Ct. 178 ; State v. Donnelly, 130 Mo. 642 ; Hester v.
Comm., 85 Pa. 139; Pobison v. State, 16 Lea, 146); but some cases
say that the corroboration must be as to some material part of the
accomplice's testimony or as to some material fact {State v. Patterson,
52 Kan. 335 ; Slate v. Dana, 59 Yt. 614 ; U. S. v. Howell, 56 F. R. 20).
In a number of the States it is provided by statute that no convic-
tion can be had on the testimony of an accomplice, unless there be
corroborative evidence tending to connect the defendant with the com-
mission of the crime {People v. Elliott, 106 N. Y. 288 ; People v. May-
hew, 150 N. Y. 346 ; State v. Van Winkle, 80 la. 15 ; Malachi v. State,
89 Ala. 134 ; State v. J 'aughan, 58 Ark. 353 ; State v.farvis, 18 Or. 360 ;
People v. Armstrong, 1 14 Cal. 570).
Persons who, as detectives, informers, and the like, engage with
criminals in their wrongful designs and acts, with the honest purpose
of exposing them and bringing them to justice, are not accomplices,
within the above rules, and their testimony does not need corrobora-
tion, unless otherwise open to question (Gr. Ev. i. § 382 ; State v. Mc-
Kean, 36 la. 343 ; People v. Bolanger, 71 Cal. 17 ; Comm. v. Hollister,
157 Pa. 13 ; State v. Hoxsie, 15 R. I. 1 ; Comm. v. Ingersoll, 145 Mass.
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 303
the claimant, unless circumstances appear or are proved
which make the claim antecedently probable, or throw
the burden of disproving- it on the representatives of the
deceased.
Illustrations.
(a) A, a widow, swore that her deceased husband gave her plate,
etc., in his house, but no circumstances corroborated her allegation.
Her claim was rejected.1
(b) A, a widow, claimed the rectification of a settlement drawn by
her husband the night before their marriage, and giving him advan-
tages which, as she swore, she did not mean to give him, and were
not explained to her by him. Her claim was admitted though un-
corroborated.2
Article 122.
number of witnesses.
In trials for high treason, or misprision of treason, no
one can be indicted, tried, or attainted (unless he pleads
guilty) except upon the oath of two lawful witnesses,
231); so persons forced into criminal acts are not accomplices {People
v. Miller, 66 Cal. 468 ; cf. U. S. v. Thompson, 31 F. R. 331).
Upon the mxx\m falsus in uno,falsus in omnibus, the testimony of a
witness who' has wilfully and knowingly sworn falsely as to a material
point may be disregarded by the jury unless corroborated {State v.
Martin, 124 Mo. 514 ; City of Sandwich v. Dolan, 141 111. 430; People
v. Clark, 84 Cal. 573 ; Judge v. Jordan, 81 la. 5 19 ; Cole v. Lake Shore,
etc. R. Co., 95 Mich, yj ; Schmitt v. Milwaukee R. Co., 89 Wis. 195 ;
Moett v. People, 85 N. Y. 373 ; Lemmon v. Moore, 94 Ind. 40). But it is
not a rule of law that they must so disregard it ( Id. ; Comm. v. Billings,
97 Mass. 405; Hoge v. People, 117 111. 35; Hillman v. Schwenk,6&
Mich. 293 ; Ala. etc. R. Co. v. Frazier, 93 Ala. 45 ; Bonnie v. Earl I,
12 Mont. 239 ; but see People v. Paulsell, 115 Cal. 6). The rule applies
to parties, when they testify, as well as to other witnesses. People v.
Petmecky, 99 N. Y. 415 ; Siebert v. People, 143 111. 571.]
1 Finch v. Finch, 23 Ch. D. 267. [See Devlin v. Greenwich Sav. Bk.,
125 N. Y. 756 ; Dills v. Stevenson, 17 N. J. Eq. 407 ; Natch v. Atkin-
son, 56 Me. 324.]
2 Lovesy v. Smith, 1 5 Ch. D. 655. In re Gartiett, Gandy v. Macaulay,
304 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
cither both of them to the same overt act, or one of them
to one and another of them to another overt act of the
same treason.1 If two or more distinct treasons of divers
heads or kinds are alleged in one indictment, one witness
produced to prove one of the said treasons and another
witness produced to prove another of the said treasons
are not to be deemed to be two witnesses to the same
treason a within the meaning of this Article.3
If upon a trial for perjury the only evidence against
the defendant is the oath of one witness contradicting
the oath on which perjury is assigned,4 and if no cir-
31 Ch. D. 1, is a similar case. In In re Hodgson, Beckett v. Ramsdale,
31 Ch. D. p. 183, the language of Hannen, J., in words somewhat re-
laxes the rule, but not, I think, in substance. [The ground of the
decision in Lovesy v. SmitJi was that the husband should have ex-
plained to the wife, in the clearest terms, the provision in his favor,
and that as the settlement, on its face, was not such as the court
would have sanctioned in the absence of agreement, the burden of
proof was on the husband's representatives. Cf. Fanner s Excr. v.
Farmer, 39 N. J. Eq. 211.]
1 [The law of this country is somewhat different, the U. S. Constitu-
tion (Art. 3, s. 3) providing that " no person shall be convicted of
treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt
act, or on confession in open court." A similar provision is found in
many of the State Constitutions as to treason against the State. Gr.
Ev. i. §255.]
3 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 3, ss. 2, 4. [Gr. Ev. i. § 256.]
3 [At this point Mr. Stephen adds the following special rule of the
English law : " This provision does not apply to cases of high treason
in compassing or imagining the Queen's death, in which the overt act
or overt acts of such treason alleged in the indictment are, assas-
sination or killing of the Queen, or any direct attempt against her life,
or any direct attempt against her person, whereby her life may be
endangered, or her person suffer bodily harm, or to misprision of such
treason. 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 93."]
4 3 Russ. on Crimes, 77-86. [Perjury may be proved by the testi-
mony of two witnesses, or by that of one witness supplemented by
evidence of corroborating circumstances ; but not by the uncorrobo-
rated testimony of one witness (Gr. Ev. i. §§ 257-259 ; Williams v.
Chap. XV.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 305
cumstances are proved which corroborate such witness,
the defendant is entitled to be acquitted.1
Comm., 91 Pa. 493 ; People v. Wells, 103 Cal. 631 ; State v. Hawkins,
115 N. C. 712 ; U. S. v. Hall, 44 F. R. 864 ; State v. Jean, 42 La. Ann.
946 ; Thomas v. State, 51 Ark. 138 ; Brookin v. Stale, 27 Tex. App. 701 ;
Peo/>le v. Stone, 32 Hun, 41; Stale v. Heed, 57 Mo. 252; Comm. v.
Parker, 2 Cush. 212) ; so documentary evidence alone may suffice U>
prove perjury {U. S. v. Wood, 14 Pet. 430). But proof that the ac-
cused, on two different occasions, swore to contradictory statements is
not sufficient. Freeman v. State, 19 Fla. 552 ; U. S. v. Mayer, Deady,
127]
1 [It is a chancery rule that where a bill is so framed as to compel
an answer on oath and such answer denies the allegations of the bill,
the uncorroborated evidence of one witness in support of the bill will
not be sufficient basis for a decree (Gr. Ev. i. § 260 ; Morris v. White,
36 N. J. Eq. 324 ; Jones v. Abraham, 75 Va. 466 ; Smith v. Ewing,
151 Pa. 256; Southern Development Co. v. Silva, 125 U. S. 247;
Deimelv. Brown, 136 111. 586 ; cf. Shackelford v. Brown, 72 Miss. 380).
But in New York and some other States this rule no longer exists
(Stilwell v. Carpenter, 62 N. Y. 639 ; Quertermous v. Taylor, 62 Ark.
598).
After some doubt, it is now held that a usage of business may be
established by the testimony of one witness. Robinson v. U. S., 13
Wall. 363 ; Bissell v. Campbell. 54 N. Y. 353 ; Jones v. Hoey, 128 Mass.
585 ; Adams v. Pittsburgh Ins. Co., 95 Pa. 348; Woottersv.Kauffman,
67 Tex. 488.]
3o6 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
CHAPTER XVI.
OF TAKING ORAL EVIDENCE, AND OF THE
EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
Article 123.
evidence to be upon oath, except in certain cases.
All oral evidence given in any proceeding must be given
upon oath, except as is stated in this and the following
Article.1
Every person objecting to being sworn, and stating,
as the ground of such objection, either that he has no
religious belief, or that the taking of an oath is contrary
to his religious belief, may make his solemn affirmation,
which is of the same force and effect as if he had taken
the oath, and if, having made such affirmation, he wil-
fully and corruptly gives false evidence, he is liable to
be punished as for perjury.
Such affirmation must be as follows: —
" I, A. B., do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and
affirm,"
and then proceed with the words of the oath prescribed
by law, omitting any words of imprecation or calling to
witness.2
1 [The "following Article" (Art. 123 a) contains a special statutory
rule of the English law. It will be found in the Appendix, Note
LIIL]
2 51 & 52 Vict. c. 46, the Oaths Act, 1888, which repeals the previous
enactments on the subject. [Provisions similar to those set forth in
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 307
Where an oath has been duly administered and taken,
the fact that the person to whom the same was adminis-
tered had, at the time of taking such oath, no religious
belief, does not for any purpose affect the validity of such
oath.1
Article 124.
form of oaths ; by whom they may be administered.
Oaths are binding- which are administered in such
form and with such ceremonies as the person sworn
declares to be binding.2
this Article have been generally adopted in this country by statute.
Thus it is provided in the U. S. Revised Statutes (s. 1) that "the re-
quirement of an 'oath* shall be deemed complied with by making
affirmation in judicial form." So in New York, a solemn declaration
or affirmation, in the following form, is administered to a person who
declares that he has conscientious scruples against taking an oath :
"You do solemnly, sincerely, and truly, declare and affirm," etc. (Code
Civ. Pro. § 847). Other States have like provisions. Under such
laws a wilful false oath or affirmation constitutes perjury. Id. § 851 ;
U. S. Rev. St. s. 5392.]
1 51 & 52 Vict. c. 46, s. 3.
2 1 & 2 Vict. c. 105. For the old law, see Omichundv. Barker, I
S. L. C. 455. [See Attorney General v. BradlaugJi, 14 Q. B. D. 667.
By the regular common-law form, the oath is administered upon
the Gospels, the witness kissing the book, the usual formula repeated
to him being, " You do swear that," etc. " So help you God." But
often, nowadays, the witness, instead of kissing the book, simply
raises his hand while taking the oath. But the rule stated in this
Article is everywhere accepted [McKinney v. People, 7 111. 540; Green
v. State, 7 1 Ga. 487 ; Comm.v. Buzzell, 16 Pick. 153). Thus a Mo-
hammedan may be sworn on the Koran, a Brahmin or a Chinaman by
the peculiar methods used in their countries, etc. (People v. Jack-
son, 3 Park. Cr. 590 ; State v. Chiagk, 92 Mo. 395 ; Central, etc. R.
Co. v. Rockafellow, 17 111. 541; Bow v. People, 160 111. 438; New-
man v. Newman, 7 N. J. Eq. 26). But if such persons take the
usual form of oath without objection, they are liable for perjury, if
308 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
Any person to whom an oath is administered, who so
desires, may be sworn with uplifted hand in the form
and manner usual in Scotland.1
Every person now or hereafter having- power by law
or by consent of parties to hear, receive, and examine
evidence, is empowered to administer an oath to all su 1
witnesses as are lawfully called before him.2
Article 125.
how oral evidence may be taken.
Oral evidence may be taken3 (according to the law
relating to civil and criminal procedure) —
In open court upon a final or preliminary hearing ;4
they wilfully swear falsely (Gr. Ev. i. § 371; Comm. v. Jarboe, 89
Ky. 143)-
In many States, these general rules, more or less modified, are pre-
scribed by statute (see N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 845-851 ; Mass. Pub.
St. c. 169, ss. 13-18 ; Me. R. S. c. 82, s. 103 ; 111. R. S. c. 101 ; 2 How. St.
(Mich.) ss. 7537-7539). If an oath be administered substantially in
the form prescribed by statute, it is valid, and the witness will be guiky
of perjury if he wilfully swears falsely. State v. Mazon, 90 N. C. 676 ;
State v. Dayton, 23 N. J. L. 49 ; see People v. Cook, 8 N. Y. 67, 84.]
1 51 & 52 Vict. c. 46, s. 5. [See p. 307, note 2, ante.]
2 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 16. [Similar statutes are generally in force in
this country. See U. S. Rev. St. ss. 101, 183, 474, 1778, etc.; N. Y. Code
Civ. Pro. § 843 ; Mass. Pub. St. c. 169, ss. 7, 12.]
3 As to civd procedure, see Order xxxvii. to Judicature Act of
1875 I Wilson, pp. 264-7. As to criminal procedure, see 11 & 12 Vict.
c. 42, for preliminary procedure, and the rest of this chapter for final
hearings.
4 [As to preliminary hearings in criminal cases, there are statutes in
force in the several States of this country, providing for an examina-
tion before a magistrate into the circumstances of a charge against an
accused person, and the prisoner may be examined, as well as witnesses
for and against him (Bishop's New Cr. Pro. §§ 225-239 ; N. Y. Code Cr.
Pro. §§ 188-221; see Art. 23, ante, and notes). So in civil cases, stat-
utes in some States provide for the examination before trial of the
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 309
Or out of court for future use in court —
(a) upon affidavit,
(b) under a commission,1
parties to a cause, or of other persons whose testimony is material and
necessary and may otherwise be lost (see N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 870-
886 ; Mass. Pub. St. c. 167, ss. 49-60); but the examination of a party
to an action before trial is not permissible in actions at law in the
Federal courts. Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713.]
1 The law as to commissions to take evidence is as follows : The root
of it is 13 Geo. III. c. 63. Section 40 of this Act provides for the issue
of a commission to the Supreme Court of Calcutta (which was first es-
tablished by that Act) and the corresponding authorities at Madras
and Bombay to take evidence in cases of charges of misdemeanor
brought against governors, etc., in India in the Court of Queen's
Bench, S. 42 applies to parliamentary proceedings, and s. 44 to civil
cases in India. These provisions have been extended to all the col-
onies by 1 Will. IV. c. 22, and so far as they relate to civil proceedings
to the world at large. 3 & 4 Vict. c. 105, gives a similar power to the
courts at Dublin. See as to cases in which commissions will not be
granted, /;/ re Boyse, Crofton v. Crofton, 20 Ch. D. 760 ; and Berdan
v. Greenwood, Id., in note, 764 ; also Langer v. Tate, 24 Ch. D. 322 ;
Lawson v. Vacuum Brake Co., 27 Ch. D. 137.
[There are statutes in the several States of this country, providing
for the issuing of commissions by a court or judge, by which commis-
sioners are appointed to take the depositions of witnesses in other
States or countries, for use in the particular State issuing the commis-
sion. The courts of the foreign jurisdiction will usually aid such com-
missioners in obtaining the desired testimony, by compelling witnesses
to come before them, etc., either upon principles of comity, or in ac-
cordance with their own local statutes making this their duty. An-
other mode of obtaining such evidence is by the issuing of " letters
rogatory," which are in the form of a letter missive from a domestic
to a foreign court, requesting it to procure and return the desired tes-
timony, under promise of a like favor when required (Gr. Ev. i. § 320).
Sometimes foreign courts will comply with such a request, but will not
aid commissioners, and then the use of letters rogatory is necessary ;
but the usual practice is to issue a commission. See U. S. Rev. St.
ss. 863-876: N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §§887-920; Mass. Pub. St. c. 169,
ss. 23-64 ; 2 How. St. (Mich.) ss. 7433-7447 ; Anonymous, 59 N. Y. 313 ;
Stein v. Bowman, 13 Pet. 209; Cortes Co. v. Tannhauser, 18 F. R.
667.]
310 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
(c) ' before any officer of the court or any other person
or persons, appointed for that purpose by the
court or a judge [under due legal authority, or
designated by statute, or selected by agreement
of the parties.] 2
Oral evidence taken in open court must be taken
according to the rules contained in this chapter relating
to the examination of witnesses.
Oral evidence taken under a commission must be
taken in the manner prescribed by the terms of the com-
mission.3
Oral evidence taken under a commission must be taken
in the same manner as if it were taken in open court ; 4
but the examiner has no right to decide on the validity
of objections taken to particular questions, but must
1 [This paragraph is somewhat changed from the original, and the
next one in the original is wholly omitted here, since they relate to
the special provisions of English statutes. The original paragraphs
will be found in the Appendix, Note LIII.]
2 [Commonly in this country, by the provisions of statutes or of rules
of court, persons called variously referees, auditors, commissioners,
examiners, etc., may be appointed by a judge or court to take testi-
mony and report it for the information of the court ; or such persons
may be appointed by the court or selected by the parties to act as
judges in hearing and deciding causes (see N. Y. Code Civ. Pro.
§§827,1011-1026; Mass. Pub. St. c. 159, s. 51 ; Holmes v. Turner s Falls
Co., 150 Mass. 535 ; Howe Machine Co. v. Edwards, 15 Blatch. 402);
masters in chancery perform similar duties. So statutes providing
for the taking of testimony in special cases may designate by official
name the persons before whom it may be taken. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro.
§ 899 ; U. S. Rev. St. s. 863 ; Laws of N. J. 1893, c. 100.]
3 T. E. s. 491 . [The mode of taking depositions is often prescribed by
statute or by rules of court ; it is sometimes provided that such regu-
lations shall be annexed to the depositions (see U. S. Rev. St. ss. 863-
868 ; Rules of the Federal Courts ; N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 900-909).
It is a general rule that such regulations must be carefully and pre-
cisely followed.]
4 T. E. s. 1283. [See last note.]
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 311
record the questions, the fact that they were objected to,
and the answers given.'
If secondary evidence of the contents of any document
is not objected to on the taking of a commission, it can-
not be objected to afterwards.2
Oral evidence given on affidavit must be confined to
such facts as the witness is able of his own knowledge to
prove,3 except on interlocutory motions, on which state-
ments as to his belief and the grounds thereof may be
admitted.4 The costs of every affidavit unnecessarily
setting forth matters of hearsay or argumentative mat-
1 [So it is held in New York that a referee appointed to take evi-
dence should take all that is offered, and has no power to pass upon
objections, such power belonging to the court {Scott v .Williams, 14
Abb. Pr. 70 ; Fox v. Moyer, 54 N. Y. 125). A similar rule is adopted
in the equity practice of the Federal courts as to the taking of testi-
mony by examiners (Rule 67 of the Equity Rules, U. S. Courts, 144
U. S. 689). And other States have similar practice (Brotherton v.
Brotherton, 14 Neb. 186; Estate of Howell, 14 Phila. 329; Elyton Co.
v. Denny, 108 Ala. 553 ; cf. Jones v. Keen, 1 1 5 Mass. 170). But referees,
etc., who have power to hear and determine issues, may decide upon
objections to testimony. Cincinnati v. Cameron, 33 O. St. 336 ; Lath-
rop v. Bra?nhall, 64 N. Y. 365 ; N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. § 1018.]
2 Hawksley v. Bradshaw, 5 Q. B. D. 22. [See p. 312, note 2, post.]
3 Judicature Act, 1875, Order xxxvii. 4.
4 [So in New York and some other States, affidavits upon inter-
locutory motions may contain statements upon information and belief,
but the sources of such information and the grounds of such belief
should also be stated, and the reasons why the affidavit of a person
having knowledge of the matter cannot be procured should usually ap-
pear {Howe Co. v. Pettibone, 74 N. Y. 68 ; Buell v. Van Camp, 1 19 N. Y.
160 ; Bennett v. Edwards, 27 Hun, 352 ; Clement v. Bullens, 159 Mass.
1 93 ; Peebles v. Foote, 83 N. C. 102 ; Mitchell v. Pitts, 61 Ala. 219). But
affidavits merely stating belief, or information and belief, have, in
many cases, been held insufficient (Hadley v. Watson, 143 Mass.
27; Taylor v. Wright, 121 111. 455; Inglis v. Schreiner, 58 N. J. L.
120; Hackett v. Judge, etc., 36 Mich. 334; Murphy v. Purdy, 13
Minn. 422; Garner v. White, 23 O. St. 192; Thompson v. Higgin-
botham, 18 Kan. 42).
Ex parte affidavits are evidence on'y when made so by some statute
312 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
ter, or copies of or extracts from documents, must be
paid by the party filing- them.1
a When a deposition, or the return to a commission, or
an affidavit, or evidence taken before an examiner, is
used in any court as evidence of the matter stated therein,
the party against whom it is read may object to the
reading of anything therein contained on any ground on
which he might have objected to its being stated by a
{People v. Walsh, 87 N. Y. 481 ; Bookman v. Stegman, 105 N. Y. 621).
As to the difference between an affidavit and a deposition, see Stimp-
son v. Brooks, 3 Blatch. 456.]
1 [An attorney who draws an affidavit is liable for costs if it contains
irrelevant and scandalous matter, which is stricken out on motion.
McVey v. Cantrell, 8 Hun, 522 ; cf. Pitcher v. Clark, 2 Wend. 631.]
2 T. E. s. 491. Hutchinson v. Bernard, 2 Mo. & Ro. 1. [It is a general
rule in this country that, if opportunity exists for so doing, objections
to a deposition in respect to matters of form, or on the ground that it
was irregularly or improperly taken, or that fraud was practised, etc.,
should be raised when the interrogatories are framed, or upon the
examination of the witness under the commission, or upon a motion
to suppress the deposition ; but objections to the competency of the
witness, or to the relevancy or competency of any question or answer,
may be made when the deposition is read in evidence ( York Co. v.
Central R. Co., 3 Wall. 107; Howard \ . Stillwell, etc. Co., 139 U. S.
199 ; N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 910, 91 1 ; Newton v. Porter, 69 N. Y. 133 ;
Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 2 Gray, 279; Leavitt v. Baker, 82
Me. 26; Pence v. Waugh, 135 Ind. 143; Stowell v. Moore, 89 111.
563; Horseman v. Todhunter, 12 la. 230; Barnum v. Bar/nun, 42
Md. 251). Objections to questions as leading relate to form, and
should be taken before the trial (Akers v. Demond, 103 Mass. 318;
Hazlewood v. Haninway, 3 T. & C. 787 ; Crowell v. Western Re-
serve Bk., 3 O. St. 406; Hill v. Canfield, 63 Pa. y,\ Chambers v.
Hunt, 22 N. J. L. 552).
Answers in the deposition whicn are not responsive may be objected
to on the trial by either party (Lansing v. Coley, 13 Abb. Pr. 272 ;
Greenman v. O'Connor, 25 Mich. 30; Kingsbury v. Moses, 45 N. H.
222). And where a party uses a deposition taken by his opponent,
he makes it his own, and such opponent has the same right of ob-
jection to the questions and answers as if the deposition had been
taken by the party offering it (Hatch v. Brown, 63 Me. 410; hi re
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 313
witness examined in open court, provided that no one is
entitled to object to the reading of any answer to any
question asked by his own representative on the execu-
tion of a commission to take evidence.
Article 126.*
examination in chief, cross-examination, and
re-examination.
Witnesses examined in open court must be first exam-
ined in chief, then cross-examined, and then re-examined.1
* See Note XLV. [Appendix].
Smith, 34 Minn. 436 ; see Rucker v. Reid, 36 Kan. 468 ; Little v.
Edwards, 69 Md. 499); so he may contradict the witness as if the lat-
ter were the witness of the party reading the deposition {Bloomington
v. Osterle, 139 111. 120).
Though a witness's deposition has been taken, yet if at the time of
the trial he is present and is ready and able to testify, his personal
testimony is, by the law of many States, deemed preferable, and the
deposition is inadmissible {Neilson v. Hartford St. R. Co., 67 Ct. 466 ;
Whitfordv. Clark Co., 119 U. S. 522 ; Haywardv. Barron, 38 N. H.
366; contra, Hedges v. Williams, 33 Hun, 546; Scott v. Indianapolis
Wagon Works, 48 Ind. 75.]
1 [The court may, in its discretion, order witnesses to withdraw from
the court-room, so that they may not hear each other's testimony
{Comm. v. Follansbee, 155 Mass. 274 ; People v. Burns, 67 Mich. 537 ;
Slate v. Morgan, 35 W. Va. 260). If any witness disobeys the order,
this may be observed upon to the jury to affect his credibility, and he
is punishable for contempt ; but the court cannot refuse to allow him
to be examined, unless his disobedience was by the procurement, con-
nivance, or other fault of the party calling him, in which case it may
refuse or permit examination ; a party cannot, without fault on his
own part, be deprived of the testimony of the witness (Gr. Ev. i. § 432 ;
Holder v. U. S., 150 U. S. 91; Parker v. State, 67 Md. 329; State v.
Thomas, in Ind. 515 ; State v. Gesell, 124 Mo. 531; State v. Falk, 46
Kan. 498 ; Dickson v. State, 39 O. St. 73 ; Hubbard v. Hubbard, 7 Or.
42 ; People v. Boscovitch, 20 Cal. 436 ; Comm. v. Brown, 90 Va. 671;
Rooks v. State, 65 Ga. 330 ; cf. Pergason v. Etcherson, 91 Ga. 785). In
like manner, expert witnesses may be required to withdraw, though
this is rarely done ( Vance v. State, 56 Ark. 402 ; Leache v. State, 22
3U A DIGEST OF [Part III.
Whenever any witness has been examined in ehief, or
has been intentionally sworn,1 or has made a promise
and declaration as hereinbefore mentioned for the pur-
pose of giving evidence,2 the opposite party has a right
Tex. App. 279). But parties to actions, either civil or criminal, cannot
be excluded, even though they are to testify as witnesses {Mcintosh
v. Mcintosh, 79 Mich. 198; Schneider v. Haas, 14 Or. 174; Bemheim
v.Dibrell, 66 Miss. 199; Garman v. State, id. 196; Richards v. State,
91 Tenn. 723 ; cf. French v. Sale, 63 Miss. 386); nor can the guardian
of an infant party (Cottrell v. Cottrell, 81 Ind. 87); nor one having a
pecuniary interest in the suit (Simon Gregory Co. v. McMahan, 61
Mo. App. 499). Another method of excluding witnesses is to place
them under the charge of an officer of the court, to be kept by him out
of the court-room (JLey's Case, 32 Gratt. 946).
A party's failure to call a witness whom he might call does not gen-
erally raise a presumption that his testimony would be unfavorable to
such party, especially if such witness is equally accessible to both par-
ties, or his testimony would be simply cumulative (Scovillv. Baldwin,
27 Ct. 316; Bleecker v. Johnston, 69 N. Y. 309 ; State v. Fitzgerald,
68 Vt. 125 ; Coleman v. State, hi Ind. 563 ; Cross v. Lake Shore, etc.
R. Co., 69 Mich. 363 ; Kerstner v. Vorweg, 130 Mo. 196 ; Bates v. Mor-
ris, 101 Ala. 282). But where the witness's testimony would be of vital
importance in the case (as e. g., if he were the only eye-witness of the
facts), and, under the special circumstances of the case, the adverse
party has no legal right to call him, an unfavorable inference by the
jury is warranted (People v. Hovey, 92 N. Y. 554 ; Comm. v. Weber,
167 Pa. 153 ; State v. Rod/nan, 62 la. 456 ; The Fred. M. Laurence, 15
F. R. 635); and the same is true if a party fails to call a material wit-
ness who is within his control and whom he would naturally be ex-
pected to call to testify in his behalf (Kirby v. Tallmadge, 160 U. S.
379; Comm. v. McCabe, 163 Mass. 98; State v. Hogan, 67 Ct. 581;
Kenyon v. Kenyon, 88 Hun, 211; Rice v. Comm., 102 Pa. 408 ; People
v. Germaine, 101 Mich. 485 ; cf. Graves v. U. S., 150 U. S. 118 ; People
v. Sharp, 107 N. Y. 427, 465); so if a party fails to testify himself as to
vital facts peculiarly within his own knowledge. Cole v. Lake Shore,
etc. R. Co., Si Mich. 156.]
1 See cases in T. E. s. 1238.
2 [See Art. 123. As forms of affirmation different from the English
are allowed in this country, this clause will need variation to adapt it
to the local State law J
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 315
to cross-examine him;1 but the opposite party is not enti-
tled to cross-examine merely because a witness has been
called to produce a document on a subpcena duces tecum,
or in order to be identified.2 After the cross-examination
is- concluded, the party who called the witness has a right
to re-examine him.
The court may in all cases permit a witness to be
recalled either for further examination in chief or for
further cross-examination, and if it does so, the parties
have the right of further cross-examination and further
re-examination respectively.3
If a witness dies, or becomes incapable of being further
1 [In a few States of this country, a similar rule prevails, and a wit-
ness called to testify merely as to the formal execution of a written
instrument, or as to other preliminary matter, etc., may be 'cross-
examined as to all matters material to the issue {Blackington v. John-
son, 126 Mass. 21; Beat v. Nichols, 2 Gray, 262 ; Diel v. Stegner, 56
Mo. App. 535 (in civil cases); Hemmingerv. Western Assurance Co.,q$
Mich. 355 ; Huntsville, etc. R. Co. v. Corp-ening, 97 Ala. 681; Perry v.
Mulligan, 58 Ga. 479, 482 ; King v. Atkins, 33 La. Ann. 1057 (in civil
cases); Kiblerv. Mclhvain, 16 S. Car. 550). But in most States the
rule is adopted that the cross-examination must be limited to mat-
ters stated upon the direct examination. See next Article and note 1
on p. 317; Gr. Ev. i.§§ 445-447; Wh. Ev. i. § 529.]
2 [See note to 15 F. R. 726; Ailcinv. Martin, 11 Pai. 499. The
simple verification of a signature by a witness does not entitle the
adverse party to see the document or to cross-examine the witness
upon it, until it is offered in evidence. Stiles v. Allen, 5 Allen, 320;
Calderon v. O 'Donahue, 47 F. R. 39 ; Arnold v. Chesebrough, 30 F.
R. 145]
3[Shepard v. Potter, 4 Hill, 202; Williams v. Sargeant, 46 N. Y.
481 ; Continental Ins. Co. v. Delpeuch, 82 Pa. 225 ; Comm. v. McGorty,
114 Mass. 299 ; Faust v. U. S., 163 U. S. 452 ; Brown v. State, 72 Md.
468 ; Osborne v. O' Reilly, 34 N. J. Eq. 60; State v. Johnson, 89 la. t ;
Re a v. Wood, 105 CaL.314 ; Cummings v. Taylor, 24 Minn. 429. It is
a general rule that the order of proof is in the discretion of the trial
court. Plainer v. Plainer, 78 N. Y. 90 ; Hess v. Wilcox, 58 la. 380 ;
Thiede v. Utah, 159 U. S. 510; State v. Murphy, 118 Mo. I.]
316 A DIGEST OF [Part III
examined at any stage of his examination, the evidence
given before he became incapable is good.1
If in the course of a trial a witness who was supposed
to be competent appears to be incompetent, his evidence
may be withdrawn from .the jury, and the case may be
left to their decision independently of it.2
1 R. v. Doolin, i Jebb, C. C. 123. The judges compared the case to
that of a dying declaration, which is admitted though there can be no
cross-examination. [By the weight of authority in this country, if the
ieath of a witness in a common-law action precludes his cross-
examination, his testimony given on the direct examination is not ad-
mitted {People v. Cole, 43 N. Y. 508 ; S. C. 2 Lans. 370 ; Pr ingle v.
Pringle, 59 Pa. 281 ; Sperry v. Moore's Estate, 42 Mich. 353 ; see
Curtice v. West, 50 Hun, 47; cf. People v. Severance, 67 Hun, 182;
Lewis v. Eagle Ins. Co., 10 Gray, 508), unless the party having the right
to cross-examine him had the opportunity of doing so before death
occurred and did not choose to exercise it {Bradley v. Minck, 91
N. Y. 293; Celluloid Mfg. Co. v. Arlington Mfg. Co., 47 F. R. 4).
Where, however, the witness's testimony is substantially complete,
though the examination was not wholly finished, it will be received
{Fuller v. Rice, 4 Gray, 343). Where the opportunity to cross-examine
is lost by the misconduct of the witness, or through the fault of the
party introducing him, or other like cause, his evidence in chief is
rejected {Hewlett v. Wood, 67 N. Y. 394 ; Matthews v. Matthews, 53
Hun, 244 ; The facob Brandow, 33 F. R. 160).
The English rule, as stated by Mr. Stephen, has been said by some
American decisions to be applicable in equity cases (Gr. Ev. i. § 554 ;
Gass v. Stinson, 3 Sumn. 98 ; Scott v. McCann, 76 Md. 47); and there
is some judicial expression in favor of applying it also to common-law
actions {Forrest v. Kissam,'] Hill, 463 ; see Sturm v. Atlantic Ins. Co.,
63 X. Y. jj, 87 ; the N. Y. cases contain contradictory expressions).
As to the effect of cross-examination being lost by the death of a
party, see Hay's Appeal, 91 Pa. 265 ; Comins v. Hetfeld, 12 Hun, 375,
80 N. Y. 261.]
2 R. v. Whitehead, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 33. [Wh. Ev. i. § 393 \ Gr. Ev. i.
§§ 421, 422 ; Lester v. McDowell, 18 Pa. 91 ; Stale v. Damery, 48 Me.
327; Shurtleffv.Willard, 19 Pick. 202; Seeley v. Engcll, 13 N. Y.
542 ; Loveridge v. Hill, 96 N. Y. 222. But if the incompetency of the
witness is known when he is called and sworn, objection should be
made then, or it will ordinarily be deemed to be waived {Hen son v.
U. S., 1 \6 I ". S. 325 ; Monfort v. Rowland, 38 X. J. Eq. 181 ; Quin v.
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 317
.Article 127.
to what matters cross-examination and re-examination
must be directed.
The examination and cross-examination must relate
to facts in issue or relevant or deemed to be relevant
thereto, but the cross-examination need not be confined
to the facts to which the witness testified on his exami-
nation in chief.1
Lloyd, 41 N. Y. 349; Donelson v. Taylor, 8 Pick. 390; Watson v.
Riskamire, 45 la. 231; Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Stanford, 12 Kan. 354 ;
Hickman v. Green, 123 Mo. 165; Dickinson v. Buskie, 59 Wis. 136;
Smith v. Profitt, 82 Va. 832).
So incompetent or improper evidence may be stricken out or with-
drawn from the jury after it has been admitted. Stokes v \ Johnson, 57
N. Y. 673 ; Wilson v. Kings Co., 1 14 N. Y. 487 ; Beandette v. Gagne,
87 Me. 534; Spec/it v. Howard, 16 Wall. 564; Selkirk v. Cobb, 13
Gray, 313.]
1 [See p. 315, note 1, ante. But it is the rule in most of the States of
this country that the cross-examination must be limited to the matters
stated in the examination in chief ; if the party cross-examining in-
quires as to new matter, he makes the witness so far his own
{Houghton x. Jones, 1 Wall. 702 ; People v. Oyer &* Term. Court, 83
N. Y. 436; Carey v. Hart, 63 Vt. 424; State v. Smith, 49 Ct. 376;
Donnelly v. State, 26 N. J. L. 463 & 601 ; Sullivan v. Railroad Co.,
175 Pa. 361 ; Hunsinger v. Hofer, 110 Ind. 390 ; Rigdou v. Conlcy, 141
111. 565 ; Martin v. Capital Ins. Co., 85 la. 643 ; Richards v. State, 82
Wis. 172; Hurlbut v. Hull, 39 Neb. 892; People v. Van Eiuan, ill
Cal. 144 ; Miller x. Miller s Admr., 92 Va. 510; Williams v. State, 32
Fla. 315 ; Austin v. State, 14 Ark. 555 ; State v. Wright, 40 La. Ann.
589 (in criminal cases) ; as to the range of inquiry which this rule
permits, see Rohan v.Avoca Borough, 154 Pa. 404; Boyle v. State,
105 Ind. 469; Erie, etc. Dispatch v. Stanley, 123 111. 158; Glenn v.
Gleason, 61 la. 28 ; Birdseye v. Butterfield, 34 Wis. 52). The same
rule applies to parties to actions, when they become witnesses {Boyd
v. Conshohocken Mills, 149 Pa. 363; Hansen v. Miller, 145 111. 538;
but see Scliultz v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 67 Wis. 616). Some States
have special statutes applying the rule to defendants as witnesses in
criminal cases {State v. Avery, 1 1 3 Mo. 475 ; People v. Wong Ah Leong,
99 Cal. 440; cf. Slate v. Saunders, 14 Or. 300; see p. 298, note, ante). It
318 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
The re-cxamination must be directed to the explanation
of matters referred to in cross-examination; and if new
matter is, by permission of the court, introduced in
re-examination, the adverse party may further cross-
examine upon that matter.1
the bounds authorized by law for cross-examination are not exceeded,
the witness is deemed to be continually that of the party introducing
him, and the testimony which he gives, both upon the direct and the
cross-examination, is treated as evidence given in behalf of such party
{Turnbull v. Richardson, 69 Mich. 400 ; Davis v. California Powder
Works, 84 Cal. 617 ; and see cases supra).
This rule does not limit cross-examination of the kind described in
Art. 129. The rule there stated is commonly accepted doctrine. See
Rangley v. Wadsworth, 99 N. Y. 61.]
1 [Gr. Ev. i. § 467 ; Gilbert v. Sage, 5 Lans. 287, 57 N. Y. 639 ; U. S.
v. 18 Barrels, etc., 8 Blatch. 475 ; Somerville, etc. R. Co. v. Doughty,
22 N. J. L. 495 ; Farrellv. Boston, 161 Mass. 106 ; McElheny v. Pitts-
burgh, etc. R. Co., 147 Pa. 1 ; Slonerv. Devilbiss, 70 Md. 144 ; Nor-
wegian Plow Co. v. Hanthom, 71 Wis. 529. The general rule that
the re-examination must relate to matters developed on the cross-
examination is usually adhered to in practice, but still it is generally
held that the trial court may, in its discretion, allow the re-examina-
tion to extend to other matters {Kendall v. Weaver, 1 Allen, 277 ;
Clark v. Vorce, 15 Wend. 193; Springfield v. Dalby, 139 111. 34;
Blake v. Stump, 73 Md. 160 ; Schaser v. State, 36 Wis. 429 ; see People
v. Buchana/i, 145 N. Y. 1; Hemmcns v. Bentley, 32 Mich. 89). If part
of a conversation or transaction be developed on the direct or cross-
examination, the other party may, on the cross or re-direct, bring out
such other parts of the same conversation or transaction as explain or
qualify the portion already testified to, but he may not give evidence
of distinct and independent statements or matters {People v. Beach,
87 N. Y. 508 ; Nay v. Curley, 113 N. Y. 575 ; Ballew v. U. S., 160 U. S.
187, 193 ; Dole v. Wooldredge, 142 Mass. 161 ; Scott v. People, 141 111.
195 ; Walsh v. Porterfield, 87 Pa. 376 ; Oakland Ice Co. v. Maxcy, 74
Me. 294).
In some States it is held that if one party, without objection, in-
troduces irrelevant evidence which is prejudicial to the other party,
the latter may give evidence (even if this be also irrelevant) which
goes directly to contradict it (State v. Withom, 72 Me. 531 ; Mowry v.
Smith, 9 Allen, 67 ; Furbush v. Goodwin, 25 N. H. 425 ; Perry v.
Moore, 66 Vt. 519 ; Budd v. Meriden A'lec. R. Co., 69 Ct. 272 ; Mobile,
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 319
Article 128.
leading questions.
Questions suggesting- the answer which the person
putting the question wishes or expects to receive, or
suggesting disputed facts as to which the witness is to
testify, must not, if objected to by the adverse party,
be asked in examination in chief, or in re-examination,
except with the permission of the court, but such ques-
tions may be asked in cross-examination.1
etc. R. Co. v. Ladd, 92 Ala. 287 ; cf. Perkins v.Hayward, 124 Ind. 449 ;
Milbank v. Jones, 141 N. Y. 340 ; Gorsuch v. Rutledge, 70 Md. 272).
The party who opens a case must, in general, introduce all the evi-
dence to prove his side of the case before he closes ; then after his
adversary's evidence is given, he may give proof in reply or rebuttal.
But it is in the discretion of the court to permit evidence to be given
in reply which should properly have been given in chief. Marshall
v. Davies, 78 N. Y. 414 ; Young v. Edwards, 72 Pa. 257 ; Watkins v.
Rist, 68 Vt. 486; McGowan v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 91 Wis. 147;
Huntsman v. Nichols, 116 Mass. 521; Belden v. Allen, 61 Ct. 173;
Goldsby v. U. S., 160 U. S. 70 ; City of Sandwich v. Dolan, 141 111. 430 ;
People v. Cox, 70 Mich. 247 ; Lurssen v. Lloyd, 76 Md. 360; Tierney
v. Spiva, 76 Mo. 279 ; Graham v. Davis, 4 O. St. 362.]
1 [Gr. Ev. i. §§ 434, 435, 445 ; Wh. Ev. i. §§ 499-504. But such ques-
tions may be allowed to be put on the direct examination when the
witness appears hostile to the party introducing him {McBride v.
Wallace, 62 Mich. 451; Bradshaw v. Combs, 102 111. 428; Whitman
v.Morey,63 N. H. 448; State v. Benner, 64 Me. 267; St. Clair v. U. S.,
154 U. S. 150); or when the examination relates to items, dates, or
numerous details, where -the memory ordinarily needs suggestion
{Hucki7is v. People's Ins. Co., 31 N. H. 238; Graves v. Merchants' Ins.
Co., 82 la. 637) ; or when it is necessary to direct the witness's atten-
tion plainly to the .subject-matter of his testimony, etc. {People v.
Mather, 4 Wend. 229 ; Union Pac. R. Co. v. O'Brien, 49 F. R. 538 ;
Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Bair, 87 Pa. 124). It is discretionary with the
trial court whether such questions shall be permitted and judgment
will not be reversed for permitting them, unless there be a plain abuse
of discretion ( Vrooman v. Griffiths, 1 Keyes, 53 ; Northern Pac. R. Co.
v. Urlin, 158 U. S. 271; Sadder v. Keefer, 91 Mich. 611; Goudy v
32o A DIGEST OF [Part 111.
Article 129.*
questions lawful in cross-examination.
When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition
to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any
questions which tend —
(1) To test his accuracy, veracity, or credibility ;'. or
(2) To shake his credit, by injuring his character.
Witnesses have been compelled to answer such ques-
tions, though the matter suggested was irrelevant to the
matter in issue, and though the answer was disgraceful
to the witness; but it is submitted that the court has the
right to exercise a discretion in such cases, and to refuse
to compel such questions to be answered when the truth
of the matter suggested would not in the opinion of the
court affect the credibility of the witness as to the matter
to which he is required to testify.2
* See Note XL VI. [Appendix].
Werbe, 117 Ind. 154 ; Crean v. Hourigan, 158 111. 301 ; York v. Pease,
2 Gray, 282). Leading questions are legitimate on cross-examination
{U. S.v. Dickinson, 2 McL. 325 ; Helfrich v. Stein, 17 Pa. 143). A
leading question is one which suggests to the witness, and leads him
to make, the answer desired {People v. Mather, supra; Coogler v.
Rhodes, 38 Fla. 240 ; Harvey v. Osborn, 55 Ind. 535 ; People v. Parish,
4 Den. 153).
In those States where a party by cross-examining a witness as to
new matter makes the witness so far his own (see p. 317, note 1, ante),
he has no legal right to ask leading questions as to such new matter.
People v. Oyer &* Term. Court, 83 N. Y. 436 ; Harrison v. Rowan, 3
Wash. C. C. 580.]
1 [State v. Duffy, 57 Ct. 525 ; Tudor Iron Works v. Weber, 129 111.
535; Wallace x. Wallace, 62 la. 651; McFadden v. Santa Anna, etc.
R. Co., 87 Cal. 464 ; Unlade v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 67 Wis. 108.]
"{Mailer v. St. Louis Hospital Ass'n, 5 Mo. App. 390, 73 Mo. 242 ;
Carroll v. Stale, 32 Tex. App. 431. It is a well-settled doctrine in this
country that a witness may be cross-examined as to specific facts tend-
ing to disgrace or degrade him, for the purpose of impairing his credi-
bility, though these facts are purely irrelevant and collateral to the
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 321
In the case provided for in Article 120, a witness cannot
be compelled to answer such a question.
Illustrations.
(a) The question was, whether A committed perjury in swearing that
he was R. T. B deposed that he made tattoo-marks on the arm of R. T.,
which at the time of the trial were not and never had been on the
arm of A. B was asked and was compelled to answer the question
main issue ; also that the extent to which such questions may be
allowed is to be determined by the discretion of the trial court, which
commits no error unless it abuses its discretion ; that the witness may
claim the privilege of declining to answer, when the court allows such
questions, but that when answers are called for which are material to
the issue, there is no privilege (Great Western Turnpike Co. v. Loomis,
32 N. Y. 127 ; People v. Oyer &* Terminer Ct., 83 N. Y. 436 ; Huoncker
v. Merkey, 102 Pa. 462; Gutterson v. Morse, 58 N. H. 165 ; Storm v.
U. S., 94 U. S. 76 ; Smith v. State, 64 Md. 25 ; State v. Hack, 118 Mo.
92 ; Helwig v. Lascowski, 82 Mich. 619 ; Fries v. Brugler, 12 N.J. L.
79 ; Shelby v. Clagett, 46 O. St. 549 ; State v. Pfefferle, 36 Kan. 90 ;
State v. Row, 81 la. 138 ; South Bendy. Hardy, 98 Ind. 577, fully dis-
cussing the subject ; but in California and Massachusetts irrelevant
questions to affect credibility are not permitted, Barkley v. Copeland,
86 Cal. 483 ; Comm. v. Schaffner, 146 Mass. 512). The exercise of dis-
cretion is also limited by the rule that the examination as to collateral
facts should be such in its nature as to affect the witness's credibil-
ity (Id.; Langley v. Wadsworth, 99 N. Y. 61; People v. Williams, 93
Mich. 625 ; Hayward v. People, 96 111. 492 ; State v. Gleim, 17 Mont.
17). In New York it is held that questions as to his having been ac-
cused, indicted, arrested, etc., for wrongful acts are, when properly
excepted to, improper, since these facts are consistent with innocence,
and, therefore, do not in reality affect credibility (People v. Crapo, 76
N. Y. 288; Van Bokkelen v. Berdelle, 130 N. Y. 141; so in Arkansas,
Bates v. State, 60 Ark. 450 ; cf. Kitteringham v. Dance, 58 la. 566). In
a number of the States, however, such questions are held permissible,
subject to the discretion of the court (see Illustration (d)\ People v.
Foote, 93 Mich. 38 ; State v. Taylor, 1 18 Mo. 153 ; Burdette v. Comm.,
93 Ky. 76; Hillv. State, 91 Tenn. 521; State v. Murphy, 45 La. Ann.
958 ; cf. State v. Bacon, 13 Or. 143 ; Hill v. State, \2 Neb. 503 ; Sexton
v. State, 33 Tex. App. 416). These general rules apply also to parties
to actions (including defendants in criminal cases), when they become
witnesses (Sullivan v. O'Leary, 146 Mass. 322 ; People v. Webster, 139
322 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
whether, many years after the alleged tattooing, and many years be-
fore the occasion on which he was examined, he committed adultery
with the wife of one of his friends.'
(/') [On the trial of A for stealing a horse, a witness B was asked on
cross-examination whether he did not live with a woman who kept
a house of ill-fame. The court against objection admitted the
question, but informed the witness that he could answer or not as
he chose.] 2
(c) [Upon the trial of A for an assault, he became himself a witness
and was asked on cross-examination whether he had not committed
an assault upon another person at another time. This was objected
to, but was held on appeal, to have been properly allowed by the trial
court within its discretion.] 8
(d) [Upon the trial of A for murder, he became himself a witness
and was asked on cross-examination whether he had not once been
arrested for an assault with intent to kill. The court against objection
admitted the question, and the witness then answered without claim-
ing his privilege. This was held a proper exercise of the court's dis-
cretion.] 4
(<?) [A witness was asked on cross-examination, " Have you ever been
N. Y. 73 ; People v. Noelke, 94 N. Y. 137 ; Leland v. K7iauth, 47 Mich.
508 ; State v. Wells, 54 Kan. 161 ; see cases supra and the Illustrations ;
also p. 298, note, ante).
So a witness may be cross-examined as to facts showing his favor
towards the party calling him, his own interest in the case, or his bias,
malice, ill-will, prejudice, etc., against the opposite party ; here, also,
the judge's discretion governs the range of examination (Illustra-
tions (g), (In, (/); Wallace v. Taunton St. Ry., 119 Mass. 91 ; Garn-
sey v. Rhodes, 138 N. Y. 461 ; Fitzpatrick v. Riley, 163 Pa. 65 ; County
Commrs.w. Minderlein, 67 Md. 567 ; Hinchcliffc x . Koontz, 121 Ind.
422 ; Electric Light Co. v. Grant, 90 Mich. 469; People v. Tho?nsoti,
92 Cal. 506; see Article 130). So when a. party to an action testifies,
he may be cross-examined in like manner. Lamb v. Lamb, 146 N. Y.
317; Mears v. Cornwall, 73 Mich. 78.]
1 A', v. Or/on. See summing-up of Cockburn, C. J., vol. ii. p. 719, etc.
■[State x. Ward, 49 Ct. 429. The witness, when he avails himself
of his privilege not to answer, is not obliged to explain why he declines
to answer. Mcrluzzi v. Gleeson, 59 Md. 214.]
^[People v. Irving, 95 N. Y. 541; see People v. McCormick, 135
N. V.663.]
4 [Hanojpv. State, 37 O. St. 178 ; see p. 321, note, supra.}
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 323
in jail, and, if so, what were you sent there for ? " Counsel objected to
the question, but the trial court allowed it; and this ruling was held, on
appeal, to have been proper.] '
(_/") [A witness was asked on cross-examination in a civil action as
to his belief in spiritualism. It was a proper exercise of discretion
not to allow the question.] -
(g) [Upon a proceeding to admit a will to probate, a subscribing
witness may be asked on cross-examination, in order to show his bias
or interest, whether a reward has not been promised to him for his
testimony by one of the beneficiaries under the will.] 3
(h) [On a trial for murder, it was held proper for the prosecution to
cross-examine one of the principal witnesses for the defendant in such
a way as to show that such witness was devotedly attached to the de-
fendant and was, at the time of the homicide, practically one of his
household, and that their relations were intimate and confidential.] 4
(/) [A brought action against a horse-car company to recover dam-
ages for an alleged injury caused by being wrongfully thrown off a car
platform by the conductor. B, a former car-driver of the company, who
had been discharged, testified in A's favor that A was thrown off the
car by the conductor. It was held that the defendant might so cross-
examine B as to show his hostility to the defendant by bringing out the
fact that he had tried to get other employees of the company to make
false statements in order to fasten liability upon the company.]5
^
Article 129 a.
judge's discretion as to cross-examination to credit.
The judge may in all cases disallow any questions put
in cross-examination of any party or other witness which
1 [McLaughlin v. Mencke, 80 Md. 83 ; see, to the same effect, State
v. Pratt, 121 Mo. 566; State v. Alexis, 45 La. Ann. 973; Real v.
People, 42 N. Y. 270. In these cases it is held not necessary to prove
his conviction for the offence for which he was confined, by the record
of conviction. Id.; State v. Martin, 124 Mo. 514; contra, Comm. v.
Sullivan, 161 Mass. 59; see page 325, note i,post.]
2 [Free v. Buckingham, 59 N. H. 219.]
z [Matter of Will of Snelling, 136 N. Y. 515.]
4 [People v. Webster, 139 N. Y. 73.]
5 [Schultz v. Third Ave. R. Co., 89 N. Y. 242.]
334 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
may appear to him (/. e., the judge) to be vexatious and
not relevant to any m'attcr proper to be inquired into in
the eause or matter.1
Article 130.
exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to
questions testing veracity.
When a witness under cross-examination has been
asked and has answered any question which is relevant
to the inquiry only in so far as it tends to shake his credit
by injuring his character, no evidence can be given to
contradict him,2 except in the following cases:—
(1 ) If a witness is asked whether he has been previously
convicted of any felony or misdemeanor, and denies or
1 Rules of Supreme Court, Order xxxvi., Rule 38. I leave Article 129 as
it originally stood, because this Order is, after all, only an exception to
the rule. " Him " must refer to the judge, as it would otherwise refer to
the " party or other witness," which would be absurd [See p. 320, note 2,
ante ; La Bean v. People, 34 N. Y. 223; Langley v. Wadsworth, 99 N. Y.
61 ; Goins v. Moberfy, 127 .Mo. 1 16. Even if a wide latitude be allow-
able in cross-examination, still the witness is entitled to be protected
by the court from unnecessary insult and abuse by counsel. Toledo,
etc. R. Co v. Williams, -jj 111. 354 ; People v. Ihtrrant, 1 16 Cal. 179.]
v A. G. v. Hitchcock, 1 Ex. 91, 99-105. See, too, Palmer v. Trower,
8 Ex. 247. [Gr. Ev. i. § 449 ; People v. Ware, 29 Hun, 473, 92 N. Y.653 ;
People v. Knapp, 42 Mich. 267; Elliott v. Boyles, 31 Pa. 65. It is
a general rule as to all collateral and irrelevant inquiries, whether
relating to character or not, that the answers given cannot be contra-
dicted ; the cross-examining counsel is bound by the answers given ;
the reason of the rule is that time may not be taken up with imma-
terial issues. People v. Murphy, 135 N. Y. 450 ; Pullen v. Pullen, 43
X. J. Eq. 136; Robbins v. Spencer, 121 Ind. 594 > Alexander v. Kaiser,
149 Mass. 321 ; People v. Hillhouse, 80 Mich. 580 ; Swanson v. French,
92 la. 195 ; Buckley v. Silverberg, 113 Cal. 673 ; Hester v. Conim., 85
Pa. 139; Sloan v. Edwards, 61 Aid. 89; Moore v. People, 108 111. 484;
State v. Benner, 64 Me. 267 ; see Illustrations (a) and (b).]
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 325
does not admit it, or refuses to answer, evidence may be
given of his previous conviction thereof.1
(2) If a witness is asked any question tending to show
that he is not impartial, and answers it by denying the
facts suggested, he may be contradicted.2
1 28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, s. 6. [At common law, conviction for crime
must be proved by the record thereof, or by a duly authenticated copy,
(these being the best evidence), and not by cross-examination (Gr. Ev.
i. §§ 375, 457 ; Newcomb v. Griswold, 24 N. Y. 298). And now that, as
has been seen (see p. 273, note, ante), it is the rule in this country
in most States that conviction for crime no longer disqualifies a wit-
ness but may be proved to affect his credibility, proof of conviction
must still, in some of these States, be made by the record or a copy
thereof (Mass. Pub. St. c. 169, s. 19; Comm. v. Gorham, 99 Mass. 420;
Pub. St. N. H. c. 224, s. 26 (ed. 1891); Simons v. People, 150 111. 66
(criminal cases); State v. Brent, 100 Mo. 531 ; Boyd v. State, 94 Tenn.
505 ; Murphy v. State, 108 Ala. 10 ; cf. People v. Schenick, 65 Cal. 625);
in most of these States, however, either the record (or a copy) may be
used, or the witness may be cross-examined as to his conviction (111.
Rev. St. c. 51, s. 1 (civil cases); Neb. Code Civ. Pro. § 338 ; State v.
Elwood, 17 R. I. 763 ; Spiegel v. Hays, 1 18 N. Y. 660 ; Stale v. O'Brien,
81 la. 93 ; State v. Saner, 42 Minn. 258 ; State v/Probasco, 46 Kan. 310 ;
State v. Bacon, 13 Or. 143 ; People v. Crowley, 100 Cal. 478 ; Burdette v.
Cowm.,g5 Ky. 76; Driscoll \. People, 47 Mich. 413); and in some of
these latter States, if he denies that he was convicted, his answer may
be contradicted (N. Y. Code Civ.Pr. § 832 ; N. J. Rev. p. 378, § 1, p. 379
§ 9; Wis. Rev. St. s. 4073 ; St. of Minn. s. 6841 (ed. 1894) ; Helwig v.
Lascowski, 82 Mich. 619). These general rules apply to parties to
actions (including defendants in criminal cases), when they become
witnesses. People v. Noelke, 94 N. Y. 137 ; Bartholomew v. People, 104
111. 601; State v. Pfefferle, 36 Kan. 90; State v. Minor, 117 Mo. 302 ;
State v. McGuire, 15 R. I. 23.; and cases supra.}
2 A. G. v. Hitchcock, 1 Ex. 91, pp. 100, 105. [It is a well-settled rule
that if a witness be cross-examined for the purpose of showing his
interest in the case, or his bias, favor, hostility, prejudice, etc., towards
either party (see p. 322, note, ante), and answers by a denial, he may
be contradicted (Illustration (c); Gr. Ev. i. §450; Davis v. Roby,6\ Me.
427 ; Folsom v. Brawn, 25 N. H. 1 14 ; McGuire v. McDonald, 99 Mass.
49 ; Schultz v. Third A v. R. Co., 89 N. Y. 242 ; Kent v. State, 42 O. St.
426; Staser v. Hogan, 120 Ind. 207; Phcnix v. Castncr, 108 111. 207;
Tolbert v. Burke, 89 Mich. 132 ; Schuster v. State, 80 Wis. 107 ; People
326 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
Illustrations.
(a) [On the trial of A for murder, a female witness B is asked on
cross-examination whether she did not take things not belonging to
her when she left a place where she had been at service. She answers
by a denial. This being a collateral inquiry, it cannot be shown by
another witness that her answer is untrue.] '
(/;) [The question is, whether two persons were jointly interested in
buying and selling cattle. One of them becomes a witness, and is
questioned, on cross-examination, as to their being jointly interested
in a particular purchase and sale of horses, which is a matter irrelevant
to the issue on trial. He answers that they were. This answer can-
not be contradicted.]'2
(c) [A witness called by A, in a suit between A and B, testifies, on
cross-examination, that he has never threatened revenge against B.
This being an inquiry as to bias or hostility of feeling, he may be
contradicted on this point by other testimony] a
Article 131.*
STATEMENTS INCONSISTENT WITH PRESENT TESTIMONY MAY
BE PROVED.
Every witness under cross-examination in any pro-
ceeding, civil or criminal, may be asked whether he has
made any former statement relative to the subject-
matter of the proceeding and inconsistent with his
present testimony, the circumstances of the supposed
statement being referred to sufficiently to designate the
* See Note XLVII. [Appendix],
v. Murray, 85 Cal. 350). In some States such a state of feeling on the
part of the witness may be proved without previously cross-examining
him in respect thereto {New Portland \ : Kingfield, 55 Me. 172; Day
v. Stickney, 14 Allen, 255 ; People v. Brooks, 131 X. V. 321 ); but in other
States the rule is otherwise. Aneals v. People, 134 111. 401, 414 ; Mar-
tineau v. May, 18 Wis. 54 ; Langhorne v. Cotnm., 76 Ya. 1012 ; State v.
Dickerson, 08 X. C. 708.]
1 [Stokes v. People, 53 X. Y. 164 ; see People v. Greenzaall, 108 N. Y.
296.]
i[Farnum v. Farnum, 13 Gray, 508.]
"[Collins v. Stephenson, 8 Gray, 438.]
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 327
particular occasion, and if he does not distinctly admit
that he has made such a statement, proof may be given
that he did in fact m'ake it.1
1 [A similar rule is in force here in most States. It only applies when
the testimony of the adversary's witness, which is to be contradicted,
is relevant to the issue (Gr. Ev. i. § 462 ; Ayers v. Watson, 132 U. S.
394; Ankersmitv. Tuck, 114 N. Y. 51; Lawlerv. AfcPheeters,72 Ind.
577 ; Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Feehan, 149 111. 202 ; State v. McLaugh-
lin, 44 la. 82 ; Rice v. Rice, 104 Mich. 371 ; Welch v. Abbot, 72 Wis. 512 ;
Granning v. Swenson, 49 Minn. 381; State v. Bartley, 48 Kan. 421;
Thompson v. Wertz, 41 Neb. 31 ; State v. Hunsaker, 16 Or. 497 ; Birch
v. Hall, 99 Cal. 299 ; Browti v. State, 72 Md. 468 ; N. Y. etc. R. Co. v.
Kellam, 83 Va. 851 ; State v. Goodwin, 32 W. Va. 177 ; Allison v. Coal
Co., 87 Tenn. 60 ; Spohn v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 122 Mo. 1 ; Haley v. State,
63 Ala. 83 ; State v. Jones, 44 La. Ann. 960). It is a general rule that
the time and place of the supposed statement and the persons to whom
or in whose presence it was made should be definitely presented to
the witness's attention by the question put to him in cross-examination
(see the cases supra); it is sufficient, however, if the particular occa-
sion is designated with reasonable certainty, so that the witness can
be under no mistake concerning it (Mayer v. Appel, 13 111. App. 87;
Pendleton v. Empire, etc. Co., 19 N. Y. 13 ; Evansville, etc. R. Co. v.
Montgomery, 85 Ind. 494 ; see Illustrations a and b). This is commonly
called "laying the foundation" for the introduction of the impeaching
evidence ; the object is to give the witness an opportunity either to
deny having made the alleged statement, or, if he admits that he made
it, to explain the alleged inconsistency. If such opportunity be not
given, the evidence offered to show the contradiction is not admissible
(McCulloch v. Dobson, 133 N. Y. 1 14 ; Richardson v. Kelly, 85 111. 491 ;
Stone v. Northwestern Sleigh Co., 70 Wis. 585 ; State v. Cleary, 40
Kan. 287 ; Paterson v. State.S^ Md. 194; see cases supra). Still if the
opportunity be not afforded before the impeaching evidence is given,
but the witness is recalled afterwards and a chance to explain is then
properly given to him, this, though irregular practice, obviates the
ground of objection (People v. Weldon, in N. Y. 569; Esterly v. Ep-
pclsheimer, 73 la. 260 ; Rounsavcll v. Pease, 45 Wis. 506 ; State v.
Goodbier, 48 La. Ann. 770). If, however, the witness's absence or
death prevents his receiving any opportunity to explain, the impeach-
ing evidence must be rejected (Illustrations (c) and (d)\ Mattoxv.
U. S., 156 U. S. 237 ; Hubbard v. Briggs, 31 N. Y. 518, 536 ; Runyan v.
Price, 15 O. St. 1; Eppert v. Hall, 133 Ind. 417).
When the witness, the proper foundation being laid, denies having
328 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
The same course may be taken with a witness upon
his examination in chief, if the judge is of opinion that
made the statement, the fact that he did make it may be afterwards
proved by the persons who heard it ; and the same is true if his answer
is that he does not recollect making it {Martin v. Towle, 59 N. H. 31 ;
Kelly v. Co/ioes Co., 8 App. Div. (N. Y.) 156 ; Ind. Rev. St. § 508 ; Con-
sol. Ice Mac/iine Co. v. Keifer, 134 111. 481 ; Jensen v. Railroad Co., 102
Mich. 176 ; Payne v. State, 60 Ala. 80). But if he admits having made
the statement, such evidence is not necessary and is excluded {Atchi-
son, etc. R. Co. v. Feehan, 149 111. 202- ; State v. Goodbier, 48 La. Ann.
770). Stenographic minutes of a witness's alleged contradictory evi-
dence on a former trial will not be admissible to impeach him, but the
stenographer may be called as impeaching witness and use the min-
utes to refresh his memory {Stayner v. Joyce, 120 Ind. 99; Toohey v.
Plummer, 69 Mich. 345 ; State v. Adams, 78 la. 292 ; cf. Campbell v.
Campbell, 138 111. 612). If a witness's present testimony is as to mat-
ter of opinion, and such opinion evidence is competent in the case, the
fact that he has previously expressed or testified to contrary opinions
may be shown to impeach him {Sanderson v. Nashua, 44 N. H. 492 ;
Waterman v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 82 Wis. 613). But testimony as to
matters of fact cannot be impeached by proving the expression of
opinions inconsistent therewith (Gr. Ev. i. §449 ; Holmes v. Anderson,
18 Barb. 420; Sloan v. Edwards, 61 Md. 89; Central R. Co. v. All-
mon, 147 111. 471; McFadin v. Catron, 120 Mo. 252). The question
put to the impeaching witness should, in general, be in the same
language, substantially, as was used in calling the attention of the im-
peached witness to his former statements {Sloan v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 45
N. Y. 125; Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Bair, 87 Pa. 124; Pence v. Waugh,
135 Ind. 143 ; Rice v. Rice, 104 Mich. 371; People v. Monella, 99 Cal.
333 ; but see Rucker v. State, 71 Miss. 680). The contradictory state-
ments proved for impeachment are legitimate for this purpose only;
they are not evidence of the facts asserted therein {Plyerv. German
Amer. Ins. Co., 121 N.'Y. 689; Lundberg v. Northwestern Elev. Co.,
42 Minn. 37; Charlton v. Unis, 4 Gratt. 58). After they have been
proved, the witness may be allowed to testify in rebuttal, by way of
explanation (McMitrrin v. Rigby, 87 la. 18; Waterman v. Chicago,
etc. R. Co., 82 Wis. 613 ; cf. Bressler v. People, 117 111. 422); or other
witnesses may be called to support his denial of having made the con-
tradictory statements {Bronson v. Leach, 74 Mich. 713).
In some of the New England States, a witness's contradictory state-
ments can be proved without first calling his attention to them on
cross-examination {Will-ins v. Babbershall, 32 Me. 184; Cook v.
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 329
he is "adverse" (/. c, hostile) to the party by whom he
was called, and permits the question.1
Brown, 34 N. H. 460 ; Day v. Stickney, 14 Allen, 255, 260 ; Tomlinson
v. Derby, 43 Ct. 562) ; but he may be recalled to explain the alleged
inconsistency [State v. Reed, 62 Me. 129 ; Gould v. Norfolk Lead Co.,
9 Cush. 338 ; Hedge v. Clapp, 22 Ct. 262 ; see Harrison's Appeal, 48
Ct. 202). In Pennsylvania and Vermont it rests in the discretion of
the trial court which order of examination shall be pursued (Rothrock
v. Gallaher, 91 Pa. 108; State v. Glynn, 51 Vt. 577).
The general rules, stated in this note, apply to the impeachment of
a. party to an action, when he becomes a witness ( Winchellv.Winchell,
100 N. Y. 159; Comm. v. Tolliver, 119 Mass. 312; Browning v.
Gosnell, 91 la. 448 ; Dunbar v. McGill, 69 Mich. 297 ; Kelsey v.
Laytie, 28 Kan. 218); but if his prior inconsistent statements constitute
admissions, relevant to the issue, they may be proved without first
calling his attention to them. Brown v. Calumet Riv. R. Co., 125 111.
600 ; Hunter v. Gibbs, 79 Wis. 70 ; Leroy, etc. R. Co. v. Butts, 40 Kan.
159 ; White v. White, 82 Cal. 427.]
1 [This is by an English statute (see Note XLVII., Appendix). But
it is a general rule of the common law that a party cannot impeach his
own witness, by proving either his general bad character or his former
statements inconsistent with his testimony (Gr. Ev. i. § 442 ; Cox v.
Eayres, 55 Vt. 24 ; Adams v. Wheeler, 97 Mass. 67 ; Becker v. Koch,
104 N. Y. 395), and this is still true in most States (Id.; Hildreth v.
Aldrich, 15 R. I. 163; Wheeler v. Thomas, 67 Ct. 577; Pollock v.
Pollock, 71 N. Y. 137; Brewer \. Porch, 17 N. J. L. 377; Steams v.
Merchants Bk., 53 Pa. 490 ; Hall v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 84 la. 311 ;
Stale v. Burks, 132 Mo. 363; State v. Keefe, 54 Kan. 197; Dixon v.
State, 86 Ga. 754 ; Dunlap v. Richardson, 63 Miss. 447). But he may
prove the true facts of the case by other witnesses, though this may
incidentally discredit the witness; for such facts are competent evi-
dence in the cause and are not proved for the direct and special pur-
pose of impeachment {Coulter v. Atner. Exp. Co., 56 N. Y. 585;
First Nat. Bk. v. Post, 66 Vt. 237 ; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Fortney, 90
Pa. 323; East St. Louis R. Co. v. O'Hara, 150 111. 580; Smith v.
Utesch, 85 la. 381 ; Smith v.Ehanert, 43 Wis. 181; Wallach v. Wylie,
28 Kan. 138; Sewellv. Gardner, 48 Md. 178; Meyer Drug Co. v.Mc-
Mahan, 50 Mo. App. 18 ; Hollingsworth v. State, 79 Ga. 605). The.
rule prohibiting impeachment applies also to the case where a party
makes a witness his own by cross-examining him as to new matter
(Fairchild v. Bascomb, 35 Vt. 398 ; Deere v. Bagley, 80 la. 197 ;
Richarch v. State, 82 Wis. 172 ; cf. Arts v. Railroad Co., 44 la. 284 ;
330 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
It seems that the discretion of the judge cannot be
reviewed afterwards.'
1 Rice v. Howard, 16 Q. B. D. 681.
see p. 317, note 1, ante). So where a party calls the opposing party
as a witness, he cannot impeach him, though he may prove the true
facts by other witnesses (Tarsneyv. Turner, 48 F. R. 818; Good v.
Knox, 64 Yt. 97 ; Rindskopfv. Kuder, 145 111. 607 ; Gardner v. Con-
nelly, 75 la. 205 ; Schmidt v. Dumam, 50 Minn. 96 ; Claflin v. Dodson,
in Mo. 195 ; Chester v. Wilhelm, 1 11 N. C. 314 ; but see Brubaker's
Ad/nr. v. Taylor, 76 Pa. 83); even in the absence of such counter
evidence, however, he is not bound by whatever testimony such other
party (who is naturally an adverse witness) may give, but the
credibility of this testimony in all its parts is for the jury (Becker v.
Koch, 104 N. Y. 395; Cross v. Cross, 108 N. Y. 628; Mitchell v.
Sawyer, 115 111. 650). Where a witness is one whom the law obliges
the party to call, as the subscribing witness to a deed or will, he may
impeach him by showing his contradictory statements ( Thornton's
Excrs. v. Thornton's Heirs, 39 Yt. 122 ; Shorey v. Hussey, 32 Me. 579 ;
IVhilmanv. Morey,6^ N.H.448; ci.Peoplev. Case.io*, Mich. 92; State
v. Slack, 69 Yt. 486 ; but see Whitaker v. Salisbury, 15 Pick. 534).
If a party is surprised by unexpectedly adverse testimony given by
his own witness, in conflict with prior statements which the witness
has made, he may be permitted to examine the witness himself as to
his having made such statements, calling his attention definitely to
the time, place, and occasion of making them, and thus make it ap-
parent to the court that the witness disappoints him, and give the
latter a chance to explain, if possible, the apparent inconsistency ; in
this way the party, if the witness gives no satisfactory explanation,
may at least succeed in neutralizing the effect of his testimony (Put-
nam v. U. S., 162 U. S. 697-707; Hickory v. U. S., 151 U. S. 303;
Rullard v. Pearsall, 53 N. Y. 230 ; McNerney v. Reading, 150 Pa. 61 1 ;
Humble v. Shoemaker, 70 la. 223 ; Johnson v. Leggett, 28 Kan. 590 ;
White v. State, 87 Ala. 24; State v. Vickers, 47 La. Ann. 1574; cf.
Fisher v. Hart, 149 Pa. 232). If, however, the witness denies having
made such statements, the party cannot impeach him by evidence of
his general bad character, nor by evidence that he did in fact make
the statements (Hurley v. State, 46 0. St. 320; Hildreth v. Aldrich,
15 R. I. 163 ; Bullard \. Pearsall, supra ; Stearns v. Merchants' Bk.,
53 Pa. 490); in some States, however, the contradictory statements
may be proved (Hurlburt v. Bellows, 50 N. H. 105; Selover v.
Bryant, 54 Minn. 434; State v. Sorter, 52 Kan. 531; see Smith v.
Chap. XV I.J THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 331
Illustrations. .
(a) [Upon a trial for murder the defendant's wife was called as a
witness in his behalf and testified that on the night before the com-
mission of the crime he came home at nine o'clock, sick at his stom-
ach, and with a severe headache, that he undressed and went to bed
and lay there for hours. On cross-examination her attention was called
to a certain occasion on the day after the crime was committed, when
she met the district-attorney with Mr. A and Mr. B, and she was asked,
"Did you say then to the district-attorney, in the presence of A & B,
that you had never seen anything strange or unusual in your husband's
conduct, and that he came home the night before and went to bed and
slept as visual ? " She denied having said so. Mr. A was afterwards
called as a witness, and his attention being called to the above inter-
view, he was asked if she did then make the above statement. He
answered that she did, and his testimony was held to be competent.] '
(b) [In an action to recover damages for an injury to plaintiff by
being run over by a horse-car, the question was controverted whether
the driver was intoxicated at the time. He was called as a witness
and testified that he was not intoxicated. On cross-examination he
was asked, " Did you not, after the first trial of this case, at the back
door of A's place, at 8th and Jefferson Streets, tell B & C, in a con-
versation there about this accident, that you did not deny being intoxi-
cated at the time of the accident?" He answered, "No." Then B
was called as a witness and asked, " Did the driver, shortly before the
first trial of this case, at the back door of A's business place, at 8th and
Jefferson Streets in a conversation about the injury to the plaintiff, say
Briscoe, 65 Md. 561 ; Chism v. State, 70 Miss. 742 ; Nat. Syrup Co. v.
Carlson, 42 111. App. 178). The party may also, of course, prove the
true facts of the case by other witnesses (Id.; Hickory v. U. S., 151
U. S. 303 ; State v. Knight, 43 Me. 1 1, 134).
There are statutes in some States, as in England, permitting a party
to impeach his own witness (Ind. Rev. St. s. 515 (ed. 1894); Mass.
Pub. St. c. 169, s. 22 ; St. of Vt. s. 1247 (ed. of 1894); Cal. Code Civ. Pro.
§ 2049 I Rev. St. Fla. s. 1 101 ; Code of Ga. § 3869 (ed. of 1882); Mont.
Code Civ. Pro. § 3377 ; see Brooks v. Weeks, 121 Mass. 433 ; B lough
v. Parry, 144 Ind. 463; State v. Sleeves, 29 Or. 85 ; Adams v. State,
34 Fla. 185). So, in some States, a party who calls the opposing party
as a witness, may impeach him. Pub. St. N. H. c. 224, s. 15 (ed. 1891);
Crocker v. Agenbroad, 122 Ind. 585.]
1 {People v. Schuyler, 106 N. Y. 298.]
332 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
to you, in the presence of C, that he did not deny being intoxicated at
the time of the accident ? " B answered, " Yes." On appeal, the rul-
ing of the trial court admitting B's testimony was held to be erroneous,
since the driver had not been questioned about a conversation before
the first trial, and therefore the proper foundation had not been laid.] '
(c) [In a civil action a deposition of A, who was absent at sea, was
read in evidence by the plaintiff. The defendant then offered to prove
by a witness B, that the latter had had a number of conversations with
A several months after the deposition was taken, in which A made
statements inconsistent with his testimony and said that what he had
sworn to was false. The court would not receive B's testimony, be-
cause A had had no opportunity afforded to him to explain the alleged
contradictions.]2
(d) [Upon a trial for murder A testified against the defendant. The
defendant was convicted, but his conviction was reversed and a new
trial was had. Meanwhile A had died, and the testimony which he
gave on the former trial was read to the jury. The defendant's coun-
sel then offered testimony to the effect that A, subsequently to the first
trial, had stated that the evidence given by him on the first trial was
false. This testimony was rejected.] 3
Article 132.
cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.
A witness tinder cross-examination, (or a witness whom
the judge under the provisions of Article 131 has per-
mitted to be examined by the party who called him as to
previous statements inconsistent with his present tes-
timony), may be questioned as to previous statements
made by him in writing, or reduced into writing, relative
to the subject-matter of the cause, without such writing
being shown to him (or being proved in the first instance);
but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his
attention must, before such contradictory proof can be
1 [Qiuncy Horse R. Co. v. Gnuse, 137 111. 264.]
2 [Stacy v. Graham, 14 N. Y. 492.]
3 {Craft v. Ccfaim., 81 Ky. 250 ; Ayers v. Watson, 132 U. S. 394.]
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 333
given, be called to those parts of the writing which are
to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. The
judge may, at any time during the trial, require the
document to be produced for his inspection, and may
thereupon make such use of it for the purposes of the trial
as he thinks fit.1
1 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 24 ; and 28 Vict. c. 18, s. 5. I think the words
in parenthesis represent the meaning of the sections, but in terms they
apply only to witnesses under cross-examination — " Witnesses may be
cross-examined," etc. [The statutory rule of this Article is not fol-
lowed in this country, but the former English rule, laid down in the
Queen s Case, 2 B. & B. 286. When it is sought on cross-examination
to impeach an adversary's witness by inconsistent statements pre-
viously made by such witness in writing, as in a letter, affidavit, or
other written instrument, the witness should not be asked whether in
such letter (or other writing) he made certain statements, which coun-
sel suggests, but the proper practice is to first exhibit the writing to
him and ask him if he wrote it or signed it. If he assents, the writing
should itself be read in evidence as the best evidence of its contents
and before examining the witness in reference to its statements. The
court may in its discretion permit it to be put in evidence when the
witness admits it to be his writing, if cross-examining counsel wishes
then to question in regard to its contents; but the regular time for intro-
ducing it is when said counsel develops his own side of the case. After
the paper has been given in evidence, due opportunity is afforded to
the witness to explain the alleged inconsistency (Gr. Ev. i. §§463-465 ;
Romertze v. East River Bk., 49 N. Y. 577 ; Gaffney v. People, 50 N. Y.
416; Hosmer v. Groat, 143 Mass. 16; Morford v. Peck, 46 Ct. 380;
Chicago R. Co. v. McLaughlin, 146 111. 353 ; Chicago, etc. R. Co. v.
Hastings, 136 111. 251; Lightfoot v. People, 16 Mich. 507; Glenn v.
Gleason, 61 la. 28 ; O 'Riley v. Clampt, 53 Minn. 539 ; State v. Stein, 79
Mo. 330; So. Kan. R. Co. v. Painter, 53 Kan. 414 ; Floyd v. State, 82
Ala. 16; State v. Callegari, 41 La. Ann. 578). The whole instrument
should be read, or at least all of it which has any bearing upon the
matters concerning which the witness is examined ( Whitman v. Morey,
63 N. H. 448 ; Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 195 ; Wilkerson v. Liters,
114 Mo. 245). Sometimes, however, this regular order of examination
is not pursued, but the witness is cross-examined about the contents
of the writing though it has not been read in evidence ; this may hap-
pen when counsel entitled to object to this irregular practice does not
do so in due time and on proper grounds, or when it appears that no
334 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
Illustration.
[In an action brought by A, who had been bookkeeper and cashier
for B, against the latter to recover damages for a wrongful dis-
charge, B pleaded that A had been rightfully discharged for mis-
conduct, and called C, his chief clerk, as a witness to prove such
misconduct. C testified that A had been absent at various times dur-
ing business hours, sometimes being away nearly half a day at a time,
that he was frequently late in the morning, and that, when his pres-
ence in the office was very much needed, he was frequently away on
his own business and could not be found. On the cross-examination
of C, a letter was produced and shown to him, and he admitted that he
wrote it. At the close of the defendant's evidence this letter was
read in evidence by plaintiff's counsel. It was as follows : " To whom
it may concern : A was in the employ of B, and I can bear testimony
to his promptness and efficiency in his duties as bookkeeper and
cashier. C." It was held on appeal that the letter was properly ad-
mitted to impeach C's testimony.] '
Article 133.
impeaching credit of witness.
The credit of any witness may be impeached by the
adverse party, by the evidence of persons who swear
that they, from their knowledge of the witness, believe
him to be unworthy of credit upon his oath.3 Such per-
prejudice can be occasioned thereby. Chicago, etc. R. Co. v. Artery,
137 U. S. 507 ; The Charles Morgan, 1 15 U. S. 69 ; Dtmdarv. McGill,
69 Mich. 297; State v. Mathews, 88 Mo. 121 ; State v. West, 95 Mo.
1 39-]
1 [Western Af/rs.' Ins. Co. v. Boughton, 136 111. 317.]
2 [It is a well-settled rule in this country that a witness of the adverse
party may be impeached by evidence from other persons of his bad
general reputatio7i in his own community. The impeaching witnesses
must come from this community, and in examining any one of them
the form of inquiry usually is to ask (1) whether he knows the general
reputation in that community of the witness in question ; then, if he
assents, (2) what that reputation is, and, if he says it is not good, (3)
whether from such knowledge he would believe such witness on his
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 335
sons may not upon their examination in chief give reasons
for their belief, but they may be asked their reasons in
oath (Gr. Ev. i. § 461; Brown v. U. S., 164 U. S. 221; Carlson v. Win-
terson, 147 N. Y. 652 ; Bogle's Excrs. v. Kreitzer, 46 Pa. 465 ; Gifford
v. People, 148 111. 173; Spies v. People, 122 111. 9, 208; Sloan v. Ed-
wards, 61 Md. 89, 103 ; in Massachusetts it is discretionary with the
trial court whether the first question shall be asked, Wethe?-bee v.
iVorris, 103 Mass. 565). The inquiry must only be as to general repu-
tation, not as to specific wrongful acts {Comm. v. O'Brien, 119 Mass.
342; People v. Creenwall, 108 N. Y. 296; Drew v. State, 124 Ind. 9,
17 ; State v. Rogers, 108 Mo. 202). The reputation asked about must
be in most States for truth and veracity {Sargent v. Wilson, 59 N. H.
396 ; Shaw v. Emery, 42 Me. 59 ; State v. Eoumier,6& Vt. 262 ; Quin-
siganiond Bk. v. Hobbs, 1 1 Gray, 250 ; State v. Randolph, 24 Ct. 363 ;
Atwoodw.Impson, 20 N.J. Eq. 150; Warner v. Lockerby, 31 Minn.
421; Hillis v. Wylie, 26 O. St. 574 ; U. S. v. Van Sickle, 2 McL. 219;
Laclede Bk. v. Keeler, 109 111. 385 ; Bogle's Excrs. v. Kreitzer, supra ;
People v.Abbott, 97 Mich. 484 ; Wallis v. White, 58 Wis. 26 ; State v.
Johnson, 40 Kan. 266 ; Winter v. Smith, 22 Or. 469 ; see Teese v. Hunt-
inglon,23 How. (U. S.) 2); but in some States the inquiry may be as to
general moral character {Watkins v. State, 82 Ga. 231; Merriman v.
State, 3 Lea, 393), or it is optional to inquire either as to general moral
character, or as to truth and veracity, or as to both {Dollner v. Lintz,
84 N. Y. 669 ; Wright v. Paige, 3 Keyes, 581 ; Robbins v. Spencer, 121
Ind. 594 ; Griffith v. State, 140 Ind. 163 ; State v. Larson, 85 Ind. 659 ;
State v. Potts, 78 la. 656; State v. Gesell, 124 Mo. 531; Lockard v.
Comm. ,87 Ky. 201 ; McCutchen v. Loggins, 109 Ala. 457 ; State v. Spur-
ling, 1 18 N. C. 1250; Hollingsworth v. State, 53 Ark. 387); in California
the question is as to truth, honesty, and integrity {People v. Ryan, 108
Cal. 581). In most States also the third question (as to belief on oath)
is asked ( U, S. v. Van Sickle, 2 McL. 219 ; Lyman v. Philadelphia, 56
Pa. 488 ; Hamiltoti v. People, 29 Mich. 173, 185 ; Titus v. Ash, 24 N. H.
319 ; Knight v. House, 29 Md. 194 ; Wilson v. State, 3 Wis. 798 ; Hillis
v. Wylie, 26 O. St. 574 ; State v. Johnson, 40 Kan. 266 ; A'ti' v. State,
86 Tenn. 259 ; Cole v. State, 59 Ark. 50 ; State v. Christian, 44 La. Ann.
950 ; Ga. Code, § 3873) ; in New York and Illinois it is permissible, but
not necessary {People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229 ; Wright v. Paige, 3
Keyes, 581 ; Laclede Bk. v. Keeler, 109 111. 385 ; and see People v. Ty-
ler, 35 Cal. 553); but in a few States it is not allowable {Willard v.
Goodenough, 30 Vt. 393 ; Walton v. State, 88 Ind. 9 ; State v. Rush,
77 Mo. 519 ; cf. King v. Ruckman, 20 N. J. Eq. 316).
When a party to an action (including a defendant in a criminal
336 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
cross-examination, and their answers cannot be con-
tradicted."
No such evidence may be given by the party by
whom any witness is called,2 but when such evidence is
given by the adverse party, the party who called the
witness may give evidence in reply to show that the
witness is worthy of credit.3
case) is a witness, he may be impeached like other witnesses by proof
of his bad general reputation {Foster v. Newbrongh, 58 N. Y. 481;
Keyes v. State, 122 Ind. 527 ; State v. Kirkpatrick, 63 la. 554 ; State v.
Day, 100 Mo. 242 ; Lockard v. Comm., 87 Ky. 201 ; Peck v. State, 86
Tenn. 259 ; People v. Hickman, 1 13 Cal. 80).
The inquiry is generally as to the impeached witness's reputation at
the time of the trial, but since reputation once established is presumed
to continue (see Art. ioi,note3, ante), it may relate to his reputation be-
fore or after the trial, if the period is not too remote (Dollnerv.Lintz,
84 N. Y. 669; Graha?n v. Chrystal, 2 Abb. Dec. 263 ; Amidon v. Hos-
ley> 54 Vt. 25). An interval of weeks, or months, or even of several
years has been held not too remote (Id.; Sleeper v. Van Middlesworth,
4 Den. 431 ; Papev. Wright, 116 Ind. 502; Davis v. Comtn.,q^ Ky. 19);
but upon the question of years the authorities are not in accord (Fran-
cis v. Franklin Fp, 179 Pa. 203 ; Slate v. Potts, 78 la. 656; Fuse v.
Page, 32 Minn. 1 1 1 ; Wood v. Matthews, 73 Mo. 477 ; State v. Parker,
96 Mo. 382 ; Yarbrough v. State, 105 Ala. 43 ; Watkins v. State, 82 Ga.
231; Cline v. State, 51 Ark. 140). Reputation at a former place of
residence may also be inquired into, if the time is not too remote.
Norwood x. Andrews, 71 Miss. 641 ; Coates v. Sulan, 46 Kan. 341.]
1 2 Ph. Ev. 503-4; T. E. ss. 1324-5; see R. v. Brown, L. R. 1 C. C. R.
70. [An impeaching witness may be cross-examined as to his means of
knowledge, the grounds of his unfavorable opinion, his bias against the
impeached witness, etc. {People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229, 258; Gulerette
v. McK~inley,27 Hun, 320; Fates v. Farber, 4 Cush. 107; Hepworth
v. Henshall, 153 Pa. 592 ; Bobbins v. Spencer, 121 Ind. 594 ; cf. J lolly-
wood v. Feed, 57 Mich. 234); or his own general reputation maybe
attacked {Phillips v. Thorn, 84 Ind. 84 ; Starks v. People, 5 Den. 106),
or his contradictory statements proved (State v. Lawlor, 28 Minn. 216).
So a sustaining witness may be cross-examined. Stape v. People, 85
N. Y. 390.]
2 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 2; and 28 Vict. c. 18, s. 3. [See p. 329,
note 1, ante.]
» 2 Ph. Ev. 504 ; T. E. ss. 1324-5. See R. v. Brown, L. R. 1 C. C. R.
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 337
Article 134.
offences against women.
When a man is prosecuted for rape or an attempt to
ravish, it may be shown that the woman against whom
the offence was committed was of a generally immoral
70. [There are several modes of sustaining the credit of an im-
peached witness: (1) If his general reputation is impeached, other
witnesses who know his reputation may be called to show that such
reputation is good, and (in most States) that they would believe him
on oath. They are examined in much the same way as impeach-
ing witnesses (Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 173, 184; Sloan v. Ed-
wards, 61 Md. 89 ; State v. Nelson, 58 la. 208 ; Couun. v. Ingraham,
7 Gray, 46; Morss v. Palmer, 15 Pa. 51; Magee v. People, 139 111.
138; First Nat. Bk. v.Wolff, 79 Cal. 69; Stape v. People, 85 N. Y.
390; see Adams v. Greenwich Ins. Co., 70 N. Y. 166). The court
may, in its discretion, limit the number of impeaching and of sus-
taining witnesses (Bunnell v. Butler, 23 Ct. 65 ; Bissell v. Cornell, 24
Wend. 354 ; Hollywood v. Reed, 57 Mich. 234).
(2) If the witness is impeached by evidence of his prior inconsistent
statements (see Art. 131), he msy in some States be sustained by evi-
dence of his good general reputation for truth (Sweet v. Sherman, 21
Vt. 23 ; Bd. ofCommrs. v. O'Connor, 137 Ind. 622 ; Walker v. Phcenix
Ins. Co., 62 Mo. App. 209 ; Isler v. Dewey, 71 N. C. 14 ; Hodgkins v.
State, 89 Ga. 761, 765 ; Holley v. State, 105 Ala. 100 ; Crook v. State,
27 Tex. App. 198); but in other States this is not permitted (Brown v.
Mooers, 6 Gray, 451 ; Webb v. State, 29 O. St. 351 ; Wertz v. May, 21
Pa. 274 ; Frost \. McCargar, 29 Barb. 617; People v. Olmstead, 30
Mich. 431 ; State v. Archer, 73 la. 320; Slieppardv. Yocum, 10 Or.
402, citing other cases). Such evidence of good reputation has also
been received in some States to sustain the credit of a witness who
has been impeached by proof of his conviction for crime (Gertz v.
Fitchburg R. Co., 137 Mass. 77 ; Webb v. State, 29 O. St. 351 ; People
v. Amanacus, 50 Cal. 233), or by proof that he has suborned or has
attempted to suborn witnesses or to suppress testimony (People v.
Ah Fat, 48 Cal. 61 ; Lewis v. State, 35 Ala. 380; see Stevenson v.
Gunning, 64 Vt. 601, 609). It has also been held in a few cases that
when, on the cross-examination of a witness, facts are brought out
which discredit him, he may be sustained by proof of his good repu-
tation ( Central R. Co. v. Dodd, 83 Ga. 507 ; Texas, etc. R. Co. v.
Raney, 86 Tex. 363 ; cf . State v. Cherry, 63 N. C. 493 ; Paine v. Tilden, 20
338 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
character, although she is not cross-examined on the
subject.1 The woman may in such a case be asked
whether she has had connection with other men, but her
answer cannot be contradicted.8 She may also be asked
Vt. 554; Coombes v. State, 17 Tex. App. 258; Walker v. Phoenix Ins. Co.,
62 Mo. App. 209 ; but see Harrington v. Lincoln, 4 Gray, 563 ; People
v. Gay, 7 N. Y. 378). It is well settled, however, that such evidence
of good reputation is not received to sustain a witness, simply because
the testimony of other witnesses has been in conflict with his own
{Stevenson v. Gunning, 64 Yt. 601 ; Atwood v. Dearborn, 1 Allen,
483; .State \.\Vard, 49 Ct. 429; Starks v. People, 5 Den. 106 ; Fits-
gerald v. Goff, 99 Ind. 28 ; Tedens v. Schumers, 112 111. 266; Miller
v. Western, etc. R. Co., 93 Ga. 480 ; Mobile, etc. R. Co. v. Williams,
54 Ala. 168 ; Texas, etc. R. Co. v. Raney, 86 Tex. 363 ; but see Davis
v. State, 38 Md. 15 ; State v. Desforges, 48 La. Ann. 73); but in Vir-
ginia it is received, in whatever way a witness may be discredited
{George v. Pile her, 28 Gratt. 299; cf. Coltraine v. Brown, 71 N. C. 19).
(3) It is _iot in general permissible to support a witness by evidence
that he has made former statements similar to his testimony (Gr. Ev.
i. § 469 ; Robb v. Hackley, 23 Wend. 50 ; Conrad v. Griffey, 1 1 How.
(U. S.) 480 ; State v. Flint, 60 Vt. 304 ; Reed v. Spaulding, 42 N. H.
114; Crooks v. Bitnn, 136 Pa. 368 ; State v. Porter, 74 la. 623 ; Hodges
v. Bates, 102 Ind. 494; Mason v. Vestal, 88 Cal. 396; Jones v. State,
107 Ala. 93 ; and cases infra). But when his testimony is charged to
have been given under the influence of some improper or interested
motive, or to be a recent fabrication, and in other like cases, it may be
shown that he made similar statements before the motive existed, or
before there could have been any inducement to fabricate (Hewitt v.
Corey, 150 Mass. 445 ; In re Hesdra, H9,N. Y. 615 ; Clever v. Hil-
berry, 116 Pa. 431 ; Stolp v. Blair, 68 111. 541 ; State v. Hendricks, 32
Kan. 559; Barkly v. Copcland, 74 Cal. 1 ; City Pass. R. Co. v. Knee,
83 Md. y-j ; Howard x. Comm., 81 Va. 488; Yarbrough v. State, 105
Ala. 43 ; State v. Cady, 46 La. Ann. 1346). In some States, however,
such evidence is received to sustain the credibility of a witness, when-
ever he has been impeached by proof of his prior inconsistent state-
ments (Hobbs v. Stale, 133 Ind. 404; State v. Whelehon, 102 Mo. 17;
Graham v. Mc Reynolds, 90 Tenn. 673 ; State v. Fontenot, 48 La. Ann.
283; Goode v. State, 32 Tex. App. 505); so in North Carolina, if he
has been discredited in any way. State v. Whitfield, 92 N. C. 831.]
1 R. v. Clarke, 2 Stark. 241.
8 R. v. Holmes, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 334.
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 339
whether she has had connection on other occasions with
the prisoner, and if she denies it she may be contra-
dicted.1 2
1 R. v. Martin, 6 C. & P. 562, and remarks in R. v. Holmes, p. 337,
per Kelly, C. B. See also R. v. Cockcroft, 11 Cox, 410, and R. v.
Riley, 18 Q. B. D. 481.
2 [The cases in this country are agreed that in a criminal prose-
cution for rape or an attempt to ravish, the woman's bad general
character for chastity may be proved by witnesses, and also that she
may be examined as to her previous connection with the prisoner
(Gr. Ev. iii. § 214 ; Conkey v. People, 1 Abb. Dec. 418 ; Woods v. People,
55 N. Y. 515 ; State v. Forshner, 43 N. H. 89; O'Blenis v. State, 47
N. J. L. 279; Bedgoodv. State, 115 Ind. 275 ; and cases infra). But
they disagree as to whether particular acts of connection with other
men can be proved. In many States the right to prove such acts,
either by her own examination or by the evidence of witnesses, is
denied {State v. Knapp, 45 N. H. 148; Comm. v. Hart-is, 131 Mass.
336 ; State v. Fitzsimon, 18 R. I. 236 ; McCombs v. State, 8 O. St. 643 ;
Richie v. State, 58 Ind. 355 ; People v. McLean, 71 Mich. 309 ; State v.
White, 35 Mo. 500 ; State v. Brown, 55 Kan. 766 ; State v. Turner, 1
Houst. 76 ; Shartzer v. State, 63 Md. 149 ; Rice v. State, 35 Fla. 236 ;
Pefferling v. State, 40 Tex. 486; State v. Campbell, 20 Nev. 122);
but in a few States such proof is competent {State v. Hollenbeck, 67
Vt. 34, permitting it by cross-examination ; Benstine v. State, 2 Lea,
16a, holding both modes of proof allowable, and so People v. Benson,
6 Cal. 221 ; cf. Shirwin v. People, 69 111. 55); in New York the de-
cisions upon this point are conflicting ( Woods v. People, 55 N. Y. 515 ;
cf. Brown v. State, 72 Miss. 997). In trials for rape upon a woman
under the age of legal consent, evidence of her bad repute for chastity,
or of intercourse with other men, is, in general, not competent
{People v. Glover, 71 Mich. 303 ; People v. Abbott, 97 id. 484 ; State v.
Duffey, 128 Mo. 549; People v. Johnson, 106 Cal. 289 ; but see People
v. Flaherty, 79 Hun, 48).
In actions for indecent assault, evidence of the woman's bad general
repute for chastity is competent ; so, in some States, of particular acts
of unchastity with other men {Mitchell v. Work, 13 R. I. 645 ; Watty
v. Berber, 18 Wis. 525 ; Gulerette v. McKinley, 27 Hun, 320 ; cf. I roung
v. Johnson, 123 N. Y. 226), but not in other States {Gore v. Curtis, 81
Me. 403 ; cf. Miller v. Curtis, 158 Mass. 127).
In actions for seduction, the woman's bad general character for
chastity may be shown (see p. 161, note, ante) ; but she cannot, in some
States, be cross-examined as to prior acts of intercourse with other
340 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
Article 135.
what matters may be proved in reference to declara-
tions relevant under articles 25-32.
Whenever any declaration or statement made by a
deceased person, relevant or deemed to be relevant under
Articles 25-32, both inclusive, or any deposition is proved,
all matters may be proved in order to contradict it, or in
order to impeach or confirm the credit of the person by
whom it was made, which might have been proved if that
person had been called as a witness, and had denied
upon cross-examination the truth of the matter sug-
gested.1
men than the seducer {Hoffman v. Kemerer, 44 Pa. 453 ; Doyle v. Jes-
sup, 29 111. 460; Smith v. Yaryan, 69 Ind. 445 ; cf. Clifton v. Granger,
86 la. 573), unless a child is born and its paternity is in question (see
Smith v. Yaryan). But some cases hold that such acts may be proved
by the testimony of the men themselves (Gr. Ev. ii. § 577 ; White v.
Murtland, 71 111. 250; cf. Ford v. Jones, 62 Barb. 484), or by cross-
examination of the woman as well as by the evidence of witnesses
{Love v. Masoner, 6 Baxt. 24;. IVandell v. Edwards, 25 Hun, 498;
cf. West v. Druff, 55 la. 335 ; Stewart v. Smith, 92 Wis. 76; Ayerv.
Colgrove, 81 Hun, 322).
Upon an indictment for adultery, the woman's bad character for
chastity may be proved {Cotnm. v. Gray, 129 Mass. 474).
In bastardy proceedings, as the fact of paternity is in question, it
may be shown that the woman had intercourse with other men during
the time when the child could have been begotten, but not at other
times {Knight v. Morse, 54 Vt. 432 ; Ronan v. Dugan, 126 Mass. 176 ;
lloi ham v. State, 91 Ind. 82 ; People v. Kaminsky, 73 Mich. 637 ; State
v. Lavin, 80 la. 555 ; Holeotub v. People, 79 111. 409; Swisher v. Ma-
lone, 31 W. Ya. 442 ; cf. People v. Sckildwachter, 5 App. Div. (N. Y.)
288) ; her general character for chastity, however, is not in issue.
Bookhout v. State, 66 Wis. 415 ; Parker v. Dudley, 1 18 Mass. 602.]
1 R. v. Drummond, 1 Leach, 338 ; R. v. Pike, 3 C. & P. 598. In these
cases dying declarations were excluded, because the persons by whom
they were made would have been incompetent as witnesses, but the
principle would obviously apply to all the cases in question. [Thus
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 341
Article 136.
refreshing memory.
A witness may, while under examination, refresh his
memory by referring to any writing- made by himself at
the time of the transaction concerning which he is ques-
tioned, or so soon afterwards that the judge considers it
likely that the transaction was at that time fresh in his
memory.
The witness may also refer to any such writing made
by any other person, and read by the witness within the
time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be correct.1
when dying declarations are offered in evidence, it may be shown that
the deceased declarant was an atheist, to affect his competency or
credibility {State v. Elliott, 45 la. 486; Goodall v. State, 1 Or. 333 ;
People v. Chin Mook Sow, 51 Cal. 597 ; see p. 272, n. 3, ante), or that
his general reputation was bad {Lesterv. State, 37 Fla. 382; Redd v. State,
99 Ga. 210) ; or his contradictory statements may be proved {People v.
Lawrence, 2 1 Cal. 368 ; Carver v. State, 164 U. S. 697 ; State v. Shaffer,
23 Or. 555; Battle v. State, 74 Ga. 101; Shell v. State, 88 Ala. 14;
Morelock v. State, 90 Tenn. 528 ; State v. Lodge, 9 Houst. 542 ; Felder
v. State, 23 Tex. App. 477 ; cf. Richards v. State, 82 Wis. 172 ; Comm.
v. Cooper, 5 Allen, 495 ; contra, Wroe v. State, 20 O. St. 460).
As to depositions, see Art. 131, ante, Illustration {c)\ Keran v. Trice's
Excrs., 75 Va. 690 ; Dabney v. Mitchell, 66 Ala. 495 ; Wallach v. Wylie,
28 Kan. 138 ; Webster v. Mann, 56 Tex. 119.]
1 2 Ph. Ev. 480, etc.; T. E. ss. 1264-70; R. N. P. 194-5. [There are
three cases of refreshing memory : { \ ) Where the witness, by referring
to the writing, is enabled to actually recollect the facts and can testify-
in reality from memory. The writing may be the original one made
by himself, while the facts were fresh in mind {Chamberlin v. Ossipee,
60 N. H. 212 ; Morrison v. Chapin, 97 Mass. 72 ; Nat. Bk. of Dubois
v. Nat. Bk. of Williamsport, 1 14 Pa. 1 ; Card v. Foot, 56 Ct. 369 ; Wel-
come v. Batchelder, 23 Me. 85 ; Russell v. Hudson River R. Co., 17
N. Y. 134; Mason v. Phelps, 48 Mich. 126; People v. Cotta, 49 Cal.
166), or a copy thereof {Hudnutt v. Comstock, 50 Mich. 596 ; Bonnet v.
(jla/lfeldt, 120 111. 166 ; Lawson v. Glass, 6 Col. 134 ; so as to copy of
342 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
An expert may refresh his memory by reference to
professional treatises.1
copy, Folsom v. Apple River Co., 41 Wis. 602 ; or a copy in a news-
paper, Comm. v. Ford, 130 Mass. 64; Clifford v. Drake, 110 111. 135),
or it may be a writing made by another person {State v. Miller, 53 la.
209; Hill v. Stale, 17 Wis. 675 ; Robinson v. Mulder, 81 Mich. 75 ;
Culver v. 6V<?// Lumber Co., 53 Minn. 360; Huffy. Bennett, 6 N. Y.
337 ; Paige v. Carter, 64 Cal. 489). ■ It is not the writing, but the
recollection of the witness, that is the evidence in the case {Comm.
v. Jeffs, 132 Mass. 5 ; Bigelow v. Hall, 91 N. Y. 145 ; Calloway v.
Varner, yj Ala. 541 ; and cases supra).
(2) Where the witness, after referring to the writing, does not recol-
lect the facts, and yet remembers that he made or saw the writing
when the facts were fresh in his mind, and that it then stated the
facts correctly. The writing may have been made by himself {Dugan
v. Mahoney, 11 Allen, 572; Howard x. Mc Donough, ,J N. Y. 592;
Adae v. Zangs, 41 la. 536 ; Downer v. Rowell, 24 Vt. 343 ; Kelsea v.
Fletcher, 48 N. H. 282 ; see Costello v. C rowell, 133 Mass. 352), or by
another person {Davis v. Field, 56 Vt. 426; Chamberlain v. Sands,
27 Me. 458; Billingslea v. Smith, jj Md. 504 ; Coffin v. Vincent, 12
Cush. 98). In some States the writing is itself evidence in special
cases, but not in other States (see Art. 137, note i, post).
An analogous case is where the facts are such as naturally escape
the memory, as items, dates, names, numerous details, etc., and a
witness is allowed to use a memorandum thereof as an aid in testify-
ing, which he knows and testifies to have been correctly made
{Fletcher v. Powers, 131 Mass. 333 ; Brown v. Galesburg Brick Co.,
132 111. 648 ; Wise v. Phojnix Ins. Co., 101 N. Y. 637 ; King v. Faber,
51 Pa. 387 ; Pinney v. Andrus, 41 Vt. 631).
(3) Where the witness, after referring to the writing, neither recol-
lects the facts, nor remembers having 'seen it before, and yet from
seeing his handwriting therein (as in signature, contents, or both), is
enabled to testify to its genuineness and correctness (Gr. Ev. i. § 437 ;
Martin v. Good, 14 Md. 398; Mathias v. 0'Neil,Q$ Mo. 520; Alvord
v. Collin, 20 Pick. 418 ; Crittenden x. Rogers, 8 Gray, 452 ; Moots v.
State, 21.O. St. 653 ; cf. Parsons v. Mfrs. Ins. Co., 16 Gray, 463 ; Cole
x.Jcssup, 10 N. Y. 96). As to the writing being evidence, see next
Article, note.]
1 Sussex Peerage Case, II C. & F. 1 14-17. [People v. Wheeler, 60
Cal. 581, 585 ; Healy v. Visalia R. Co., 101 Cal. 585 ; State v. Baldwin,
36 Kan. 1, 17.]
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 343
Article 137.
right of adverse party as to writing used to refresh
MEMORY.
Any writing referred to tinder Article 136 must be pro-
duced and shown to the adverse party if he requires it;
and such party may, if he pleases, cross-examine the
witness thereupon.1
1 See Cases in R. N. P. 195. [Gr. Ev. i. § 437 ; Peck v. Valentine, 94
N. Y. 571. This is the general rule both as to Case (1), stated in the
preceding note (see p. 341, note 1, ante ; Comm. v. Jeffs, 132 Mass. 5 ;
Peck v. Lake, 3 Lans. 136; Chute v. State, 19 Minn. 271 ; Duncan v.
Seeley, 34 Mich. 369 ; Stanwood v. McLellan, 48 Me. 275 ; McKivitt
v. Cone, 30 la. 455), and also as to Case (2) {Dugan v. Mahoney, 11
Allen, 573 ; Costello v. Crowell, 133 Mass. 352 ; Adae v. Zangs, 41 la.
536 ; see Davis v. Field, 56 Vt. 426). The writing is not itself ad-
mitted in evidence (see cases cited ; Taylor v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 80
la. 431). The object of cross-examination is to ascertain when and
by whom the writing was made, whether it is such a writing as may
properly be used for the purpose, whether the witness's memory is
refreshed by every part of it, etc. {Chute v. State, 19 Minn. 271;
Comm. v. Burke, 114 Mass. 261). It is in the discretion of the trial
court at what stage of the trial this examination shall be made (see
last case). So when the witness, under Case (i)^refers to the writing
out of court, it has been held matter of judicial discretion whether he
shall produce it in court {Comm. v. Lan?ian, 13 Allen, 563 ; see Peck
v. Lake, 3 Lans. 136 ; Trustees v. Bledsoe, 5 Ind. 133).
A different rule is applied in some States in the special case where
the witness himself made the writing when the facts were fresh in his
mind, and remembers that it was then correct, but cannot, upon now
referring to it, testify to the facts from actual recollection ; the original
writing (but not a copy) is itself received in evidence, upon his
authenticating its genuineness and correctness {McCormick v. Pa.
Cent. R. Co., 49 N. Y. 303, 315 ; Kelsea v. Fletcher, 48 N. H. 282 ; Kent
v. Mason, 1 111. App. 466 ; Curtis v. Bradley, 65 Ct. 99 ; Battles v.
Tallman, 96 Ala. 403 ; cf. Bates v. Preble, 151 U. S. 149 ; Vicksburgh,
etc. R. Co. v. O'Brien, 119 U. S. 99; cf. Imhoffx. Richards, 48 Neb.
590). But the writing is not evidence, if the witness has present recol-
lection (Id.; People v. McLaughlin, 150 N. Y. 365, 392 ; Pinkham v.
344 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
Article 138.
giving, as evidence, document called for and produced
on notice.
When a party calls for a document which he has given
the other party notice to produce, and such document is
produced to, and inspected by, the party calling for its
production, he is bound to give it as evidence if the
party producing it requires him to do so, and if it is or is
deemed to be relevant. '
Be7iton, 62 N. H. 687 ; contra, Owens v. State, 67 Md. 307 ; cf. Lapham
v. Kelly, 35 Vt. 195).
In Case (3) the writing should be produced in court to examine the
witness upon (Gr. Ev. i. § 437 ; Hall v. Ray, 18 N. H. 126 ; Martin v.
Good, 14 Md. 398), but is often put in evidence itself, under other rules
of the law of evidence {Moots v. State, 21 O. St. 653; Crittenden v.
Rogers, 8 Gray, 452).
A writing made so long after the transaction to which it relates that
the facts cannot be deemed to have then been fresh in the witness's mind
cannot be used to refresh his recollection (Gr. Ev. i. § 438 ; Howellw.
Carden, 99 Ala. 100 ; Joties v. State, 54 O. St. 1 ; Morris v. Lachman,
68 Cal. 109; Schuyler Nat. Bk. v. Bullong, 24 Neb. 825); so if its
accuracy is justly open to suspicion (Lovell v. Wentworth, 39 O. St.
614). Thus a writing made five months after the transaction and by
request of a party was not allowed to be used {Spring Garde?i Ins. Co.
v. Evans, 15 Md. 54 ; cf. Sivartz v. Chiekering, 58 Md. 290); so of one
made twenty months afterwards (Maxwell v. Wilkinson, 113 U. S.
656) ; so a witness was not allowed to be referred to his own prior
testimony of the same facts which had been given four months after
the event. Putnam v. U. S., 162 U. S. 687 ; cf. People v. Palmer, 105
Mich. 568.]
1 Wharam v. Routledge, 1 Esp. 235 ; Calvert v. Flower, 7 C. & P.
386. [In some American States this rule is followed (Gr. Ev. i. § 563 ;
Ellison v. Cruser, 40 N. J. L. 444 ; Merrill v. Merrill, 67 Me. 70 ; Long
v. Drew, 114 Mass. 77 ; Cuslunan v. Coleman, 92 Ga. 772 ; IVallar v.
Stewart, 4 Cr. C. C. 532 ; Edison Light Co. v. U. S. Lighting Co., 45
F. R. 55; cf. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Nines, 96 Ga. 688; Stitt v.
Huidekopers, 17 Wall. 385); but in others it is rejected. Austin v.
Thompson, 45 X. H. 113; Smith v. Rents, 131 X. Y. 169; cf. Summers
v. JLA'im, 12 S. & R. 405 ; Rumsey v. Lovell, Anth. N. P. 26.]
Chap. XVI.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 345
Article 139.
using, as evidence, a document, production of which was.
refused on notice.
When a party refuses to produce a document which he
has had notice to produce, he may not afterwards use the
document as evidence without the consent of the other
party.1
1 Doe v. Hodgson, 12 A. & E. 135 ; but see remarks in 2 Ph. Ev. 270.
[Gage v. Campbell, 131 Mass. 566; Kingman v. Tirrell, 11 Allen, 97;
Mather v. Eureka Co., 118 N. Y. 629; McGuiness v. School District,
39 Minn. 499 ; Powell v. Peatistine, 43 S. Car. 403.]
346 A DIGEST OF IPart III.
CHAPTER XVII.
OF DEPOSITIONS.
Article 140.
depositions before magistrates.
A deposition taken tinder 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 17, may-
be produced and given in evidence at the trial of the
person against whom it was taken,
if it is proved (to the satisfaction of the judge) that the
witness is dead, or so ill as not to be able to travel
(although there may be a prospect of his recovery) ; '
(or, if he is kept out of the way by the person accused,) 2
or, (probably, if he is too mad to testify,) 3 and
if the deposition purports to be signed by the justice
by or before whom it purports to have been taken ; and
if it is proved by the person who offers it as evidence
that it was taken in the presence of the person accused,
and that he, his counsel, or attorney, had a full opportu-
nity of cross-examining the witness ;
Unless it is proved that the deposition was not in fact
signed by the justice by whom it purports to be signed,
(or, that the statement was not taken upon oath ;
or (perhaps) that it was not read over to or signed by
the witness).4
1 R. v. Stephenson, L. & C. 165.
2 R.v.Scaife, 17 Q. B. 773.
3 Analogy of R. v. Scaife.
4 1 believe the above to be the effect of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 17, as
interpreted by the cases referred to, the effect of which is given by the
words in parenthesis, also by common practice. Nothing can be more
rambling or ill-arranged than the language of the section itself. See
Chap. XVII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 347
If there is a prospect of the recovery of a witness
proved to be too ill to travel, the judge is not obliged to
receive the deposition, but may postpone the trial.1
Article 141.
depositions under 30 & 31 vict. c. 35, s. 6.
A deposition taken for the perpetuation of testimony
in criminal cases,2 under 30 & 31 Vict. c. 35, s. 6, may be
produced and read as evidence, either for or against the
accused, upon the trial of any offender or offence3 to
which it relates —
if the deponent is proved to be dead, or
if it is proved that there is no reasonable probability
that the deponent will ever be able to travel or to give
evidence, and
if the deposition purports to be signed by the justice
by or before whom it purports to be taken, and
if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that reason-
able notice in writing 4 of the intention to take such depo-
sition was served upon the person (whether prosecutor or
accused) against whom it was proposed to be read, and
1 Ph. Ev. 87-100 ; T. E. s. 448, etc. [The depositions to which this
Article relates are those taken upon a preliminary examination of a
charge of crime before a committing magistrate. Similar rules are
established in many States of this country. N. Y. Code Cr. Pro., § 8 ;
People v. Fish, 125 N. Y. 136 ; State v. George, 60 Minn. 503 ; State v.
Elliott, 90 Mo. 350; People v. Ward, 105 Cal. 652; People v. Dow-
digan, 67 Mich. 95 ; Brown v. Conun., 73 Pa. 321 ; Lucas v. State, 96
Ala. 51 ; Pittman v. State, 92 Ga. 480 ; State v. Fitzgerald, 63 la. 268 ;
Bishop's New Cr. Pro. i. § 1197 ; see p. 109, note, ante.]
1 R. v. Tail, 2 F. & F. 553.
8 [Similar statutes providing for the taking of depositions in crimi-
nal cases are found in some States. See N. Y. Code Cr. Pro. §§8, 620-
657; Mass. Pub. St. c. 212, ss. 40, 41 ; Ohio R. S. ss. 7293, 7294 (7th ed.);
Bishop's New Cr. Pro. i. §§ 1 194-1206.]
3 Sic. - 4 R. v. Shimner, 17 Q. B. D. 323.
348 A DIGEST OF [Part III.
that such person or his counsel or attorney had or
might have had, if he had chosen to be present, full
opportunity of cross-examining the deponent.1
Article 142.
depositions under merchant shipping act, 1854.
2 Whenever, in the course of any legal proceedings
instituted in any part of her Majesty's dominions before
any judge or magistrate or before any person authorized
by law or by consent of parties to receive evidence, the
testimony of any witness is required in relation to the
subject-matter of such proceeding, any deposition that
such witness may have previously made on oath in
relation to the same subject-matter before any justice or
magistrate in her Majesty's dominions, or any British
consular officer elsewhere, is admissible in evidence, sub-
ject to the following restrictions : —
1. If such proceeding is instituted in the United
Kingdom or British possessions, due proof must be given
that such witness cannot be found in that kingdom or
possession respectively.
1 30 & 31 Vict. c. 35, s. 6. The section is very long, and as the first
part of it belongs rather to the subject of criminal procedure than to
the subject of evidence, I have omitted it. The language is slightly
altered. I have not referred to depositions taken before a coroner
(see 7 Geo. IV. c. 64, s. 4), because the section says nothing about the
conditions on which they may be given in evidence. Their relevancy,
therefore, depends on the common law principles expressed in Article
32. They must be signed by the coroner; but these are matters not
of evidence, but of criminal procedure. [See McLain v. Comm., 99
Pa. 86.]
4 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 270. There are some other cases in which
depositions are admissible by statute, but they hardly belong to the
Law of Evidence.
Chap. XVII.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 349
2. If such deposition was made in the United King-
dom, it is not admissible in any proceeding instituted in
the United Kingdom. r
3. If the deposition was made in any British posses-
sion, it is not admissible in any proceeding instituted in
the same British possession.
4. If the proceeding is criminal, the deposition is not
admissible unless it was made in the presence of the
person accused.
Every such deposition must be authenticated by the
signature of the judge, magistrate, or consular officer
before whom it was made. Such judge, magistrate, or
consular officer must, when the deposition is taken in a
criminal matter, certify (if the fact is so) that the accused
was present at the taking thereof ; but it is not necessary
in any case to prove the signature or the official character
of the person appearing to have signed any such
deposition.
In any criminal proceeding the certificate aforesaid is
(unless the contrary is proved) sufficient evidence of the
accused having been present in manner thereby certified.
Nothing in this Article contained affects any provision
by Parliament or by any local legislature as to the admis-
sibility of depositions or the practice of any court accord-
ing to which depositions not so authenticated are admis-
sible as evidence.
35o A DIGEST OF [Part III.
CHAPTER XVIII.
OF IMPROPER ADMISSION AND REJECTION OF
EVIDENCE.
Article 143.
A new trial will not be granted in any civil action on the
ground of the improper admission or rejection of evidence,
unless, in the opinion of the court to which the applica-
tion is made, some substantial wrong or miscarriage has
been thereby occasioned in the trial of the action.1
If in a criminal case evidence is improperly rejected
or admitted, there is no remedy, unless the prisoner is
convicted, and unless the judge, in his discretion, states a
case for the Court for Crown Cases Reserved ; but if that
court is of opinion that any evidence was improperly
admitted or rejected, it must set aside the conviction.2
1 Rules of Supreme Court, Order xxxix. 6. [If error has been com-
mitted in admitting or rejecting evidence but can have wrought no
prejudice, it is no ground for granting a new trial in a civil action.
McGean v. Manhattan R. Co., 117 N. Y. 219 ; Hornbuckle v. Stafford,
in U.S. 389 ; Gilbert v. Moline Co., 1 19 U. S. 491 ; Bulkley v. Devine,
127 111. 406; Wingv. Chesterfield, 116 Mass. 353; Girard Ins. Co. v.
Marr, 46 Pa. 504 ; Ha»i v. Wisconsin, etc. R. Co., 61 la. 716.]
■[R. v. Gibson, 18 Q. B. D. 537. In this country, it is a general
rule in criminal cases that a new trial will not be granted for the
erroneous admission or rejection of evidence, where it clearly
appears that the defendant could not have been prejudiced thereby.
People v. Strait, 154 N. Y. 165 ; Genz v. State, 59 N. J. L. 488 ; Ryan
v. State, 83 Atl. R. (N. J.) 672 ; Wallace v. People, 159 111. 446; State
v. McCaffrey, 63 la. 479; People v. Marshall, 112 Cal. 422; Bishop's
New Cr. Pro. i. S 1276.]
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 351
APPENDIX OF NOTES.
NOTE I.
(to Article i.)
The definitions are simply explanations of the senses in which the
words defined are used in this work. They will be found, however, if
read in connection with my ' Introduction to the Indian Evidence Act,'
to explain the manner in which it is arranged.
I use the word "presumption" in the sense of a presumption of
law capable of being rebutted. A presumption of fact is simply an
argument. A conclusive presumption I describe as conclusive proof.
Hence the few presumptions of law which I have thought it necessary
to notice are the only ones I have to deal with.
In earlier editions of this work I gave the following definition of
relevancy:
"Facts, whether in issue or not, are relevant to each other when
one is, or probably may be, or probably may have been —
the cause of the other;
the effect of the other;
an effect of the same cause;
a cause of the same effect:
or when the one shows that the other must or cannot have occurred,
or probably does or did exist, or not;
or that any fact does or did exist, or not, which in the common
course of events would either have caused or have been caused by the
other;
provided that such facts do not fall within the exclusive rules con-
352 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
tained in chapters iii., iv., v., vi.; or that they do fall within the ex-
ceptions to those rules contained in those chapters." '
This was taken (with some verbal alterations) from a pamphlet
called 'The Theory of Relevancy for the purpose of Judicial Evi-
dence, by George Clifford Whitworth, Bombay Civil Service. Bom-
bay, 1875.'
The 7th section of the Indian Evidence Act is as follows: "Facts
which are the occasion, cause or effect, immediate or otherwise, of
relevant facts or facts in issue, or which constitute the state of things
under which they happened, or which afforded an opportunity for
their occurrence or transaction, are relevant."
The nth section is as follows : —
" Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant ;
" ( 1 ) If they are inconsistent with any fact in issue or relevant fact ;
"(2) If by themselves, or in connection with other facts, they make
1 [In the earlier editions Mr. Stephen also gave the following excel-
lent illustrations of relevancy as thus defined:
"(a) A's death is caused by his taking poison. The administration
of the poison is relevant to A's death as its cause. A's death is
relevant to the poisoning as its effect.
"(b) A and B each eat from the same dish and each exhibit
symptoms of the same poison. A's symptoms and B's symptoms are
relevant to each other as effects of the same cause.
"(c) The question is, whether A died of the effects of a railway
accident.
"Facts tending to show that his death was caused by inflammation
of the membranes of the brain, which probably might be caused by
the accident; and facts tending to show that his death was caused
by typhoid fever, which would have nothing to do with the accident,
are relevant to each other as possible causes of the same effect, —
A's death." [See Pitts v. State, 43 Miss. 472; Comm. v. Ryan, 134
Mass. 223; Knox v. Wheelock, 54 Vt. 150; State v. Lentz, 45 Minn.
1 77-]
"(d) A is charged with committing a crime in London on a given
day. The fact that on that day he was at Calcutta is relevant, as
proving that he could not have committed the crime.
"(e) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
" The circumstances are such that it must have been committed
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.
the existence or non-existence of any fact in issue, or relevant fact,
highly probable or improbable."
In my 'Introduction to the Indian Evidence Act,' I examined at
length the theory of judicial evidence, and tried to show that the the-
ory of relevancy is only a particular case of the process of induction,
and that it depends on the connection of events as cause and effect.
This theory does not greatly differ from Bentham's, though he does
not seem to me to have grasped it as distinctly as if he had lived to
study Mill's Inductive Logic.
My theory was expressed too widely in certain parts, and not widely
enough in others ; and Mr. Whitworth's pamphlet appeared to me to
have corrected and completed it in a judicious manner. I accordingly
embodied his definition of relevancy, with some variations and addi-
tions, in the text of the first edition. The necessity of limiting in some
such way the terms of the nth section of the Indian Evidence Act
may be inferred from a judgment by Mr. Justice West (of the High
Court of Bombay), in the case of R. v. Parbhudas and others, printed
in the 'Law Journal,' May 27, 1876. I have substituted the present
definition for it, not because I think it wrong, but because I think it
either by A, B, or C. Every fact which shows this, and every fact
which shows that neither B nor C committed it, or that either of them
did or might have committed it, is relevant.
"(f) B, a person in possession of a large sum of money, is mur-
dered and robbed. The question is, whether A murdered him. The
fact that after the murder A was or was not possessed of a sum
of money unaccounted for is relevant, as showing the existence
or the absence of a fact which, in the common course of events,
would be caused by A's committing the murder. A's knowledge
that B was in possession of the money would be relevant as a
fact, which, in the ordinary course of events, might cause or be
one of the causes of the murder." [See Comm. v. Sturtivant, 117
Mass. 122; Williams v. Comm., 29 Pa. 102; Kennedy v. People, 39
N. Y. 245.]
"(g) A is murdered in his own house at night. The absence of
marks of violence to the house is relevant to the question, whether the
murder was committed by a servant, because it shows the absence of
an effect which would have been caused by its being committed by a
stranger."]
354 * A DIGEST OF [Notes.
gives rather the principle on which the rule depends than a convenient
practical rule.
As to the coincidence of this theory with English law, I can only say
that it will be found to supply a key which wiJl explain all that is said
on the subject of circumstantial evidence by the writers who have treat-
ed of that subject. Mr. Whitworth goes through the evidence given
against the German, Muller, executed for murdering Mr. Briggs on the
North London Railway, and shows how each item of it can be referred
to one or the other of the heads of relevancy which he discusses.
The theory of relevancy thus expressed would, I believe, suffice to
solve every question which can arise upon the subject ; but the legal
rules based upon an unconscious apprehension of the theory exceed
it at some points and fall short of it at others.
NOTE II.
(to Article 2.)
See 1 Ph. Ev. 493, &c; Best, ss. in and 251; T. E. chap. ii. pt. ii.
For instances of relevant evidence held to be insufficient for the
purpose for which it was tendered, on the ground of remoteness, see
R. v. , 2 C. & P. 459 ; and Mann v. Langton, 3 A. & E. 699.
Mr. Taylor (s. 867) adopts from Professor Greenleaf the statement
that "the law excludes on public grounds . . . evidence which is
indecent or offensive to public morals, or injurious to the feelings of
third persons." The authorities given for this are actions on wagers
which the court refused to try, or in which they arrested judgment,
because the wagers were in themselves impertinent and offensive, as,
for instance, a wager as to the sex of the Chevalier D'Eon {Da Costa
v.Jones, Cowp. 729). No action now lies upon a wager, and I can find
no authority for the proposition advanced by Professor Greenleaf. I
know of no case in which a fact in issue, or relevant to an issue, which
the court is bound to try can be excluded merely because it would
pain some one who is a stranger to the action. Indeed, in Da Costa
v. Jones, Lord Mansfield said expressly, " Indecency of evidence is no
objection to its being received where it is necessary to the decision of
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 355
a civil or criminal right" (p. 734). (See Article 129, and Note XLVI.)
[See Melvin v. Melvin, 58 N. H. 569; Cothran v. Ellis, 125 111. 496.]
NOTE III.
(to Article 4.)
On this subject see also 1 Ph. Ev. 157-164; T. E. ss. 527-532; Best,
s. 508 ; 3 Russ. on Crimes, by Greaves, 161-7. (See, too, The Queen's
Case, 2 B. & B. 309-10.)
The principle is substantially the same as that of principal and ac-
cessory, or principal and agent. When various persons conspire to
commit an offence, each makes the rest his agents to carry the plan
into execution. (See, too, Article 17, Note XI.)
NOTE IV.
(to Article 5.)
The principle is fully explained and illustrated in Malcohnson v.
O'Dea, 10 H. L. C. 593. See particularly the reply to the questions
put by the House of Lords to the Judges, delivered by Willes, J.,611-
622. [See Boston v. Richardson, 105 Mass. 351, 371.]
See also 1 Ph. Ev. 234-9; T. E. ss. 593-601; Best, s. 499.
Mr. Phillips and Mr. Taylor treat this principle as an exception to
the rule excluding hearsay. They regard the statements contained in
the title-deeds as written statements made by persons not called as
witnesses. I think the deeds must be regarded as constituting the
transactions which they effect; and in the case supposed in the text,
those transactions are actually in issue. When it is asserted that land
belongs to A, what is meant is, that A is entitled to it by a series of
transactions of which his title-deeds are by law the exclusive evidence
(see Article 40). The existence of the deeds is thus the very fact
which is to be proved.
Mr. Best treats the case as one of "derivative evidence," an expres-
sion which does not appear to me felicitous.
356 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
NOTE V.
(to Article 8.)
The items of evidence included in this Article are often referred to
by the phrase "res gestae," which seems to have come into use on ac-
count of its convenient obscurity. The doctrine of " res gestae " was
much discussed in the case of Doe v. Tatham (p. 79, &c). In the
course of the argument, Bosanquet, J., observed, " How do you trans-
late res gestae? gestae, by whom?" Parke, B., afterward observed,
"The acts by whomsoever done are res gestae, if relevant to the mat-
ter in issue. But the question is, what are relevant?" (7 A. & E.
353.) In delivering his opinion to the House of Lords, the same Judge
laid down the rule thus : "Where any facts are proper evidence upon
an issue " (i. e., when they are in issue, or relevant to the issue) " all oral
or written declarations which can explain such facts may be received
in evidence." (Same Case, 4 Bing. N. C. 548.) The question asked
by Baron Parke goes to the root of the whole subject, and I have tried
to answer it at length in the text, and to give it the prominence in the
statement of the law which its importance deserves.
Besides the cases cited in the Illustrations, see cases as to statements
accompanying acts collected in 1 Ph. Ev. 152-7, and T. E. ss. 521, 528.
I have stated, in accordance with R. v. IValker, 2 M. & R. 212, that the
particulars of a complaint are not admissible ; but I have heard Willes,
}., rule that they were on several occasions, vouching Parke, B., as his
authority. R. v. Walker was decided by Parke, B., in 1839. Though
he excluded the statement, he said, "The sense of the thing certainly
is, that the jury should in the first instance know the nature of the
complaint made by the prosecutrix, and all that she then said. But
for reasons which I never could understand, the usage has obtained
that the prosecutrix's counsel should only inquire generally whether a
complaint was made by the prosecutrix of the prisoner's conduct to-
wards her, leaving the prisoner's counsel to bring before the jury the
particulars of that complaint by cress-examination."
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 357
Lord Bramwell was in the habit, during the latter part of his judi-
cial career, of admitting the complaint itself, and other judges have
sometimes done the same. The practice is certainly in accordance
with common sense.
NOTE VI.
(to Articles 10, n, 12.)
Article 10 is equivalent to the maxim, "Res inter alios acta alteri
nocere non debet," which is explained and commented on in Best, ss.
506-510 (though I should scarcely adopt his explanation of it), and by
Broom ('Maxims,' 954-968). The application of the maxim to the
Law of Evidence is obscure, because it does not show how uncon-
nected transactions should be supposed to be relevant to each other.
The meaning of the rule must be inferred from the exceptions to it
stated in Articles 11 and 12, which show that it means, You are not to
draw inferences from one transaction to another which is not specifi-
cally connected with it merely because the two resemble each other.
They must be linked together by the chain of cause and effect in
some assignable way before you can draw your inference.
In its literal sense the maxim also fails, because it is not true that a
man cannot be affected by transactions to which he is not a party. Il-
lustrations to the contrary are obvious and innumerable ; bankruptcy,
marriage, indeed every transaction of life, would supply them.
The exceptions to the rule given in Articles 1 1 and 12 are general-
ized from the cases referred to in the Illustrations. It is important to
observe that though the rule is expressed shortly, and is sparingly
illustrated, it is of very much greater importance and more frequent
application than the exceptions. It is indeed one of the most char-
acteristic and distinctive parts of the English Law of Evidence, for
this is the rule which prevents a man charged with a particular of-
fence from having either to submit to imputations which in many
cases would be fatal to him, or else to defend every action of his
whole life in order to explain his conduct on the particular occasion.
A statement of the Law of Evidence which did not give due promi-
358 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
nence to the four great exclusive rules of evidence of which this is
one would neither represent the existing law fairly nor in my judg-
ment improve it.
The exceptions to the rule apply more frequently to criminal than
to civil proceedings, and in criminal cases the courts are always
disinclined to run the risk of prejudicing the prisoner by permitting
matters to be proved which tend to show in general that he is a
bad man, and so likely to commit a crime. In each of the cases by
which Article 12 is illustrated, the evidence admitted went to prove
the true character of facts which, standing alone, might naturally
have been accounted for on the supposition of accident, — a suppo-
sition which was rebutted by the repetition of similar occurrences.
In the case of R. v. Gray (Illustration (a)), there were many other
circumstances which would have been sufficient to prove the
prisoner's guilt, apart from the previous fires. That part of the
evidence, indeed, seemed to have little influence on the jury. Gar-
ner's Case (Illustration (c), note) was an extraordinary one, and its
result was in every way unsatisfactory. Some account of this case
will be found in the evidence given by me before the Commission
on Capital Punishments which sat in 1866.
NOTE VII.
(to Article 13.)
As to presumptions arising from the^course of office or business, see
Best, s. 403; 1 Ph. Ev. 480-4; T. E. s. 147. The presumption,
" Omnia esse rite acta," also applies. See Broom's ' Maxims,' 942 ;
Best, ss. 353-365 ; T. E. s. 124, &c. ; 1 Ph. Ev. 480; and Stark. 757,
763-
NOTE VIII.
(to Article 14.)
The unsatisfactory character of the definitions usually given of
hearsay is well known. See Best, s. 495; T. E. ss. 507-510. The
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 359
definition given by Mr. Phillips sufficiently exemplifies it : " When a
witness, in the course of stating what has come under the cognizance
of his own senses concerning a matter in dispute, states the language
of others which he has heard, or produces papers which he identifies
as being written by particular individuals, he offers what is called
hearsay evidence. This matter may sometimes be the very matter
in dispute," etc. (1 Ph. Ev. 143). If this definition is correct, the
maxim, " Hearsay is no evidence," can only be saved from the
charge of falsehood by exceptions which make nonsense of it. By
attaching to it the meaning given in the text, it becomes both in-
telligible and true. There is no real difference between the fact that
a man was heard to say this or that, and any other fact. Words
spoken may convey a threat, supply the motive for a crime, con-
stitute a contract, amount to slander, etc., etc. ; and if relevant or in
issue, on these or other grounds, they must be proved, like other
facts, by the oath of some one who heard them. The important
point to remember about them is that bare assertion must not,
generally speaking, be regarded as relevant to the truth of the
matter asserted.
The doctrine of hearsay evidence was fully discussed by many of
the judges in the case of Doe d. Wright v. Tatham on the different
occasions when that case came before the court (see 7 A. & E. 313-
408 ; 4 Bing. N. C. 489-573). The question was whether letters ad-
dressed to a deceased testator, implying that the writers thought him
sane, but not acted upon by him, could be regarded as relevant to
his sanity, which was the point in issue. The case sets the strin-
gency of the rule against hearsay in a light which is forcibly illus-
trated by a passage in the judgment of Baron Parke (7 A. & E.
385-8), to the following effect : — He treats the letters as " statements
of the writers, not on oath, of the truth of the matter in question,
with this in addition, that they have acted upon the statements on
the faith of their being true by their sending the letters to the
testator." He then goes through a variety of illustrations which
had been suggested in argument, and shows that in no case ought
360 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
such statements to be regarded as relevant to the truth of the matter
stated, even when the circumstances were such as to give the
strongest possible guarantee that such statements expressed the
honest opinions of the persons who made them. Amongst others he
mentions the following: — "The conduct of the family or relations
of a testator taking the same precautions in his absence as if he
were a lunatic ; his election in his absence to some high and re-
sponsible office ; the conduct of a physician who permitted a will to
be executed by a sick testator ; the conduct of a deceased captain on
a question of seaworthiness, who, after examining every part of a
vessel, embarked in it with his family; all these, when deliberate-
ly considered, are, with reference to the matter in issue in each
case, mere instances of hearsay evidence, — mere statements, not
on oath, but implied in or vouched by the actual conduct of persons
by whose acts the litigant parties are not to be bound." All these
matters are therefore to be treated as irrelevant to the questions
at issue.
These observations make the rule quite distinct, but the reason
suggested for it in the concluding words of the passage extracted
appears to be weak. That passage implies that hearsay is ex-
cluded because no one "ought to be bound by the act of a
stranger." That no one shall have power to make a contract
for another, or commit a crime for which that other is to be re-
sponsible, without his authority, is obviously reasonable, but it is
not so plain why A's conduct should not furnish good grounds for
inference as to B's conduct, though it was not authorized by B.
The importance of shortening proceedings, the importance of com-
pelling people to procure the best evidence they can, and the
importance of excluding opportunities of fraud, are considerations
which probably justify the rule excluding hearsay ; but Baron
Parke's illustrations of its operation clearly prove that in some
cases it excludes the proof of matter which, but for it, would be
regarded not only as relevant to particular facts, but as good grounds
for believing in their existence.
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 361
NOTE IX.
(to Article 15.)
This definition is intended to exclude admissions by pleading, ad-
missions which, if so pleaded, amount to estoppels, and admissions
made for the purposes of a cause by the parties or their solicitors.
These subjects are usually treated of by writers on evidence ; but
they appear to me to belong to other departments of the law. The
subject, including the matter which I omit, is treated at length in
1 Ph. Ev. 308-401, and T. E. ss. 653-788. A vast variety of cases
upon admissions of every sort may be found by referring to Roscoe,
N. P. (Index, under the word Admissions.) It may perhaps be well
to observe that when an admission is contained in a document, or
series of documents, or when it forms part of a discourse or conver-
sation, so much and no more of the document, series of documents,
discourse or conversation, must be proved as is necessary for the full
understanding of the admission, but the judge or jury may of course
attach degrees of credit to different parts of the matter proved.
This rule is elaborately discussed and illustrated by Mr. Taylor,
ss. 655-665. It has lost much of the importance which attached to it
when parties to actions could not be witnesses, but could be com-
pelled to make admissions by bills of discovery. The ingenuity of
equity draughtsmen was under that system greatly exercised in
drawing answers in such a form that it was impossible to read part
of them without reading the whole, and the ingenuity of the court
was at least as much exercised in countermining their ingenious
devices. The power of administering interrogatories, and of ex-
amining the parties directly, has made great changes in these matters.
NOTE X.
(to Article 16.)
As to admissions by parties, see Moriarty v. L. C. &*> D. Railway,
L. R. 5 Q. B. 320, per Blackburn, J. ; Alner v. George, 1 Camp. 392;
Bauerman v. Radenius, 7 T. R. 663.
362 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
As to admissions by parties interested, see Spargo v. Brown, 9 B.
& C. 938.
See also on the subject of this Article 1 Ph. Ev. 362-3, 369, 398 ;
and T. E. ss. 669-671, 685, 687, 719; Roscoe, N. P. 71.
As to admissions by privies, see 1 Ph. Ev. 394-7, and T. E. (from
Greenleaf), s. 712.
NOTE XI.
(to Article 17.)
The subject of the relevancy of admissions by agents is rendered
difficult by the vast variety of forms which agency assumes, and by
the distinction between an agent for the purpose of making a state-
ment and an agent for the purpose of transacting business. If A
sends a message by B, B's words in delivering it are in effect A's;
but B's statements in relation to the subject-matter of the message
have, as such, no special value. A's own statements are valuable if
they suggest an inference which he afterwards contests because they
are against his interest ; but when the agent's duty is done, he has no
special interest in the matter.
The principle as to admissions by agents is stated and explained by
Sir W. Grant in Fairlie v. Hastings, 10 Ves. 126-7.
NOTE XII.
(to Article 18.)
See for a third exception (which could hardly occur now), Clay v.
Langsloiv, M. & M. 45.
NOTE XIII.
(to Article 19.)
This comes very near to the case of arbitration. See, as to irregu-
lar arbitrations of this kind, 1 Ph. Ev. 383 ; T. E. ss. 689-90.
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 363
NOTE XIV.
(to Article 20.)
See more on this subject in 1 Ph. Ev. 326-8 ; T. E. ss. 702, 720-3 ;
R. N. P. 66.
NOTE XV.
(to Article 22.)
On the law as to confessions, see 1 Ph. Ev. 401-423 ; T. E. ss. 796-
807, and s. 824; Best, ss. 551-574; Roscoe, Cr. Ev. 38-56; 3 Russ.
on Crimes, by Greaves, 365-436. Joy on Confessions reduces the
law on the subject to the shape of 13 propositions, the effect of all of
which is given in the text in a different form.
Many cases have been decided as to the language which amounts
to an inducement to confess (see Roscoe, Cr. Ev. 40-43, where most
of them are collected). They are, however, for practical purposes,
summed up in J?, v. Baldry, 2 Den. C. C. 430, which is the authority
for the last lines of the first paragraph of this Article.
NOTE XVI.
(to Article 23.)
Cases are sometimes cited to show that if a person is examined as
a witness on oath, his deposition cannot be used in evidence against
him afterwards (see T. E. ss. 809 and 818, n. 6 ; also 3 Russ. on Crimes,
by Greaves, 407, etc.). All these cases, however, relate to the exami-
nations before magistrates of persons accused of crimes, under the
statutes which were in force before 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42.
These statutes authorized the examination of prisoners, but not
their examination upon oath. The 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, prescribes the
form of the only question which the magistrate can put to a
prisoner ; and since that enactment it is scarcely possible to suppose
that any magistrate would put a prisoner upon his oath. The cases
may therefore be regarded as obsolete.
364 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
NOTE XVII.
(to Article 26.)
As to dying declarations, see 1 Ph. Ev. 239-252 ; T. E. ss. 644-652 ;
Best, s. 505 ; Starkie, 32 & 38 ; 3 Russ. Cri. 250-272 (perhaps the
fullest collection of the cases on the subject) ; Roscoe, Cri. Ev. 31, 32.
R. v. Baker, 2 Mo. & Ro. 53, is a curious case on this subject. A
and B were both poisoned by eating the same cake. C was tried
for poisoning A. B's dying declaration that she made the cake
in C's presence, and put nothing bad in it, was admitted as against
C, on the ground that the whole formed one transaction. [See
Brown v. Comm., 73 Pa. 321 ; State v. West/alt, 49 la. 328 ; State v.
Bohan, 15 Kan. 407.]
NOTE XVIII.
(to Article 27.)
1 Ph. Ev. 280-300; T. E. ss. 630-643; Best, 501; R. N. P. 63;
and see note to Price v. Lord Torrington, 2 S. L. C. 328. The last
case on the subject is Massey v. Allen, 13 Ch. D. 558.
NOTE XIX.
(to Article 28.)
The best statement of the law upon this subject will be found in
Higham v. Ridgway, and the note thereto, 2 S. L. C. 318. See also
1 Ph. Ev. 252-280 ; T. E. ss. 602-629 ; Best, s. 500 ; R. N. P. 584.
A class of cases exists which I have not put into the form of an
Article, partly because their occurrence since the commutation of
tithes must be very rare, and partly because I find a great difficulty
in understanding the place which the rule established by them
ought to occupy in a systematic statement of the law. They are
cases which lay down the rule that statements as to the receipts
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 365
of tithes and moduses made by deceased rectors and other ecclesi-
astical corporations sole are admissible in favor of their successors.
There is no doubt as to the rule (see, in particular, Short v. Lee, 2
Jac. & Wal. 464; and Young v. Clare Hall, 17 Q. B. 537). The
difficulty is to see why it was ever regarded as an exception. It
.falls directly within the principle stated in the text, and would
appear to be an obvious illustration of it ; but in many cases it has
been declared to be anomalous, inasmuch as it enables a predecessor
in title to make evidence in favor of his successor. This suggests
that Article 28 ought to be limited by a proviso that a declaration
against interest is not relevant if it was made by a predecessor in
title of the person who seeks to prove it, unless it is a declaration
by an ecclesiastical corporation sole, or a member of an ecclesiastical
corporation aggregate (see Short v. Lee), as to the receipt of a
tithe or modus.
Some countenance for such a proviso may be found in the terms
in which Bayley, J., states the rule in Gleadow v. Atkin, and in the
circumstance that when it first obtained currency the parties to an
action were not competent witnesses. But the rule as to the in-
dorsement of notes, bonds, etc., is distinctly opposed to such a view.
NOTE XX.
(to Article 30.)
Upon this subject, besides the authorities in the text, see 1 Ph. Ev.
169-197; T. E. ss. 543-569; Best, s. 497; R. N. P. 50-54 (the latest
collection of cases).
A great number of cases have been decided as to the particular
documents, etc., which fall within the rule given in the text. They
are collected in the works referred to above, but they appear to me
merely to illustrate one or other of the branches of the rule, and not
to extend or vary it. An award, e. g., is not within the last branch of
Illustration {b), because it ''is but the opinion of the arbitrator, not
upon his own knowledge" {Evans v. Rees, 10 A. & E. 155) ; but the
366 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
detailed application of such a rule as this is better learned by experi-
ence, applied to a firm grasp of principle, than by an attempt to
recollect innumerable cases.
The case of Weeks v. Sparke is remarkable for the light it throws
on the history of the Law of Evidence. It was decided in 1813, and
contains inter alia the following curious remarks by Lord Ellen-
borough. "It is stated to be the habit and practice of different cir-
cuits to admit this species of evidence upon such a question as the
present. That certainly cannot make the law, but it shows at least,
from the established practice of a large branch of the profession, and
of the judges who have presided at various times on those circuits,
what has been the prevailing opinion upon this subject amongst so
large a class of persons interested in the due administration of the
law. It is stated to have been the practice both of the Northern and
Western Circuits. My learned predecessor, Lord Kenyon, certainly
held a different opinion, the practice of the Oxford Circuit, of which
he was a member, being different." So in the Berkeley Peerage Case,
Lord Eldon said, "when it was proposed to read this deposition as a
declaration, the Attorney-General (Sir Vicary Gibbs) flatly objected to
it. He spoke quite right as a Western Circuiteer, of what he had
often heard laid down in the West, and never heard doubted" (4
Camp. 419, A. D. 181 1). This shows how very modern much of the
Law of Evidence is. Le Blanc, J., in Weeks v. Sparke, says, that a
foundation must be laid for evidence of this sort " by acts of enjoy -
nent within living memory." This seems superfluous, as no jury
would ever find that a public right of way existed, which had not
been used in living memory, on the strength of a report that some
deceased person had said that there once was such a right.
NOTE XXI.
(to Article 31.)
See 1 Ph. Ev. 197-233 ; T. E. ss. 571-592 ; Best, 633 ; R. N. P. 49-50.
The Berkeley Peerage Case (Answers of the Judges to the House of
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 367
Lords), 4 Camp. 401, which established the third condition given in
the text ; and Davies v. Lowndes, 6 M. & G. 471 (see more particu-
larly pp. 525-9, in which the question of family pedigrees is fully dis-
cussed) are specially important on this subject.
As to declarations as to the place of births, etc., see Shields v
Boucher, 1 De G. & S. 49-58.
NOTE XXII.
(to Article 32.)
See also 1 Ph. Ev. 306-8 ; T. E. ss. 434-447 ; Buller, N. P. 238, and
following.
In reference to this subject it has been asked whether this principle
applies indiscriminately to all kinds of evidence in all cases. Suppose
a man were to be tried twice upon the same facts — e.g., for robbery
after an acquittal for murder, and suppose that in the interval be-
tween the two trials an important witness who had not been called
before the magistrates were to die, might his evidence be read on the
second trial from a reporter's short-hand notes ? This case might
easily have occurred if Orton had been put on his trial for forgery as
well as for perjury. I should be disposed to think on principle that
such evidence would be admissible, though I cannot cite any author-
ity on the subject. The common-law principle on which depositions
taken before magistrates and in Chancery proceedings were admitted
seems to cover the case.
NOTE XXIII.
(to Articles 39-47.)
The law relating to the relevancy of judgments of Courts of Justice
to the existence of the matters which they assert is made to appear
extremely complicated by the manner in which it is usually dealt
with. The method commonly employed is to mix up the question
of the effect of judgments of various kinds with that of their admis-
368 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
sibility, subjects which appear to belong to different branches of the
law.
Thus the subject, as commonly treated, introduces into the Law of
Evidence an attempt to distinguish between judgments in rem, and
judgments in personam or inter partes, (terms adapted from, but not
belonging to, Roman law, and never clearly defined in reference to
our own or any other system); also the question of the effect of the
pleas of autrefois acquit, and aictrefois convict, which clearly belong
not to evidence, but to criminal procedure ; the question of estoppels,
which belongs rather to the law of pleading than to that of evidence;
and the question of the effect given to the judgments of foreign
Courts of Justice, which would seem more properly to belong to pri-
vate international law. These and other matters are treated of at great
length in 2 Ph. Ev. 1-78, and T. E. ss. 1480-1534, and in the note to
the Duchess of Kingston's Case in 2 S. L. C. 777-880. Best (ss. 588-
595) treats the matter more concisely.
The text is confined to as complete a statement as I could make of
the principles which regulate the relevancy of judgments considered
as declarations proving the facts which they assert, whatever may be
the effect or the use to be made of those facts when proved. Thus the
leading principle stated in Article 40 is equally true of all judgments
alike. Every judgment, whether it be in rem or inter partes, must and
does prove what it actually effects, though the effects of different sorts
of judgments differ as widely as the effects of different sorts of deeds.
There has been much controversy as to the extent to which effect
ought to be given to the judgments of foreign courts in this country,
and as to the cases in which the courts will refuse to act upon them ;
but as a mere question of evidence, they do not differ from English
judgments. The cases on foreign judgments are collected in the note
to the Duchess of Kingston s Case, 2 S. L. C. 813-845. There is a con-
venient list of the cases in R. N. P. 201-3. The cases of Godardv.
Gray, L. R. 6 Q. B. 139, Castrique v. Imrie, L. R. 4 E. & I. App. 414,
[and Abouloffv. Oppenheimer, 10 Q. B. D. 295], are the latest leading
cases on the subject.
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 369
NOTE XXIV.
(to Chapter V.)
On evidence of opinions, see 1 Ph. Ev. 520-8; T. E. ss. 1273-81;
Best, ss. 511-17; R. N. P. 193-4. The leading case on the subject is
Doe v. Tatham, 7 A. & E. 313; and 4 Bing. N. C. 489, referred to
above in Note VIII. Baron Parke, in the extracts there given, treats
an expression of opinion as hearsay, that is, as a statement affirming
the truth of the subject-matter of the opinion.
NOTE XXV.
(to Chapter VI.)
See 1 Ph. Ev. 502-8 ; T. E. ss. 325-336 ; Best, ss. 257-263 ; 3 Russ.
Cri, 299-304. The subject is considered at length in R. v. Row ton, 1
L. & C. 520. One consequence of the view of the subject taken in
that case is that a witness may with perfect truth swear that a man,
who to his knowledge has been a receiver of stolen goods for years,
has an excellent character for honesty, if he has had the good luck to
conceal his crimes from his neighbors. It is the essence of successful
hypocrisy to combine a good reputation with a bad disposition, and
according to R. v. Rowton, the reputation is the important matter.
The case is seldom if ever acted on in practice. The question always
put to a witness to character is, What is the prisoner's character for
honesty, morality, or humanity ? as the case may be ; nor is the wit-
ness ever warned that he is to confine his evidence to the prisoner's
reputation. It would be no easy matter to make the common run of
witnesses understand the distinction.
NOTE XXVI.
(to Article 58.)
The list of matters judicially noticed in this Article is not intended
to be quite complete. It is compiled from 1 Ph. Ev. 458-67, and
370 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
T. E. ss. 4-20, where the subject is gone into more minutely. A con-
venient list is also given in R. N. P. ss. 88-92, which is much to the
same effect. It may be doubted whether an absolutely complete list
could be formed, as it is practically impossible to enumerate every-
thing which is so notorious in itself, or so distinctly recorded by pub-
lic authority, that it would be superfluous to prove it. Paragraph (1)
is drawn with reference to the fusion of Law, Equity, Admiralty, and
Testamentary Jurisdiction effected by the Judicature Act.
NOTE XXVII.
(to Article 62.)
Owing to the ambiguity of the word "evidence," which is some-
times used to signify the effect of a fact when proved, and sometimes
to signify the testimony by which a fact is proved, the expression
"hearsay is no evidence" has many meanings. Its common and most
important meaning is the one given in Article 14, which might be
otherwise expressed by saying that the connection between events,
and reports that they have happened, is generally so remote that it is
expedient to regard the existence of the reports as irrelevant to the
occurrence of the events, except in excepted cases. Article 62 ex-
presses the same thing from a different point of view, and is subject
to no exceptions whatever. It asserts that whatever may be the rela-
tion of a fact to be proved to the fact in issue, it must, if proved by
oral evidence, be proved by direct evidence. For instance, if it were
to be proved under Article 31 that A, who died fifty years ago, said
that he had heard from his father B, who died 100 years ago, that A's
grandfather C had told B that D, C's elder brother, died without issue,
A's statement must be proved by some one who, with his own ears,
heard him make it. If (as in the case of verbal slander) the speaking
of the words was the very point in issue, they must be proved in pre-
cisely the same way. Cases in which evidence is given of character
and general opinion may perhaps seem to be exceptions to this rule,
but they are not so. . When a man swears that another has a good
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 371
character, he means that he has heard many people, though he does
not particularly recollect what people, speak well of him, though he
does not recollect all that they said.
NOTE XXVIII.
(to Articles 66 & 67.)
This is probably the most ancient, and is, as far as it extends, the
most inflexible of all the rules of evidence. The following character-
istic observations by Lord Ellenborough occur in i?. v \ Harringworth,
4 M. & S. 353 :
"The rule, therefore, is universal that you must first call the sub-
scribing witness ; and it is not to be varied in each particular case
by trying whether, in its application, it may not be productive of
some inconvenience, for then there would be no such thing as a gen-
eral rule. A lawyer who is well stored with these rules would be no
better than any otJier man that is without them, if by mere force of
speculative reasoning it might be shown that the application of such
and such a rule would be productive of such and such an incon-
venience, and therefore ought not to prevail ; but if any general rule
ought to prevail, this is certainly one that is as fixed, formal, and
universal as any that can be stated in a Court of Justice."
In IVhyman v. Garth, 8 Ex. 807, Pollock, C. B., said, "The par-
ties are supposed to have agreed inter se that the deed shall not be
given in evidence without his" (the attesting witness) "being called
to depose to the circumstances attending its execution."
In very ancient times, when the jury were witnesses as to matter of
tact, the attesting witnesses to deeds (if a deed came in question^
would seem to have been summoned with, and to have acted as a
sort of assessors to, the jury. See as to this, Bracton, fo. 38 a ; For-
tescue de Laudibus, ch. xxxii. with Selden's note ; and cases collected
from the Year-books in Brooke's Abridgement, tit. Testmoignes.
For the present rule, and the exceptions to it, see 1 Ph. Ev. 242-
261 ; T. E. ss. 1637-42 ; R. N. P. 147-50 ; Best, ss. 220, etc.
The old rule which applied to all attested documents was restricted
372 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
to those required to be attested by law, by 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 26,
and 28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, ss. 1 & 7.
NOTE XXIX.
(to Article 72.)
For these rules in greater detail, see 1 Ph. Ev. 452-3, and 2 Ph. Ev,
272-289 ; T. E. ss. 419-426 ; R. N. P. 8 & 9.
The principle of all the rules is fully explained in the cases cited in
the footnotes, more particularly in Divyer v. Collins, 7 Ex. 639. In
that case it is held that the object of notice to produce is "to enable
the party to have the document in court, and if he does not, to enable
his opponent to give parol evidence ... to exclude the argument
that the opponent has not taken all reasonable means to procure the
original, which he must do before he can be permitted to make use of
secondary evidence" (p. 647-8).
NOTE XXX.
(to Article 75.)
Mr. Phillips (ii. 196) says, that upon a plea of mil tiel record, the
original record must be produced if it is in the same court.
Mr. Taylor (s. 1379) says, that upon prosecutions for perjury as-
signed upon any judicial document the original must be produced.
The authorities given seem to me hardly to bear out either of these
statements. They show that the production of the original in such
cases is the usual course, but not, I think, that it is necessary. The
case of Lady Dartmouth v. Roberts, 16 Ea. 334, is too wide for the
proposition for which it is cited. The matter, however, is of little
practical importance.
NOTE XXXI.
(to Articles 77 & 78.)
The learning as to exemplifications and office-copies will be found
in the following authorities : Gilbert's Law of Evidence, 1 1-20 ; Buller,
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 373
Nisi Prius, 228, and following ; Starkie, 256-66 (fully and very con-
veniently); 2 Ph. Ev. 196-200; T. E. ss. 1380-4; R. N. P. 1 12-15.
The second paragraph of Article 77 is founded on Appletoti v. Bray-
brook, 6 M. & S. 39.
As to exemplifications not under the Great Seal, it is remarkable
that the Judicature Acts give no Seal to the Supreme Court, or the
High Court, or any of its divisions.
NOTE XXXII.
(to Article 90.)
The distinction between this and the following Article is, that Arti-
cle 90 defines the cases in which documents are exclusive evidence
of the transactions which they embody, while Article 91 deals with the
interpretation of documents by oral evidence. The two subjects are
so closely connected together, that they are not usually treated as
distinct ; but they are so in fact. A and B make a contract of marine
insurance on goods, and reduce it to writing. They verbally agree
that the goods are not to be shipped in a particular ship, though the
contract makes no such reservation. They leave unnoticed a con-
dition usually understood in the business of insurance, and they make
use of a technical expression, the meaning of which is not commonly
known. The law does not permit oral evidence to be given of the
exception as to the particular ship. It does permit oral evidence to
be given to annex the condition ; and thus far it decides that for one
purpose the document shall, and that for another it shall not, be re-
garded as exclusive evidence of the terms of the actual agreement
between the parties. It also allows the technical term to be ex-
plained, and in doing so it interprets the meaning of the document
itself. The two operations are obviously different, and their proper
performance depends upon different principles. The first depends
upon the principle that the object of reducing transactions to a writ-
ten form is to take security against bad faith or bad memory, for
which reason a writing is presumed as a general rule to embody the
374 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
final and considered determination of the parties to it. The second
depends on a consideration of the imperfections of language, and of
the inadequate manner in which people adjust their words to the
facts to which they apply.
The rules themselves are not, I think, difficult either to state, to un-
derstand, or to remember ; but they are by no means easy to apply,
inasmuch as from the nature of the case an enormous number of trans-
actions fall close on one side or the other of most of them. Hence
the exposition of these rules, and the abridgment of all the illus-
trations of them which have occurred in practice, occupy a very
large space in the different text writers. They will be found in 2
Ph. Ev. 332-424; T. E. ss. 1031-1110; Stark. 648-731; Best (very
shortly and imperfectly), ss. 226-229; R. N. P. (an immense list of
cases), 17-35.
As to paragraph (4), which is founded on the case of Goss v. Lord
Nugent, it is to be observed that the paragraph is purposely so drawn
as not to touch the question of the effect of the Statute of Frauds. It
was held in effect in Goss v. Lord Nugent that if by reason of the
Statute of Frauds the substituted contract could not be enforced, it
would not have the effect of waiving part of the original contract;
but it seems the better opinion that a verbal rescission of a contract
good under the Statute of Frauds would be good. See Noble v. Ward,
L. R. 2 Ex. 135, and Pollock on Contracts, 411, note (6). A contract
by deed can be released only by deed, and this case also would fall
within the proviso to paragraph (4).
The cases given in the Illustrations will be found to mark sufficiently
the various rules stated. As to paragraph (5) a very large collection
of cases will be found in the notes to Wigglesworth v. Dallison, 1 S.
L. C. 598-628, but the consideration of them appears to belong rather
to mercantile law than to the Law of Evidence. For instance, the
question what stipulations are consistent with, and what are contra-
dictory to, the contract formed by subscribing a bill of exchange, or
the contract between an insurer and an underwriter, are not questions
of the Law of Evidence.
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 375
NOTE XXXIII.
(to Article 91.)
Perhaps the subject-matter of this Article does not fall strictly
within the Law of Evidence, but it is generally considered to do so ;
and as it has always been treated as a branch of the subject, I have
thought it best to deal with it.
The general authorities for the propositions in the text are the same
as those specified in the last note ; but the great authority on the sub-
ject is the work of Vice-Chancellor Wigram on Extrinsic Evidence.
Article 91, indeed, will be found, on examination, to differ from the
six propositions of Vice-Chancellor Wigram only in its arrangement
and form of expression, and in the fact that it is not restricted to wills.
It will, I think, be found, on examination, that every case cited by the
Vice-Chancellor might be used as an illustration of one or the other of
the propositions contained in it.
It is difficult to justify the line drawn between the rule as to cases in
which evidence of expressions of intention is admitted and cases in
which it is rejected (paragraph 7, Illustrations (k), (/), and paragraph 8,
Illustration («)). When placed side by side, such cases as Doe v.His-
cocks (Illustration (/£)) and Doe v. Needs (Illustration («)) produce a
singular effect. The vagueness of the distinction between them is
indicated by the case of Charter v. Charter, L. R. 2 P. & D. 315.- In
this case the testator Forster Charter appointed "my son Forster
Charter" his executor. He had two sons, William Forster Charter
and Charles Charter, and many circumstances pointed to the conclu-
sion that the person whom the testator wished to be his executor was
Charles Charter. Lord Penzance not only admitted evidence of all the
circumstances of the case, but expressed an opinion (p. 319) that, if it
were necessary, evidence of declarations of intention might be admitted
under the rule laid down by Lord Abinger in Hiscocks v. Hiscocks, be-
cause part of the language employed (" my son Charter ") applied
correctly to each son, and the remainder, " Forster," to neither. This
mode of construing the rule would admit evidence of declarations of
376 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
intention both in cases falling under paragraph 8, and in cases falling
under paragraph 7, which is inconsistent not only with the reasoning
in the judgment, but with the actual decision in Doe v. Hiscocks. It is
also inconsistent with the principles of the judgment in the later case
of Allgoodv. Blake, L. R. 8 Ex. 160, where the rule is stated by Black-
burn, J., as follows: — "In construing a will, the court is entitled to
put itself in the position of the testator, and to consider all material
facts and circumstances known to the testator with reference to which
he is to be taken to have used the words in the will, and then to de-
clare what is the intention evidenced by the words used with reference
to those facts and circumstances which were (or ought to have been) in
the mind of the testator when he used those words." After quoting
Wigram on Extrinsic Evidence, and Doe v. Hiscocks, he adds : " No
doubt, in many cases the testator has, for the moment, forgotten or
overlooked the material facts and circumstances which he well knew.
And the consequence sometimes is that he uses words which express
an intention which he would not have wished to express, and would
have altered if he had been reminded of the facts and circumstances.
But the court is to construe the will as made by the testator, not to
make a will for him ; and therefore it is bound to execute his ex-
pressed intention, even if there is great reason to believe that he has
by blunder expressed what he did not mean." The part of Lord
Penzance's judgment above referred to was unanimously overruled in
the House of Lords ; though the court, being equally divided as to
the construction of the will, refused to reverse the judgment, upon
the principle " pro?snmitur pro negante."
Conclusive as the authorities upon the subject are, it may not, per-
haps, be presumptuous to express a doubt whether the conflict be-
tween a natural wish to fulfill the intention which the testator would
have formed if he had recollected all the circumstances of the case;
the wish to avoid the evil of permitting written instruments to be
varied by oral evidence ; and the wish to give effect to wills, has not
produced in practice an illogical compromise. The strictly logical
course, I think, would be either to admit declarations of intention
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 377
both in cases falling under paragraph 7, and in cases falling under
paragraph 8, or to exclude such evidence in both classes of cases, and
to hold void for uncertainty every bequest or devise which was shown
to be uncertain in its application to facts. Such a decision as that in
Stringer v. Gardiner, the result of which was to give a legacy to a
person whom the testator had no wish to benefit, and who was not
either named or described in his will, appears to me to be a practical
refutation of the principle or rule on which it is based.
Of course every document, whatever, must to some extent be inter-
preted by circumstances. However accurate and detailed a descrip-
tion of things and persons may be, oral evidence is always wanted to
show that persons and things answering the description exist ; and
therefore in every case whatever, every fact must be allowed to be
proved to which the document does, or probably may, refer; but if
more evidence than this is admitted, if the court may look at circum-
stances which affect the probability that the testator would form this
intention or that, why should declarations of intention be excluded ?
If the question is, " What did the testator say ? " why should the court
look at the circumstances that he lived with Charles, and was on bad
terms with William ? How can any amount of evidence to show that
the testator intended to write " Charles " show that what he did write
means "Charles"? To say that " Forster " means "Charles" is like
saying that " two " means " three." If the question is, " What did the
testator wish ? " why should the court refuse to look at his declarations
of intention ? And what third question can be asked ? The only one
which can be suggested is, " What would the testator have meant if
he had deliberately used unmeaning words?" The only answer to
this would be, he would have had no meaning, and would have said
nothing, and his bequest should be pro tanto void.
NOTE XXXIV.
(to Article 92.)
See 2 Ph. Ev. 364; Stark. 726; T. E. (from Greenleaf), s. 1051.
Various cases are quoted by these writers in support of the first par*
378 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
of the proposition in the Article ; but 7?. v. Cheadle is the only one
which appears to me to come quite up to it. They are all settlement
cases.
NOTE XXXV.
(to Chapter XTII.)
In this and the following Chapter many matters usually introduced
into treatises on evidence are omitted, because they appear to belong
either to the subject of pleading, or to different branches of Substan-
tive Law. For instance, the rules as to the burden of proof of nega-
tive averments in criminal cases (i Ph. Ev. 555, etc.; 3 Russ. Cri.
276-9) belong rather to criminal procedure than to evidence. Again,
in every branch of Substantive Law there are presumptions, more or
less numerous and important, which can be understood only in con-
nection with those branches of the law. Such are the presumptions
as to the ownership of property, as to consideration for a bill of ex-
change, as to many of the incidents of the contract of insurance.
Passing over all these, I have embodied in Chapter XIV. those pre-
sumptions only which bear upon the proof of facts likely to be proved
on a great variety of different occasions, and those estoppels only
which arise out of matters of fact, as distinguished from those which
arise upon deeds or judgments.
NOTE XXXVI.
(to Article 94.)
The presumption of innocence belongs principally to the Criminal
Law, though it has, as the Illustrations show, a bearing on the proof
of ordinary facts. The question, "What doubts are reasonable in
criminal cases ? " belongs to the Criminal Law.
NOTE XXXVII.
(to Article ioi.)
The first part of this Article is meant to give the effect of the pre-
sumption, omnia esse rite acta, 1 Ph. Ev. 480, etc.; T. E. ss. 124, etc.;
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 379
Best, s. 353, etc. This, like all presumptions, is a very vague and fluid
rule at best, and is applied to a great variety of different subject-
matters.
NOTE XXXVIII.
(to Articles 102-105.)
These Articles embody the principal cases of estoppels in pais, as
distinguished from estoppels by deed and by record. As they may be
applied in a great variety of ways and to infinitely various circum-
stances, the application of these rules has involved a good deal of de-
tail. The rules themselves appear clearly enough on a careful exam-
ination of the cases. The latest and most extensive collection of cases
is to be seen in 2 S. L. C. 851-880, where the cases referred to in the
text and many others are abstracted. See, too, 1 Ph. Ev. 350-3 ; T. E.
ss. 88-90, 776, 778 ; Best, s. 543.
Article 102 contains the rule in Bickard v. Sears, 6 A. & E. 474,
as interpreted and limited by Parke, B., in Freeman v. Cooke, 6
Bing. 174, 179. The second paragraph of the Article is founded
on the application of this rule to the case of a negligent act caus-
ing fraud. The rule, as expressed, is collected from a comparison
of the following cases : Bank of Ireland v. Evans, 5 H. L. C. 389 ;
Swan v. British a7id Australasian Company, which was before
three courts, see 7 C. B. (N. S.) 448; 7 H. & N. 603; 2 H. & C.
175, where the judgment of the majority of the Court of Exchequer
was reversed ; and Halifax Guardians v. Wheelwright, L. R. 10
Ex. 183, in which all the cases are referred to. All of these refer
to Young v. Grote (4 Bing. 253), and its authority has always been
upheld, though not always on the same ground. The rules on this
subject are stated in general terms in Carr v. L. &> N. IV. Railway,
L. R. 10 C. P. 316-17.
It would be difficult to find a better illustration of the gradual way
in which the judges construct rules of evidence, as circumstances
require it, than is afforded by a study of these cases.
380 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
NOTE XXXIX.
(to Chapter XV.)
The law as to the competency of witnesses was formerly the most,
or nearly the most, important and extensive branch of the Law of Evi-
dence. Indeed, rules as to the incompetency of witnesses, as to the
proof of documents, and as to the proof of some particular issues, are
nearly the only rules of evidence treated of in the older authorities.
Great part of Bentham's ' Rationale of Judicial Evidence ' is directed
to an exposure of the fundamentally erroneous nature of the theory
upon which these rules were founded ; and his attack upon them has
met with a success so nearly complete that it has itself become obso-
lete. The history of the subject is to be found in Mr. Best's work,
book i. part i. ch. ii. ss. 132-188. See, too, T. E. ss. 1210-57, and R. N.
P. 177-81. As to the old law, see 1 Ph. Ev. 1, 104.
NOTE XL.
(to Article 107.)
The authorities for the first paragraph are given at great length in
Best, ss. 146-165. See, too, T. E. s. 1240. As to paragraph 2, see
Best, s. 148; 1 Ph. Ev. 7 ; 2 Ph. Ev. 457; T. E. s. 1241. The con-
cluding words of the last paragraph are framed with reference to the
alteration in the law as to the competency of witnesses made by 32 &
33 Vict. c. 68, s. 4.1 The practice of insisting on a child's belief in
punishment in a future state for lying, as a condition of the admissi-
bility of its evidence, leads to anecdotes and to scenes little calculated
to increase respect either for religion or for the administration of jus-
tice. The statute referred to would seem to render this unnecessary.
If a person who deliberately and advisedly rejects all belief in God
and a future state is a competent witness, a fortiori, a child who has
received no instructions on the subject must be competent also.
1 Now (1893) repealed by the Oaths Act, ii
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 381
NOTE XLI.
(to Article 108.)
At Common Law the parties and their husbands and wives were in-
competent in all cases. This incompetency was removed as to the
parties in civil, but not in criminal cases, by 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 2 ;
and as to their husbands and wives, by 16 & 17 Vict. c. 83, ss. 1, 2.
But sec. 2 expressly reserved the Common Law as to criminal cases
and proceedings instituted in consequence of adultery.
The words relating to adultery were repealed by 32 & 33 Vict, c.68,
s. 3, which is the authority for Article 109.
Persons interested and persons who had been convicted of certain
crimes were also' incompetent witnesses, but their incompetency was
removed by 6 & 7 Vict. c. 85.
The text thus represents the effect of the Common Law as varied
by four distinct statutory enactments.
NOTE XLIL
(to Article hi.)
The cases on which these Articles are founded are only Nisi Prius
decisions; but as they are quoted by \vr ers of eminence (1 Ph. Ev.
139; T. E. s. 859), I have referred to them.
In the trial of Lord Thanet, for an attempt to rescue Arthur O'Con-
nor, Sergeant Shepherd, one of the special commissioners, before
whom the riot took place in court at Maidstone, gave evidence, R. v.
Lord Thanet, 27 S. T. 836.
I have myself been called as a witness on a trial for perjury to
prove what was said before me when sitting as an arbitrator. The
trial took place before Mr. Justice Hayes at York, in 1869.
As to the case of an advocate giving evidence in the course of a
trial in which he is professionally engaged, see several cases cited
and discussed in Best, ss. 184-6.
In addition to those cases, reference may be made to the trial of
382 A DIGEST OF TNotes.
Home Tooke for a libel in 1777, when he proposed to call the Attor-
ney-General (Lord Thurlow), 20 S. T. 740. These cases do not
appear to show more than that, as a rule, it is for obvious reasons
improper that those who conduct a case as advocates should "be
called as witnesses in it. Cases, however, might occur in which it
might be absolutely necessary to do so. For instance, a solicitor
engaged as an advocate might, not at all improperly, be the attesting
witness to a deed or will.
NOTE XLIII.
(to Article 115.)
This Article sums up the rule as to professional communications,
every part of which is explained at great length, and to much the same
effect, in 1 Ph. Ev. 105-122; T. E. ss. 832-9; Best, s. 581. It is so
well established and so plain in itself that it requires only negative
illustrations. It is stated at length by Lord Brougham in Greenough
v. Gaskell, 1 M. & K. 98. The last leading case on the subject is R.
v. Cox &* Railton, 14 Q. B. D. 153. Leges Henrici Primi, v. 17:
"Caveat sacerdos ne de hiis qui ei confitentur peccata alicui recitet
quod ei confessus est, non propinquis, non extraneis. Quod si fecerit
deponetur et omnibus diebus vitas suae ignominiosus peregrinando
pceniteat." 1 M. 508.
NOTE XLIV.
(to Article 117.)
The question whether clergymen, and particularly whether Roman
Catholic priests, can be compelled to disclose confessions made to
them professionally, has never been solemnly decided in England,
though it is stated by the text. writers that they can. See 1 Ph. Ev.
109; T. E. ss. 837-8; R. N. P. 190; Starkie, 40. The question is dis-
cussed at some length in Best, ss. 583-4 ; and a pamphlet was written
to maintain the existence of the privilege by Mr. Baddeley in 1865.
Mr, Best shows clearly that none of the decided cases are directly in
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 383
point, except Butler v. Moore (MacNally, 253-4), and possibly R. v.
Sparkcs, which was cited by Garrow in arguing Du Barre v. Livctte
before Lord Kenyon (1 Pea. 108). The report of his argument is in
these words : "The prisoner, being a Papist, had made a confession
before a Protestant clergyman of the crime for which he was indicted ;
and that confession was permitted to be given in evidence on the
trial" (before Buller, J.), "and he was convicted and executed." The
report is of no value, resting as it does on Peake's note of Garrow's
statement of a case in which he was probably not personally con-
cerned ; and it does not appear how the objection was taken, or
whether the matter was ever argued. Lord Kenyon, however, is said
to have observed : " I should have paused before I admitted the evi-
dence there admitted."
Mr. Baddeley's argument is in a few words, that the privilege must
have been recognized when the Roman Catholic religion was estab-
lished by law, and that it has never been taken away.
I think that the modern Law of Evidence is not so old as the Ref-
ormation, but has grown up by the practice of the courts, and by de-
cisions in the course of the last two centuries. It came into existence
at a time when exceptions in favor of auricular confessions to Roman
Catholic priests were not likely to be made. The general rule is that
every person must testify to what he knows. An exception to the
general rule has been established in regard to legal advisers, but
there is nothing to show that it extends to clergymen, and it is usually
so stated as not to include them. This is the ground on which the
Irish Master of the Rolls (Sir Michael Smith) decided the case of
Butler v. Moore, in 1802 (MacNally, Ev. 253-4). It was a demurrer
to a rule to administer interrogatories to a Roman Catholic priest as
to matter which he said he knew, if at all, professionally only. The
Judge said, "It was the undoubted legal constitutional right of every
subject of the realm who has a cause depending, to call upon a fellow-
subject to testify what he may know of the matters in issue ; and every
man is bound to make the discovery, unless specially exempted and
protected by law, It was candidly admitted, that no special exemp-
384 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
tion could be shown in the present instance, and analogous cases and
principles alone were relied upon." The analogy, however, was not
considered sufficiently strong.
Several judges have, for obvious reasons, expressed the strongest
disinclination to compel such a disclosure. Thus Best, C J., said, "I,
for one, will never compel a clergyman to disclose communications
made to him by a prisoner ; but if he chooses to disclose them I shall
receive them in evidence" {obiter, in Broad v. Pitt, 3 C. & P. 518).
Alderson, B., thought (rather it would seem as a matter of good feel-
ing than as a matter of positive law) that such evidence should not be
given. R. v. Griffin, 6 Cox, 219.
NOTE XLV.
(to Articles 126, 127, 128.)
These Articles relate to matters almost too familiar to require
authority, as no one can watch the proceedings of any court of justice
without seeing the rules laid down in them continually enforced.
The subject is discussed at length in 2 Ph. Ev. pt. 2, chap. x. p. 456,
etc.; T. E. s. 1258, etc.; see, too, Best, s. 631, etc. In respect to lead-
ing questions it is said, "It is entirely a question for the presiding
judge whether or not the examination is being conducted fairly." R.
N. P. 182.
NOTE XLVI.
(to Article 129.)
This Article states a practice which is now common, and which
never was more strikingly illustrated than in the case referred to in
the Illustration. But the practice which it represents is modern ;
and I submit that it requires the qualification suggested in the text.
I shall not believe, unless and until it is so decided upon solemn
argument, that by the law of England a person who is .called to
prove a minor fact, not really disputed, in a case nf little imDortance.
Notes.] . THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 385
thereby exposes himself to having every transaction of his past life,
however private, inquired into by persons who may wish to serve the
basest purposes of fraud or revenge by doing so. Suppose, for in-
stance, a medical man were called to prove the fact that a slight
wound had been inflicted, and been attended to by him, would it be
lawful, under pretence of testing his credit, to compel him to answer
upon oath a series of questions as to his private affairs, extending
over many years, and tending to expose transactions of the most
delicate and secret kind, in which the fortune and character of other
persons might be involved ? If this is the law, it should be altered.
The following section of the Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872) may
perhaps be deserving of consideration. After authorizing, in sec. 147,
questions as to the credit of the witness, the Act proceeds as follows
in sec. 148 : —
" If any such question relates to a matter not relevant to the suit or
proceeding, except so far as it affects the credit of the witness by
injuring his character, the court shall decide whether or not the wit-
ness shall be compelled to answer it, and may, if it thinks fit, warn
the witness that he is not obliged to answer it. In exercising this dis-
cretion, the court shall have regard to the following considerations: —
"(1) Such questions are proper if they are of such a nature that the
truth of the imputation conveyed by them would seriously affect the
opinion of the court as to the credibility of the witness on the matter
to which he testifies.
"(2) Such questions are improper if the imputation which they con-
vey relates to matters so remote in time or of such a character that
the truth of the imputation would not affect, or would affect in a slight
degree, the opinion of the court as to the credibility of the witness
on the matter to which he testifies.
"(3) Such questions are improper if there is a great disproportion
between the importance of the imputation made against the witness's
character and the importance of his evidence."
Order xxxvi., Rule 38, expressly gives the judge a discretion which
was much wanted, and which I believe he always possessed-
386 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
NOTE XLVII.
(to Article 131.)
The words of the two sections of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, meant to be
represented by this Article, are as follows : —
22. A party producing a witness shall not be allowed to impeach
his credit by general evidence of bad character; but he may, in case
the witness shall, in the opinion of the judge, prove adverse, contra-
dict him by other evidence, or, by leave of the judge, prove that he
has made at other times a statement inconsistent with his present
testimony ; but before such last-mentioned proof can be given, the
circumstances of the supposed statement, sufficient to designate the
particular occasion, must be mentioned to the witness, and he must
be asked whether or not he has made such statement.
23. If a witness, upon cross-examination as to a former statement
made by him relative to the subject-matter of the cause, and incon-
sistent with his present testimony, does not distinctly admit that he
made such statement, proof may be given that he did in fact make
it ; but before such proof can be given, the circumstances of the sup-
posed statement, sufficient to designate the particular occasion, must
be mentioned to the witness, and he must be asked whether or not he
has made such statement.
The sections are obviously ill-arranged ; but apart from this, s. 22 is
so worded as to suggest a doubt whether a party to an action has a
right to contradict a witness called by himself whose testimony is ad-
verse to his interests. The words "he may, in case the witness shall,
in the opinion of the judge, prove adverse, contradict him by other
evidence," suggest that he cannot do so unless the judge is_of that
opinion. This is not, and never was, the law. In Greenough v. Ec-
cles, 5 C. B. ( N. S.) p. 802, Williams, J., says : " The law was clear that
you might not discredit your own witness by general evidence of bad
character; but you might, nevertheless, contradict him by other evi-
dence relevant to the issue ; " and he adds (p. 803): " It is impossible
to suppose that the Legislature could have really intended to impose
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 387
any fetter whatever on the right of a party to contradict his own wit-
ness by other evidence relevant to the issue, — a right not only estab-
lished by authority, but founded on the plainest good sense."
Lord Chief Justice Cockburn said of the 22nd section : "There has
been a great blunder in the drawing of it, and on the part of those who
adopted it." ..." Perhaps the better course is to consider the
second branch of the section as altogether superfluous and useless (p.
806)." On this authority I have omitted it.
For many years before the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854
it was held, in accordance with Queen Caroline's Case (2 B. & B.
286-291), that a witness could not be cross-examined as to statements
made in writing, unless the writing had been first proved. The effect
of this rule in criminal cases was that a witness could not be cross-
examined as to what he had said before the magistrates without put-
ting in his deposition, and this gave the prosecuting counsel the reply.
Upon this subject rules of practice were issued by the judges in 1837,
when the Prisoner's Counsel Act came into operation. The rules are
published in 7 C. & P. 676. They would appear to have been super-
seded by the 28 Vict. c. 18.
NOTE XLVIII.
The Statute Law relating to the subject of evidence may be re-
garded either as voluminous or not, according to the view taken of
the extent of the subject.
The number of statutes classified under the head "Evidence" in
Chitty's Statutes is 35. The number referred to under that head in
the Index to the Revised Statutes is 39. Many of these, however, re-
late only to the proof of particular documents, or matters of fact
which may become material under special circumstances.
Of these I have noticed a few, which, for various reasons, appear
important. Such are: 34 & 35 Vict. c. 112, s. 19 (see Article 11); 9
Geo. IV. c. 14, s. 1, amended by 19 & 20 Vict. c. 97, s. 13 (see Article
17) ; 9 Geo. IV. c. 14, s. 3 ; 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 42 (see Article 28) ; 11
& 13 Vict. c. 42, s, 17 (Article 33) ; 30 & 31 Vict. c. 35, s. 6 (Article
388 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
34) ; 7 James I. c. 12 (Article 38) ; 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 28, s. 1 1, amended
by 6 & 7 Will. IV. cm; 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 116; 24 & 25 Vict.
c. 99, s. 37 (see Article 56) ; 8 & 9 Vict. c. io, s. 6 ; 35 & 36 Vict. c. 6,
s. 4 (Article 121); 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 3, ss. 2-4; 39" & 40 Geo. III.
c. 93 (Article 122).
Many, again, refer to pleading and practice rather than evidence,
in the sense in which I employ the word. Such are the Acts which
enable evidence to be taken on commission if a witness is abroad, or
relate to the administration of interrogatories.
Those which relate directly to the subject of evidence as defined in
the Introduction, are the ten following Acts : —
46 Geo. III. r. 37 (1 section ; see Article 120). This Act qualifies
the rule that a witness is not bound to answer questions which crimi-
nate himself, by declaring that he is not excused from answering
questions which fix him with a civil liability.
6 & 7 Vict. c. 85. This Act abolishes incompetency from interest
or crime (4 sections ; see Article 106).
8 & 9 Vict. c. 113: "An Act to facilitate the admission in evi-
dence of certain official and other documents" (8 August, 1845; 7
sections).
S. 1, after preamble reciting that many documents are, by various
Acts, rendered admissible in proof of certain particulars if authenti-
cated in a certain way, enacts inter alia that proof that they were so
authenticated shall not be required if they purport to be so authenti-
cated. (Article 79.)
S. 2. Judicial notice to be taken of signatures of certain judges.
(Article 58, latter part of clause 8.)
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 389
S. 3. Certain Acts of Parliament, proclamations, etc., may be proved
by copies purporting to be Queen's printer's copies. (Article 81.)
S. 4. Penalty for forgery, etc. This is omitted as belonging to the
Criminal Law. *
Ss. 5, 6, 7. Local extent and commencement of J^ct.
4-
14 & 15 Vict. c. 99: "An Act to amend the Law of Evidence," 7th
August, 1851 (20 sections) : —
S. 1 repeals part of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 85, which restricted the opera-
tion of the Act.
S. 2 makes parties admissible witnesses, except in certain cases.
(Effect given in Articles 106 & 108.)
S. 3. Persons accused of crime, and their husbands and wives, not
to be competent. (Article 108.)
S. 4. The first three sections not to apply to proceedings instituted in
consequence of adultery. Repealed by 32 & 33 Vict. c. 68. (Effect
of repeal, and of s. 3 of the last-named Act given in Article 109.)
S. 5. None of the sections above mentioned to affect the Wills Act of
1838, 7 Will. IV. & 1 Vict. c. 26. (Omitted as part of the Law of Wills.)
S. 6. The Common Law Courts authorized' to grant inspection of
documents. (Omitted as part of the Law of Civil Procedure.)
S. 7. Mode of proving proclamations, treaties, etc. (Article 84.)
S. 8. Proof of qualification of apothecaries. (Omitted as part of
the law relating to medical men.)
Ss. 9, 10, 11. Documents admissible either in England or in Ireland,
or in the colonies, without proof of seal, etc., admissible in all. (Ar-
ticle 80.)
S. 12. Proof of registers of British ships. (Omitted as part of the
law relating to shipping.)
S. 13. Proof of previous convictions. (Omitted as belonging to
Criminal Procedure.)
S. 14. Certain documents provable by examined copies or copies
purporting to be duly certifier!. ^Article 70, last paragraph.)
39Q A DIGEST OF [Notes.
S. 15. Certifying false documents a misdemeanor. (Omitted as be-
longing to Criminal Law.)
S. 16. Who may administer oaths. (Article 125.)
S. 17. Penalties for forging certain documents. (Omitted as be-
longing to the Criminal Law.)
S. 18. Act not to extend to Scotland. (Omitted.)
S. 19. Meaning of the word " Colony." (Article 80, note 1.)
S. 20. Commencement of Act.
5-
17 & 18 Vict. c. 125. The Common Law Procedure Act of 1854
contained several sections which altered the Law of Evidence.
S. 22. How far a party may discredit his own witness. (Articles
131, 133; and see Note XLVII.)
S. 23. Proof of contradictory statements by a witness under cross-
examination. (Article 131.)
S. 24. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing. (Ar-
ticle 132.)
S. 25. Proof of previous conviction of a witness may be given.
(Article 130 (1).)
S. 26. Attesting witnesses need not be called unless writing re-
quires attestation by law. (Article 72.)
S. 27. Comparison of disputed handwritings. (Articles 49 and 52.)
After several Acts, giving relief to Quakers, Moravians, and
Separatists, who objected to take an oath, a general measure was
passed for the same purpose in 1861.
24 & 25 Vict. c. 66 (1st August, 1861, 3 sections). (Repealed by the
Oaths Act, 1888):—
S. 1. Persons refusing to be sworn from conscientious motives may
make a declaration in a given form. (Article 123.)
XOTES.1
THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.
39i
S. 2. Falsehood upon such a declaration punishable as perjury.
(Do.)
S. 3. Commencement of Act.
7-
28 Vict. c. 18 (9th May, 1865, 10 sections): —
S. 1. Sections 3 — 8 to apply to all courts and causes, criminal as
well as civil.
S. 3. Re-enacts 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125, s. 22.
S.4
S.5
S.6
S.7
S. 8
s. 23.
s. 24.
s. 25.
s. 26.
s. 27.
The effect of these sections is given in the Articles above referred
to by not confining them to proceedings under the Common Law Pro-
cedure Act, 1854.
The rest of the Act refers to other subjects.
31 & 32 Vict. c. 27 (25th June, 1868, 6 sections): —
S. 1. Short title.
S. 2. Certain documents may be proved in particular ways. (Art.
83, and for schedule referred to, see note to the Article.)
S. 3. The Act to be in force in the colonies. (Article 83.)
S. 4. Punishment of forgery. (Omitted as forming part of the
Criminal Law.)
S. 5. Interpretation clauses embodied (where necessary) in Article
S3-
S.6. Act to be cumulative on Common Law. (Implied in Article
73-)
9-
32 & 33 Vict. c. 68 (9th August, 1869; 6 sections) :—
S. 1. Repeals part of 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 4, and part of 16 & 17
3Q2 A DIGEST OF ' [Notes.
Vict. c. 83, s. 2. (The effect of this repeal is given in Article 109;
and see Note XLI.)
S. 2. Parties competent in actions for breach of promise of mar-
riage, but must be corroborated. (See Articles 106 and 121.)
S. 3. Husbands and wives competent in proceedings in consequence
of adultery, but not to be compelled to answer certain questions.
(Article 109.)
S. 4. Atheists rendered competent witnesses. (Repealed by Oaths
Act, 1888.)
S. 5. Short title.
S. 6. Act does not extend to Scotland.
10.
51 & 52 Vict. c. 46 (24th Dec, 1888; 7 sections) provides that
every person objecting to being sworn and stating the ground of
his objection to be his religious belief, or the want of any religious
belief, may make an affirmation in the manner provided. (See
Article 123.)
These are the only Acts which deal with the Law of Evidence as I
have defined it. It will be observed that they relate to three subjects
only, — the competency of witnesses, the proof of certain classes of
documents, and certain details in the practice of examining witnesses.
These details are provided for twice over, namely, once in 17 & 18
Vict. c. 125, ss. 22-27, botn inclusive, which concern civil proceedings
only; and again in 28 Vict. c. 18, ss. 3-8, which re-enacts these pro-
visions in relation to proceedings of every kind.
Thus, when the Statute Law upon the subject of Evidence is sifted
and put in its proper place as part of the general system, it appears
to occupy a very subordinate position in it. The ten statutes above
mentioned are the only ones which really form part of the Law of
Evidence, and their effect is fully given in twenty1 Articles of the
Digest, some of which contain other matter besides.
1 1, 49, 52, 58, 72, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 106, 108, 109, 120, 121, 123. 125, 131,
132, 133-
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 393
[NOTE XLIX.]
[The following are the original Articles 36, 37, and 38 of Mr.
Stephen, transferred from the body of the work :]
Article 36. entries in bankers' books.
A copy of any entry in a banker's book must in all legal proceed-
ings be received as prima facie evidence of such entry, and of the
matters, transactions, and accounts therein recorded (even in favor
of a party to a cause producing a copy of an entry in the book of his
own bank.) x
Such copies may be given in evidence only on the condition stated
in Article 71 (/).
The expression 'Bankers' books' includes ledgers, day books, cash
books, account books, and all other books used in the ordinary busi-
ness of the bank.
The word "Bank" is restricted to banks which have duly made a
return to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue,
Savings banks certified under the Act relating to savings banks,
and
Post-office savings banks.
The fact that any bank has duly made a return to the Commission-
ers of Inland Revenue may be proved in any legal proceeding by the
production of a copy of its return verified by the affidavit of a partner
or officer of the bank, or by the production of a copy of a newspaper
purporting to contain a copy of such return published by the Com-
missioners of Inland Revenue.
The fact that any such savings bank is certified under the Act re-
lating to savings banks may be proved by an office or examined copy
of its certificate. The fact that any such bank is a post-office savings
bank may be proved by a certificate purporting to be under the hand
of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General or one of the secretaries of the
Post-Office.2
1 Harding v. Williams, 14 Ch. D. 197
2 42 & 43 Vict. c. 2.
394 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
Article 37. bankers not compellable to produce their
books.
A bank or officer of a bank is not, in any legal proceeding to which
the bank is not a party, compellable to produce any banker's book,
or to appear as a witness to prove the matters, transactions, and ac-
counts therein recorded, unless by order of a judge of the High Court
made for special cause (or by a County Court Judge in respect of ac-
tions in his own court.)1
Article 38. judge's powers as to bankers' books.
On the application of any party to a legal proceeding, a court or
judge may order that such party be at liberty to inspect and take
copies of any entries in a banker's book for any of the purposes of
such proceedings. Such order may be made either with or without
summoning the bank, or any other party, and must be served on the
bank three clear days (exclusive of Sundays and Bank holidays) be-
fore it is to be obeyed, unless the court otherwise directs.2
[Upon this subject of bankers' books, Mr. Stephen says in Art. 71
(/), that secondary evidence is admissible, "when the document is an
entry in a banker's book, proof of which is admissible under Article
36." He also adds : " In case (/) the copies cannot be received as
evidence unless it be first proved that the book in which the entries
copied were made was at the time of making one of the ordinary
books of the bank, and that the entry was made in the usual and
ordinary course of business, and that the book is in the custody and
control of the bank, which proof may be given orally or by affidavit
by a partner or officer of the bank, and that the copy has been exam-
ined with the original entry and is correct, which proof must be given
by some person who has examined the copy with the original entry,
and may be given orally or by affidavit. 42 & 43 Vict. c. 11, ss. 3, 5."]
'42 & 43 Vict. c. 11.
242 & 43 Vict. c. ii, s. 7. See Davies v. White, 53 L. J., Q. B. D.
275; In re Marshfield, Marshfieldx. Ihitchings, 32 Ch. D. 499; Amott
v. Hayes, 36 Ch. D. 731.
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 395
[NOTE L.]
[The following are the portions of Articles 56 and 57, transferred
from the body of the work :1 '
Article 56 [in part].
When any person gives evidence of his good character who —
Being on his trial for any felony not punishable with death, has
been previously convicted of felony ;2
Or who, being upon his trial for any offence punishable under the
Larceny Act, 1861, has been previously convicted of any felony, mis-
demeanor, or offence punishable upon summary conviction ;3
Or who, being upon his trial for any offence against the Coinage
Offences Act, 1861, or any former Act relating to the coin, has been
previously convicted of any offence against any such Act ;4
The prosecutor may, in answer to such evidence of good character,
give evidence of any such previous conviction, before the jury return
their verdict for the offence for which the offender is being tried.5
Article 57 [in part].
In actions for libel and slander in which the defendant does not
by his defence assert the truth of the statement complained of, the
defendant is not entitled on the trial to give evidence in chief with a
view to mitigation of damages, as to the circumstances under which
the libel or slander was published, or as to the character of the plain-
tiff, without the leave of the judge, unless seven days at least before
the trial he furnishes particulars to the plaintiff of the matters as to
which he intends to give evidence.6
1 [See p. 159, notes 2 and 4, ante.']
'2 6 and 7 Will. IV. c. 1 1 1, referring to 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 28, s. 11. If
"not punishable with death " means not so punishable at the time when
7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 28 was passed (21 June, 1827), this narrows the effect
of the Article considerably.
3 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 116.
4 24 & 25 Vict. c. 99, s. 37.
5 See each of the Acts above referred to.
6 Supreme Court Rules, Order xxxvi., Rule 37.
396 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
[NOTE LI.]
[The following are the original Articles 76, 80-84 of Mr. Stephen,
transferred from the body of the work :]
Article 76. general records of the realm.
Any record, under the charge and superintendence of the Master of
the Rolls for the time being, may be proved by a copy certified as a
true and authentic copy by the deputy keeper of the records or one of
the assistant record keepers, and purporting to be sealed or stamped
with the seal of the Record Office. (1 & 2 Vict. c. 94, ss. 1, 12, 13.)
Article 80. documents admissible throughout the queen's
dominions.
If by any law in force for the time being any document is admis-
sible in evidence of any particular, either in courts of justice in Eng-
land and Wales, or in courts of justice in Ireland, without proof of the
seal, or stamp, or signature authenticating the same, or of the judicial
or official character of the person appearing to have signed the same,
that document is also admissible in evidence to the same extent and
for the same purpose, without such proof as aforesaid, in any court
or before any judge in any part of the Queen's dominions except
Scotland.1
Article 81. queen's printers' copies.
The contents of Acts of Parliament, not being public Acts, may be
proved by copies thereof purporting to be printed by the Queen's
printers;
The journals of either House of Parliament ; and
1 Consolidates 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, ss. 9, 10, 11, 19. Sec. 9 provides
that documents admissible in England shall be admissible in Ireland ;
sec. 10 is the converse of 9; sec. 11 enacts that documents admissible
in either shall be admissible in the " British Colonies ; " and sec. 19 de-
fines the British Colonies as including India, the Channel Islands,
the Isle of Man, and "all other possessions" of the British Crown,
wheresoever and whatsoever. This cannot mean to include Scotland,
though the literal sense of the words would perhaps extend to 't.
Notes.
THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.
397
Royal proclamations,
may be proved by copies thereof purporting to be printed by the print-
ers to the Crown or by the printers to either House of Parliament.1
Article 82. proof of irish statutes.
The copy of the statutes of the kingdom of Ireland enacted by the
Parliament of the same prior to the union of the kingdoms of Great
Britain and Ireland, and printed and published by the printer duly au-
thorized by King George III. or any of his predecessors, is conclusive
evidence of the contents of such statutes.2
Article 83. proclamations, orders in council, etc.
The contents of any proclamation, order, or regulation issued at any
time by Her Majesty or by the Privy Council, and of any proclama-
tion, order, or regulation issued at any time by or under the authority
of any such department of the Government or officer as is mentioned
in the first column of the note 3 hereto, may be proved in all or any of
the modes hereinafter mentioned ; that is to say —
(1) By the production of a copy of the Gazette purporting to con-
tain such proclamation, order, or regulation :
(2) By the production of a copy of such proclamation, order, or
1 8 & 9 Vict. c. 1 13, s. 3. Is there any difference between the Queen's
printers and the printers to the Crown ?
2 41 Geo. III. c. 90, s. 9.
3 Column i. Column 2.
Name of Department or Officer.
The Commissioners of the Treas-
ury.
The Commissioners for executing
the Office of Lord High Ad-
miral.
Secretaries of State.
Names of Certifying Officers.
Any Commissioner, Secretary, or
Assistant Secretary of the Treas-
ury.
Any of the Commissioners for ex-
ecuting the Office of Lord High
Admiral or either of the Secre-
taries to the said Commissioners.
Any Secretary or Under-Secretary
of State.
398
A DIGEST OF
[Notes.
regulation purporting to be printed by the Government printer, or,
where the question arises in a court in any British colony or posses-
sion, of a copy purporting to be printed under the authority of the
legislature of such British colony or possession :
(3) By the production, in the case of any proclamation, order, or
regulation issued by Her Majesty or by the Privy Council, of a copy
or extract purporting to be certified to be true by the Clerk of the
Privy Council or by any one of the Lords or others of the Privy
Council, and, in the case of any proclamation, order, or regulation
issued by or under the authority of any of the said departments or
officers, by the production of a copy or extract purporting to be
certified to be true by the person or persons specified in the second
column of the said note in connection with such department or
officer.
Any copy or extract made under th^is provision may be in print or in
writing, or partly in print and partly in writing.
No proof is required of the handwriting or official position of any
person certifying, in pursuance of this provision, to the truth of any
copy of or extract from any proclamation, order, or regulation.1
Subject to any law that may be from time to time made by the
legislature of any British colony or possession, this provision is in
force in every such colony and possession.2
Where any enactment, whether passed before or after June, 1882,
Committee of Privy Council for
Trade.
The Poor Law Board.
The Postmaster-General.
(Schedule to 31 & 32 Vict. c. 37.
'31 & 32 Vict. c. 37, s. 2.
Any Member of the Committee of
Privy Council for Trade or any
Secretary or Assistant Secretary
of the said Committee.
Any Commissioners of the Poor
Law Board or any Secretary or
Assistant Secretary of the said
Board.
Any Secretary or Assistant Secre-
tary of the Post-Office (33 & 34
Vict. c. 79, s. 21).
See also 34 & 35 Vict. c. 70, s. 5.)
2 Ibid. s. 3.
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 399
provides that a copy of any Act of Parliament, proclamation, order,
regulation, rule, warrant, circular, list, gazette, or document, shall be
conclusive evidence, or be evidence, or have any other effect when
purporting to be printed by the government printer, or the Queen's
printer, or a printer authorized by her Majesty, or otherwise under
her Majesty's authority, whatever may be the precise expression
used, such copy shall also be conclusive evidence, or evidence, or
have the said effect, as the case may be, if it purports to be printed
under the superintendence or authority of her Majesty's Stationery
Office.1
Article 84.
foreign and colonial acts of state, judgments, etc.
All proclamations, treaties, and other acts of state of any foreign
state, or of any British colony, and all judgments, decrees, orders, and
other judicial proceedings of any court of justice in any foreign state
or in any British colony, and all affidavits, pleadings, and other legal
documents filed or deposited in any such court, may be proved either
by examined copies or by copies authenticated as hereinafter men-
tioned ; that is to say — ■
If the document sought to be proved be a proclamation, treaty, or
other act of state, the authenticated copy to be admissible in evidence
must purport to be sealed with the seal of the foreign state or British
possession to which the original document belongs ;
And if the document sought to be proved be a judgment, decree,
order, or other judicial proceeding of any foreign court, in any British
possession, or an affidavit, pleading, or other legal document filed or
deposited in any such court, the authenticated copy to be admissible
in evidence must purport either to be sealed with the seal of the
foreign or other court to which the original document belongs, or, in
the event of such court having no seal, to be signed by the judge, or,
if there be more than one judge, by any one of the judges of the
1 45 Vict. c. 9, s. 2. Documentary Evidence Act, 1882. Sect. 4 ex-
tends the Act of 1868 to Ireland.
400 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
said court, and such judge must attach to his signature a statement
in writing on the said copy that the court whereof he is a judge has
no seal ;
If any of the aforesaid authenticated copies purports to be sealed or
signed as hereinbefore mentioned, it is admissible in evidence in
every case in which the original document could have been received
in evidence, without any proof of the seal where a seal is necessary,
or of the signature, or of the truth of the statement attached thereto,
where such signature and statement are necessary, or of the judicial
character of the person appearing to have made such signature and
statement.1
Colonial laws assented to by the governors of colonies, and bills re-
served by the governors of such colonies for the signification of her
Majesty's pleasure, and the fact (as the case may be) that such law
has been duly and properly passed and assented to, or that such bill
has been duly and properly passed and presented to the governor,
may be proved (prwia facie) by a copy certified by the clerk or
other proper officer of the legislative body of the colony to be a true
copy of any such law or bill. Any proclamation purporting to be
published by authority of the governor in any newspaper in the
colony to which such law or bill relates, and signifying her Majesty's
disallowance of any such colonial law, or her Majesty's assent to any
such reserved bill, is prima facie proof of such disallowance or
assent."
[NOTE LIL]
[The following are portions of Article 108 and of Article 113, and
also (in full) Articles 108 A and 108 B, transferred from the body of the
work :]s
1 14 & 15 Vict. c. 09, s. 7.
2 28 & 29 Vict. c. 63, s. 6. "Colony" in this paragraph means "all
her Majesty's possessions abroad" having a legislature, "except the
Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, and India." "Colony" in the rest
of the Article includes those places.
3 [See p. 277, note 2, and p. 283, note 2, ante.]
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 401
Article 108 [in part].
In any such criminal proceeding against a husband or a wife, as is
authorized by the Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict.
c. 75, ss. 12 and 16), the husband and wife respectively are competent
and admissible witnesses, and except when defendant compellable
to give evidence.1
The following proceedings at law are not criminal within the
meaning of this Article : —
Trials of indictments for the non-repair of public highways or
bridges, or for nuisances to any public highway, river, or bridge ;2
Proceedings instituted for the purpose of trying civil rights only ;2
Proceedings on the Revenue side of the Exchequer Division of the
High Court of Justice.3
Article 108 a.
statutory exceptions to article 108.
By the statutes referred to in the first column of the schedule
hereto, the persons and the wives and husbands of the persons ac-
cused of the offences specified in the second column are made com-
petent witnesses upon their trials for such offences.
1 47 Vict. c. 14 ; and see the case of 7?. v. Brittleton, 12 Q. B. D. 266,
which turns on the wording of the Act of 1882, and occasioned this
enactment. The following doubt arises on the effect of this enact-
ment. Does it mean (a) only that the wife is competent as against
the husband, and the husband as against the wife, notwithstanding
their marriage, or (b) that in such cases not only the prosecutor,
though married to the prisoner, but the prisoner, though prisoner and
though married, is to be competent, though the prisoner is not to be
compellable? It is observable that the first "husband and wife"
does not become " wife or husband " before the word " respectively,"
as would have been natural. It is also remarkable that in the Act of
1882 a criminal proceeding is described as " a remedy," — a very
peculiar phrase.
2 40 & 41 Vict. c. 14. 3 28 & 29 Vict. c. 104, s. 34.
402
A DIGEST OF
[Notes.
The Schedule.
Indictable Offences.
38 & 39 Vict. c. 86, s. 11. Con-
spiracy and Protection of Prop-
erty Act, 1875.
39 & 40 Vict. c. 80, ss. 3 & 4.
Merchant Shipping Act, 1876.
40 & 41 Vict. c. 14. Amending
Law of Evidence.
46 Vict. c. 83. The Explosive
Substances Act, 1883.
46 & 47 Vict. C. 51, s. 53. Cor-
rupt and Illegal Practices Pre-
vention Act, 1883.
Sect. 4. Wilful and malicious
breach of contract relating to
gas or water.
Sect. 5. Wilful and malicious
breach of contract, involving
injury to person or property.
Sect. 6. Master neglecting to
provide servant or apprentice
with food, &c.
Sect. 4. Sending an unseaworthy
ship to sea. Master of a British
ship knowingly taking an un-
seaworthy ship to sea.
Sect. 1. Non-repair of any public
highway or bridge, nuisances
to public highways, rivers or
bridges, and defendants to any
indictment instituted for the
purpose of trying a civil right
only.
Sect. 3. Possession of explosive
substances under suspicious cir-
cumstances. (The prisoner is
not a 'competent witness in a
charge under s. 2 or's. 3 )
Any prosecution for any offence
under this Act. (These offences
may be summary.)
Notes.]
THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.
403
48 & 49 Vict. c. 69, s. 20. Crim-
inal Law Amendment Act, 1885.
50 & 51 Vict. c. 28, s. 10. Mer-
chandise Marks Act, 1887.
50 & 51 Vict. c. 58, s. 62, sub-s.
(ii.). Coal Mines Regulation
Act, 1887.
52 & 53 Vict. C. 44, s. 7. Preven-
tion of Cruelty to and Protec-
tion of Children Act, 1889.
55 Vict. c. 4, s. 6. Betting and
Loans (Infants) Act, 1892.
Makes parties and their wives
competent witnesses in any of
the following cases :
1. Offences under the Act it-
self : abusing girls under
16 or children : keeping
brothels: indecent behav-
ior in certain cases, &c.
2. 24 & 25 Vict. c. 100, s. 48,
rape ; s. 52, indecent as-
sault ; s. 53, abduction of
heiress ; s. 54, forcible ab-
duction ; s. 55, abduction
of girl under 16.
N. B. — An assault with intent to
ravish is not within the Act.
Any offence against this Act.
(These offences may be sum-
mary.)
Any person charged with an
offence under this Act may be
sworn and examined as an ordi-
nary witness in the case. (The
Act does not mention the wives
or husbands of persons charged.
Offences under the Act may be
summary.)
In any proceeding under this Act
the person charged and the wife
and husband are competent but
not compellable witnesses, but
the wife or husband "may be
required to attend to give evi-
dence." (These offences may
be summary.)
Any offence under this Act.
(These offences may be sum-
mary.)
404 A DIGEST OF [Notes.
Summary Offences.
35 <S^36 Vict, c 77, s. 34 (4)
35 6-36 Vict. c. 94, s. 51 (4)
38 &* 39 Vict. c. 63, s. 21 . .
38 &*> 39 Vict. c. 17, s. 87 . .
Metalliferous Mines Regulation
Act.
Licensing Act, 1872.
Sale of Food and Drugs Act,
1875.
Explosives Act, 1875. (These
offences may be indictable.)
Article 108 b.
effect of evidence by accused person.
When a prisoner is indicted for more misdemeanors than one, and
is a competent witness upon one count and not upon another, and
gives evidence, he may be convicted upon a count upon which he is
not a competent witness.1
Article 113 [in part].
A criminal prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions is a
public prosecution, and the Director of Public Prosecutions cannot
be required to say from whom he acquired information or what it was.'2
[NOTE LIIL]
[The following are portions of Article 121 and of Article 125, and
also (in full) Article 123 A, transferred from the body of the work :]3
Article 121 [in part].
No person can be convicted of an offence against Section 4 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, upon the unsworn evidence of a
1 R. v. Owen, 20 Q. B. D. 829. The ground of this decision appears
to have been that the prisoner's evidence, though inadmissible as evi-
dence upon the count upon which he was convicted, might be regarded
as a voluntary admission by him in the presence of the jury. See R.
v. Paul, 25 Q. B. D. 202, in which R. v. Owen is considered and ex-
plained.
• Marks v. Bey/us, 25 Q B. D. 494.
3 [See p. 300, note 2, p. 306, note 1, and p. 310, note 1, ante.]
Notes.] THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. 405
child of tender years, unless such unsworn evidence is corroborated
by material evidence implicating the accused.1
Article 123A.
UNSWORN EVIDENCE OF YOUNG CHILD.
Where, upon the hearing of a charge under Section 4 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, a child of tender years who is
tendered as a witness does not, in the opinion of the court, under-
stand the nature of an oath, the evidence of such child may be re-
ceived, though not given upon oath, if, in the opinion of the court,
such child is possessed of sufficient intelligence to justify the reception
of the evidence, and understands the duty of speaking the truth ;2 ■
Provided, that no person can be convicted in such a case unless
such unsworn evidence is corroborated by other material evidence
implicating the accused.2
Any witness whose evidence, not under oath, has been admitted as
mentioned in this Article is liable to indictment and punishment for
perjury in all respects as if he or she had been sworn.8
If evidence not under oath is given under the provisions stated in
this Article, and the charge is one of felony, the prisoner may be
convicted under section 9 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885,
of an offence3 in respect of which such unsworn evidence might not
have been given.4 If the charge is one of misdemeanor, the prisoner
cannot be convicted of another misdemeanor, in respect of which
such unsworn evidence might not have been given, if such other mis-
demeanor was charged in another count of the indictment.5
1 48 & 49 Vict. c. 69, s. 4. See Art. 123 A.
2 48 & 49 Vict. c. 69, s. 4. The offences under this section are,
unlawfully and carnally knowing, and attempting unlawfully and
carnally to know, any girl under thirteen.
3 These offences are, any offence under ss. 3, 4, 5 of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act, 1885, and indecent assault.
4 R. v. Wealand, 20 Q. B. D. 827.
6 R.v.Paul, 25 Q. B. D. 202. It has not been expressly decided
whether, upon an indictment in one count under s. 4 for attempting
4o6 THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. [Notes.
Article 125 [in part].
[The paragraphs omitted from the original Article (see p. 310, ante)
are as follows :]
{c) Before any officer of the court or any other person or persons
appointed for that purpose by the court or a judge under the Judica-
ture Act, 1875, Order xxxvii. 5.
Oral evidence taken upon a preliminary hearing may, in the cases
specified in 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, s. 17, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 35, s. 6, and
17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 270, be recorded in the form of a deposition,
which deposition may be used as documentary evidence of the matter
stated therein in the cases and on the conditions specified in Chap-
ter XVII.
to have carnal knowledge of a girl under thirteen, where evidence
has been given not upon oath, the prisoner may be convicted of in-
decent assault, but it seems to be the logical result of R. v. Wealand
and R. v. Paul that he might.
INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Abatement, judgment of, not a bar, 122.
Abduction, corroboration required in prosecutions for, 301.
Abortion, dying declarations in trials for, (50.
Abbreviations, when judicially noticed, 171.
explainable by parol evidence, 228.
Acceptor of bill of exchange, estoppel of, 267.
Accession of President, or other executive, judicially noticed, 16?.
Accessory, how affected by judgment against principal felon, 134.
Accident, provable by oral evidence to affect writing, 220.
Accidental or intentional acts, distinguished by evidence of system,
49-53-
Accomplice, testimony of, when requiring corroboration, 301, 302.
nature of corroboration needed, 302.
apparent accomplices need no corroboration, 302.
turning State's evidence, confessions of, when provable, 78.
must disclose confessions made to his attorney, 291, 292.
Account rendered, correctness admitted by not objecting, 58.
Acknowledged deed, proof of execution, 182, 185.
weight of evidence required to impeach certificate of acknowledg-
ment, 240.
officer who took acknowledgment cannot impeach his certificate,
282.
Acquiescence, effect of as admission, 25, 26, 58, 72.
effect of as confession of crime, 15, 25, 27, 75.
^cts of Congress. (See Statute.)
Acts of Parliament, recitals in as evidence, 112. (See Statute.)
when public, judicially noticed, 164.
not public, how proved, 396.
Acts of state, proved by recitals in statutes, etc., 112.
proof of, 206.
proof of foreign, 146, 207, 399.
Administrator, bound by admissions of intestate, 60.
admissions of, 62, 69.
4o8 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Administrator {continued).
effect of judgment appointing, 1 19, 123.
effect of appointing upon estate of living person, 119.
judgment against one, not binding on another, 130.
effect of judgment against, as to sureties on his bond, 132.
party cannot testify against, as to transactions with decedent, 270.
Admiralty Courts and their seals, judicially noticed, 168, 169.
effect of judgments in, condemning ships as prize, 118, 127, 128.
Admissions defined, 57, 361.
statement raising a suspicion or conjecture is not an admission, 61.
how proved, 57.
no evidence required of facts admitted, 174.
aliter, in trials for felony, 174.
finding or judgment contrary to admissions in pleading, is error,
174.
whole of admission to be brought out, 57, 64, 361.
who may make, and when, 59-73.
implied from acts and conduct, 57, 58.
as from silent acquiescence, 25, 26, 58, 72.
from not objecting to account rendered, 58.
from tender of payment, 58.
from act of landlord in making repairs, 58.
entries in partnership books evidence against partner, 58.
no admission implied from failure to answer a letter, 58.
made incidentally, 58.
made in pleadings or affidavits, or in giving former evidence, 58,
59.74, 174.
judgment as an admission, 131, 134.
oral admission not generally conclusive and to be received with
caution, 58.
when conclusive, 58.
may be explained or shown to have been made by mistake, 58.
of a nominal party, 59.
of assignor after assignment, against assignee, 59.
of assignee after assignment, 60.
of a person interested in the event, 60.
of deputy-sheriff as against sheriff, 60.
of privies in blood, in law, or in estate, 60.
of intestate competent against administrator, 60.
of testator competent against executor, 6o, 63.
of husband competent against widow claiming dower, 60.
of ancestor competent against heir, 60.
of grantor competent against grantee, 60, 63.
INDEX. 409
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Admissions (continued).
of landlord competent against tenant, 60.
but not of tenant against landlord, 60.
of devisor competent against devisee, 60.
of assignor of chattels, made before assignment, competent
against assignee, 63.
aliter, in New York as to assignments for value, 63.
declarations of owner of land or chattels showing the char-
acter of his possession, competent, 61, 62.
not admissible in place of record evidence or to destroy a
record title, 61.
of party to a proceeding, 61.
party's statements contradicting his testimony as a witness,
relevant as admissions, 329.
of person suing, or being sued, in a representative character, 61, 62.
of executor or administrator, 62, 69.
of guardian, 62.
of agents and persons jointly interested with parties, 65, 66, 70, 362.
of partners or joint debtors or contractors, 66, 67, 69, 71.
effect of admissions after dissolution of partnership, 66, 67.
effect as to the Statute of Limitations, 66, 67, 69.
of husband and wife, 65, 70.
of member or officer of corporation, 65.
of inhabitant or officer of municipal corporation, 65.
of attorneys and counsellors, 67, 68, 71.
of persons having a common interest, 69, 71.
of executor or administrator, as against co-executor or co-
administrator, heirs, etc., 69.
of one tenant in common as against another, 69.
of one devisee or legatee as against another, 69.
of co-defendants in tort cases, 69.
of principal do not bind surety, 70, 71.
of strangers, 72.
of judgment debtor as against sheriff, 72.
of bankrupt for or against assignee, 72.
of person expressly referred to by party, 72, 73.
by interpreter, 73.
of person interested or privy must be made while interest con-
tinues, 62, 64.
of grantor before acquiring or after parting with possession,
not competent against grantee, 62.
so of assignor of chattels or choses in action, 62.
but sometimes competent to show fraud as to creditors,
62, 63.
Iio " INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Admissions {continued).
of assignor of personal property, made while his interest continues,
not admissible against assignee in some States, 63.
effect of when made "without prejudice" or in offers of com-
promise, or under duress, 73, 74.
by pleading a demurrer, effect of, 174.
of contents of document, effect of, 178.
of execution of document, effect of, 183.
of loss of document, 188.
of existence of marriage, 156.
in writing, may be varied by oral evidence, 222.
burden of proof to show admission, 251.
Adultery, in trials for, woman's bad character for chastity provable,
340.
letters between husband and wife, admissible to show state of
feeling, 46, 47, 210.
evidence of similar acts competent to show disposition, 45.
provable, in action for divorce, by preponderance of evidence, 239.
marriage not provable by cohabitation and repute, 156.
competency of husband and wife as witnesses in proceedings for,
278.
Advancement, deed shown to be by oral evidence, 221.
Affairs of State, privilege of witness concerning, 282.
Affidavits, when admissible as evidence, 309, 311, 312.
admissions contained in, 58.
confessions contained in, 83.
statements on information and belief, when permissible in, 311.
containing improper matter, by whom costs payable, 311, 312.
objections to, when to be made, 312.
Affirmation, when made by witness instead of taking an oath, 306, 307.
Age, when a matter of pedigree, 104.
personal appearance as evidence of, 104, 177.
evidence of opinion concerning, 142.
no presumption as to age at which a person died, 258.
Agency, Agent. (See Principal and Agent.)
Aldermen, judicially noticed, 168.
Alibi, defence of, 7, 248.
what proof required of, 248.
burden of proof, on whom, 248, 251.
Alien, effect of judgment, naturalizing, 120.
Almanac, as evidence, 117, 173.
Alteration of documents, presumptions as to, 214-218.
when relevant to show fraud, 22.
INDEX. 411
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Alteration {continued).
material alteration by party after execution avoids instrument,
214.
if alteration innocent, recovery may be had on original con-
sideration, 214.
aliter, if alteration be fraudulent, 214.
by mutual consent, does not avoid, 214.
by a stranger, effect of, 215, 218.
called a " spoliation," 215.
of negotiable instrument avoids it in hands of innocent holder, 214.
of ancient documents, 213.
of deed, may avoid covenants, but does not divest title, 214.
of deeds and other documents, when presumed to be made, 215-218.
burden of proof to explain, 215-217.
question as to time of making and by whom, etc., generally for
jury, 215, 216.
of will, when presumed to be made, 216, 217.
what are material alterations, and what immaterial, 217, 218.
materiality a question for the court, 218.
immaterial alterations do not avoid, 218.
aliter, in some States, if made by party, 218.
filling blanks in documents, effect of, 218, 265, 266.
Ambassadors, judicially noticed, 167.
not bound to obey subpcena, 283.
Ambiguity in documents, parol evidence to explain, 228, 229, 231,
235. (See Oral Evidence.)
patent ambiguity, 228, 229.
latent ambiguity, 231, 235, 375-377.
Ancestor, admissions of bind heir, 60.
Ancient deeds and wills, competency of as evidence, 102.
presumption as to, 212-214.
alteration of, 213.
maps as evidence, 103, 115.
Ancient lights, doctrine of, rejected in this country, 260.
Animals, evidence of similar injuries to show scienter, 44.
habit of, shown by similar acts, 50.
Annuity tables, as evidence, 117.
Ante litem motam, meaning of, 106.
Appearance, by attorney, unauthorized, effect of judgment on, 138.
of a person, as evidence of his age, 104, 177.
evidence of opinion as to person's appearance, 142.
Arbitrators, competency of as witnesses, 281.
former testimony before them may be proved, 116.
412 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Arson, evidence of threats in trials for, 20.
whether provable by evidence of repeated acts, 50, 51.
proof of required as a defence in insurance cases, 51, 239, 241.
presumption of guilt from recent possession of stolen goods, 245
Art, matters of, provable by opinion evidence, 144.
Assault and battery, evidence of character irrelevant in actions for, 1G0.
evidence of threats in trials for, 20.
indecent, woman's bad character for chastity relevant, 161, 339.
evidence of her connection with other men, 339.
husband or wife may testify as to battery by the other, 276.
Assignor and assignee of personal property or choses in action, ad-
missions of. (See Admissions.)
Atheists, competency of as witnesses, 272, 273.
may affirm, instead of taking an oath, 306, 307.
dying declarations of, 88, 341.
Attachment suits, effect of judgments in, 127, 140.
Attempt to escape or avoid arrest, when provable, 23.
to commit rape, evidence of woman's complaints, 24.
to commit former crimes, when relevant, 35.
Attested documents, proof of execution of, 180-185, 213. (See Docu-
ment ; Subscribing witness.)
Attesting witness. (See Subscribing witness.)
Attorney, admissions by, 67, 68, 71.
stipulations of, binding on client, 68.
authority to compromise suit, 68.
book entries of deceased attorney, when admissible, 91.
may testify to former testimony of deceased witness, no.
unauthorized appearance of, judgment on, 138.
liable for costs if affidavit drawn by him contains scandalous
matter, 312.
status and signature of, judicially noticed, 167.
not producing client's document on notice, secondary evidence
admissible, 187, 296.
notice to produce maybe given to, 192, 296.
must prove good faith as to dealings with client, 248, 254.
competency of as witness in suit in which he is attorney, 282.
privileged from testifying as to professional communications
from client, 286-291.
clerks and interpreters also privileged, 289, 290.
but not a law student, not being clerk, 289, 290.
nor a lawyer acting merely as conveyancer, 290.
nor a solicitor of patents, 290.
nor a person who is not an attorney, 290.
INDEX. 413
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Attorney {continued).
nor officers of a corporation, 289, 290.
client may waive the privilege, 287.
what constitutes a waiver, 287.
privilege does not cover communications to effect a crime or
fraud, 288, 291.
nor knowledge which attorney acquires by his own ob-
servation, 289, 290.
nor facts which he learns otherwise than as legal adviser,
288.
nor communications not of a private nature, 289.
nor facts of a collateral nature, 289, 296.
communications made while all parties are present, not privi-
leged in suits between themselves, 289.
attorney may, in support of will, testify to directions given
by testator, 289.
client privileged from testifying as to communications to at-
torney, 291, 292.
but may waive the privilege, 291.
an accomplice who turns State's evidence must disclose com-
munications to his attorney, 291, 292.
attorney only compellable to produce documents which client
could be compelled to produce, 296.
documents amounting to professional communications, privi-
leged, 287, 296.
so of documents which would tend to criminate client, 296,
297.
Auditors, competency of, as witnesses, 281.
power of, to take testimony, 310.
Bad faith, provable by similar acts or declarations, 42.
Bailee, estopped to deny bailor's title, 267, 268.
but may show delivery of goods by him to real owner, 268.
burden of proof in action by bailor against bailee for the value of
goods entrusted to bailee, 245, 246.
Bankers' books, competency of entries in, 117, 393.
what are such books, 393.
bankers not compellable to produce, 295, 394.
judge's powers as to, 394.
entries in, how proved, 394.
Bankrupt, admissions of, 72.
confessions of, 83.
Banks, customs of judicially noticed, 165.
414 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Baptism, register of, admissibility of entries in, 94.
Barrister, admissions by, 67, 68, 71.
competency of as witness, 281, 282.
privilege as to professional communications, 286-291. (See At-
torney.)
Bastardy, effect of judgment as to, 127.
provable by preponderance of evidence, 240.
proceedings, marriage provable by cohabitation and repute, 156.
statements made by mother, when provable, 24, 256, 257.
corroboration of mother's evidence, when required, 300, 301. .
paternity, when provable by woman's evidence, 256, 340.
when mother's connection with other men may be shown, 340.
Belief, when witness may testify to his, 176.
Bentham, influence of, in reforming law of evidence, xv., xvii., xxv.
Bias, witness may be cross-examined as to facts showing, 322, 323.
may be contradicted if he denies such facts, 325, 326.
Bible, as evidence of pedigree, 107.
Bigamy, in trials for, marriage not provable by cohabitation and re-
pute, 156.
the presumption of innocence as affected by the presumption of
the continuance of life, 241, 249.
Bill of exceptions, to prove testimony in former proceeding, 1 10.
Bill of exchange, admissions of holder of, 64.
indorsement of payment on, effect of as evidence, 96, 97.
effect of judgment against indorser, 132.
alteration of. (See Alteration.)
filling blanks in, 218, 265, 266.
presumption that indorsee acquired it bona fide for value, 244.
burden of proof in action by indorsee against maker, 244.
when in hands of acceptor, presumed to have been paid, 262.
estoppel of acceptor, 267.
whether party competent to testify that it was invalid in its incep-
tion, 271.
Bill of lading, receipt in, open to explanation, 222.
shipmaster signing, when estopped to deny shipment, 268, 269.
shipowner, whether bound by master's act, 269.
Bill of sale, shown by oral evidence to be a mortgage, 221.
Birth, as matter of pedigree, 104.
Blanks in documents, effect of filling, 218, 265, 266.
Bodily feelings, provable by similar acts or declarations, 42.
expressions of, provable, 47, 48.
Bond, indorsement of payment on, effect of as evidence, 96, 97.
presumed paid after 20 years, 263.
INDEX. 415
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Bond {continued).
official sureties on, when bound by judgment against principal, 132.
Book entries, in partnership books evidence against partner, 58.
made in course of business, admissibility of, 91-95.
entries by deceased notaries, clerks, bank tellers, attorneys,
physicians, etc., 91.
handwriting of deceased person to be proved, 91.
entries of insane or absent witness, 91, 93.
books of original entry only admissible, 93.
effect of transcribing charges, 93.
made upon information given by others, 94.
made by party himself, competency of, 92.
how authenticated, 91.
in public books and records, relevancy of, 94, 1 12, 113.
in corporation books, 113, 114.
in bank-books, 117, 393.
Books, historical, medical, scientific, etc., as evidence, 114-116.
price current lists, annuity tables, almanac, gazetteer, etc., 116,
117.
reading law books and other books to jury, 1 16.
Boundaries, public and private, declarations concerning, 61, 101, 102.
of public highways, etc., 102, 103.
provable by ancient maps, 115.
of State or county, etc., judicially noticed, 170, 171.
Breach of promise of marriage, woman's bad character for chastity
provable, 161.
corroboration of plaintiff's evidence, when required, 300, 301.
Bribing of witness to go away, when provable, 22.
of juror, when provable, 23.
Burden of proof:
rests on person asserting or denying a state of facts, 237, 250.
general burden on party against whom, in the absence of evi-
dence, judgment would be given, 242.
or upon party against whom pleadings raise a presumption,
242, 248, 249.
is on plaintiff when his cause of action is denied, in whole or
in part, 242.
even though his cause of action involves negative ave~
ments, 240, 241, 242.
as in an action for malicious prosecution, 252.
in proving a negative, plenary proof not required, 25*.
is on defendant when he admits cause of action and sets up
affirmative defence, 242.
416 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Burden of proof {continued).
aliter, if action is for unliquidated damages, 242.
party having burden has right to open and close the case,
242, 243.
burden remains on him throughout the trial, 243.
in criminal cases rests on the government, 243.
meaning of "shifting of the burden," 243, 245, 246.
party having burden must prove all material allegations, 244.
may sometimes make out prima facie case by showing
mere occurrence of injury (res ipsa loquitur), 243,
249, 250.
in action by indorsee of negotiable instrument against maker, 244.
in action by bailor against bailee for the value of the goods bailed,
245. 246.
as to validity of will and testator's insanity in proceedings for pro-
bate, 246.
as to undue influence, affecting a will, 247.
in criminal case, when defence of insanity is made, 247.
how affected by presumption from the recent possession of stolen
goods, 245.
by the fact that parties stand in a fiduciary relation, 248, 253,
254. 304-
by presumption of innocence as conflicting with the presump-
tion of continuance of life, 241.
in trials for crime, proof of guilt required beyond reasonable
doubt, 237.
so in proving statute to be unconstitutional, 240.
meaning of reasonable doubt, 237, 238.
in civil actions, only preponderance of evidence required, 238, 239.
charge of crime in civil cases provable by a preponderance
of evidence, 239.
as in justifying a charge of crime in libel and slander
cases, 239.
aliter, in some States, 239.
and in insurance cases involving charge of arson, 239.
aliter, in England and some States, 239, 241.
and in actions for selling liquor, stealing, fraud, commit-
ting adultery, bastardy, etc., 239, 240.
in some civil actions, evidence must be "clear, unequivocal, and
convincing," 240.
as to show deed to be a mortgage, 240.
to reform deed, 240.
to establish resulting trust, 240.
ihdea. 4I7
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Burden of proof {continued).
to set aside instrument for fraud or mistake, 240.
to sustain defence of usury, 240.
to establish gift causa mortis, 240.
to impeach acknowledgment of deed, 240.
as to particular fact, 250.
defendant must prove his affirmative defences, 250.
as payment, usury, fraud, illegality, etc., 250.
and the defences of insanity, or alibi, or self-defence, in
criminal cases, 247, 248, 251.
extent of proof required, 247, 248.
in negligence suits, plaintiff proves defendant's negligence,
and defendant that of plaintiff, 251.
but in some States plaintiff must prove his own freedom
from negligence, 252.
one party must prove the other's admissions, 251.
burden on person having special opportunities of knowledge,
251.
person charged with acting without legal license must
prove that he has one, 251.
as to alteration of document, 215-217.
burden on party introducing evidence to prove preliminary
facts on which its admission depends, 253.
burden as to confession, as being voluntary or involuntary, jj.
burden of proving time of person's death who has been absent
seven years unheard from, 257.
Burglary, presumption of guilt from recent possession of stolen
goods, 245.
Business, course of. (See Course of Business.)
usages of. (See Custom.)
Cabinet officers, status of, judicially noticed, 167.
not compellable to disclose state secrets, 283.
Calendar, judicially noticed, 171.
Carefulness, habit of, not provable in trial for negligence, 51. (See
Negligence.)
whether system or course of business may be shown to prove
carefulness, 49, 50.
Case, to prove testimony in former proceeding, no.
Cause and effect, relevancy of facts to show, 5, 34, 352.
Cause of action, not to be spilt, 120, 124, 125.
burden of proof to establish. (See Burden of Proof.)
Census, judicially noticed, 170.
418 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Certainty, moral, 237.
Certificates, as evidence, 199, 200. (See Acknowledged Deed.)
Certified copy of document, as evidence, 186, 198', 199, 200.
Chancery, discovery in. (See Discovery.)
judgments impeachable in courts of, for lack of jurisdiction or
fraud, 137, 139.
corroborative evidence in chancery suits, 305. (See Witness.)
examiners in U. S. courts cannot pass on objections to testimony,
310. 3"-
Character, evidence of, generally irrelevant, xix., 158.
good or bad, in criminal cases, when relevant, 7, 158, 159, 395.
presumed to continue, 261.
in trials for rape, adultery, indecent assault, etc., woman's
bad character for chastity provable, 337-339.
aliler, if woman be under the age of legal consent, 339.
character for quarrelsomeness, when provable, 20.
means reputation as distinguished from disposition, 159, 161, 369.
in civil cases, generally irrelevant, 159, 160.
as in actions for assault and battery, 160.
or upon a promissory note, 160.
or for negligence, 160.
or where fraud is charged, 160.
or to rebut charge of crime, 160.
in some civil actions, relevant, 160, 161.
as in actions for libel or slander, 161.
or for malicious prosecution, 161.
or for criminal conversation, seduction, indecent
assault, etc., 161, 339, 340.
or to show master's knowledge of servant's incom-
petency, 46, 160.
of house, how provable, 50.
of witness, when and how provable. (See Witness.)
Charter of corporation, when judicially noticed, 163.
Charts, statements in, when relevant, 114, 115.
Chastity, character for. (See Character.)
Chattel, value of, how provable, 36, 143.
Chattel mortgage, bill of sale shown to be by parol evidence, 221.
Check, liability of banker when sum payable is increased by forgery,
265, 266.
Children, dying declarations of, 88. (See Parent and Child.)
domicil of, how provable, 30.
jury may judge of age by his appearance, 104, 177.
rape upon, evidence of child's complaints, 24, 25.
INDEX. 419
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Children {continued).
legitimacy of, presumed, 255.
competency of as witnesses, 271-274, 380, 405.
Circumstantial evidence, defined, 4.
illustrations of, 29-32, 352, 353.
proof of conspiracy by, 16.
Cities, judicially noticed, 169.
Civil actions, burden of proof in. (See Burden of Proof.)
Civil divisions of State, judicially noticed, 169.
also their relative positions, 170.
Clergymen, privilege of as to confidential communications, 292, 293, 382.
person confessing may waive the privilege, 292, 293.
must prove good faith as to dealings with person confessing to
them, 254.
Clerks, of court, judicially noticed, 167.
of merchants, notaries, etc., book entries of, 91.
of lawyers, privileged from disclosing professional communica-
tions, 289, 290.
Cohabitation and repute, as evidence of marriage, 155, 156.
Collateral facts, not relevant, 6.
about documents, shown by oral evidence, 191, 224.
Collateral documents, proof of contents of, 190.
Collateral impeachment of judgments, 136-140.
Colonial acts of state, proof of in English courts, 399.
Commissioners, power of to take testimony, 310.
Commissions to take depositions. (See Deposition.)
Common law, of forum judicially noticed, 163.
of other States and countries, how provable, 145.
Communications, privileged. (See Privileged Communications.)
Comparison of handwritings. (See Opinion, Evidence of.)
Competency of evidence, 4.
determined by judge, 4.
of witnesses. (See Witness.)
Complaints in cases of rape, evidence of. (See Rape.)
Compromise, effects of offers of, as admissions, 73, 74.
authority of attorney to compromise, 68.
Concealment, of documents. (See Document.)
of person to avoid arrest, 22.
Conclusions of law, witness cannot testify to, 176.
Conclusive proof, definition of, 4, 351.
Conditions in documents, when provable by parol evidence, 222, 226.
Conduct after an act, effect of as evidence, 23.
statements affecting conduct provable. 25.
420 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Confession, judgment on is a bar, 122.
Confessions, denned, 75.
how different from admissions, 75.
by silent acquiescence 15, 25, 27, 75.
caused by inducement, threat, or promise, effect of, 76-82.
extrajudicial must be corroborated by proof of corpus delicti,
75. 79-
alitcr, as to judicial confession, 76.
effect of plea of guilty, 76.
whole confession to be brought out, 75.
of co-conspirators, 15.
of one of several defendants, effect of, 15, 76.
admissibility of determined by judge, 77.
when voluntary and when involuntary, 77-85.
burden of proof as to confession being voluntary or involuntary, 77.
grand jurors may testify as to confessions given before them, 286.
effect of when made to person in authority, 77-82.
to person not in authority, 79, 82.
who is person in authority, 80.
by prisoner in custody, 78.
by accomplice who turns State's evidence, 78.
effect of when made after impression of hope or fear is removed,
80, 82.
facts discovered by means of involuntary confessions, when prov-
able, 80, 82.
effect of when made under oath, 82-84, 298, 363.
upon preliminary examination before committing magistrate,
83, 85.
at coroner's inquest, 84.
before grand jury, 84.
effect of when made under promise of secrecy, 84.
or when obtained by deception, 84.
or by religious exhortations, 79, 81.
or by collateral inducements, 79, 82.
or by violence of mob, 79.
when made by drunken person, 85.
by person asleep, 85.
by person in prayer, 85.
or when made in answer to questions, 85.
or when made without warning being given of the conse-
quences, 85.
Congress, acts of judicially noticed in State courts, 164.
laws nf, how proved, 20J.
INDEX. 421
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Consideration of document, provable by parol, 221.
want of, also so provable, 220, 221.
Conspirators, acts and declarations of, when relevant, 14-16, 63, 355.
confessions of, 15, 76.
proof of conspiracy, 15, 16.
Constitution, does not exclude evidence of dying declarations, 86, 87.
nor evidence given in former proceeding, 109.
prohibits seizure of private papers to criminate, 294.
requires credit to be given to records of other States, 139, 201.
Construction of documents. (See Interpretation and Construction of
Documents ; Oral Evidence.)
of foreign statute, shown by experts,l46. (See Opinion, Evidence of.)
Consul, not bound to obey subpoena, 283.
Contempt, of witness in disobeying subpoena, 193.
Contract, written, how far modifiable by parol evidence. (See Oral
Evidence.)
made by telegrams, evidence of, 179.
alteration of. (See Alteration.)
effect of judgment against co-contractor, 131.
Contradiction of witness, when allowed. (See Witness.)
Conveyancers, privilege of as to professional communications, 290.
Conviction for crime, as affecting competency of witness. (See Infa-
mous Persons ; Witness.)
Copy of document, as evidence of its contents; different kinds of copies.
(See Document.)
admissibility of copies to show handwriting, 153, 154.
Coroner's inquest, confessions made at, 84.
former testimony at, not admissible, ill.
Corporation, admissions of member or officer, when competent, 65
books of as evidence, 113, 114.
may be served with subpoena duces tecum, 193, 296.
presumed to act within its lawful powers, 261.
officer of, has not the privilege of a lawyer as to professional coin-
munications, 289, 290.
agent of, whether compellable to produce corporate books in evi-
dence, 193, 296.
charter of, when judicially noticed, 163.
Corpus delicti, when confessions must be corroborated by proof of,
75- 79-
Corroboration, of confessions by proof of corpus delicti, 75, 79.
of ancient documents, 213.
of witnesses, when required. (See Witness ; Accomplice.)
Corroborative evidence, 4.
422 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Costs of affidavit containing improper matter, by whom payable. 311,
312.
Counsellor. (See Attorney ; Barrister.)
Counterfeit money, uttering of, similar acts to show knowledge, 43.
Counterparts as evidence, primary or secondary, 179, 186, 191.
County, officers of, judicially noticed, 170.
so of population and boundaries of county, 168.
Course of business, provable to show particular act within it, 53, 54.
presumed to be followed, 262.
when provable, to show care or negligence in doing particular
act, 49, 50.
declarations made in, 90-95. (See Book Entries.)
Courts, jurisdiction of, how determined, 135.
jurisdiction of superior courts, presumed, 136.
aliter, of inferior courts, 137.
effect of record as' estoppel. (See Judgment.)
rules, officers, and terms of, judicially noticed, 166, 167.
seals of, when judicially noticed, 168, 169.
existence of, when noticed by other courts, 166.
of admiralty jurisdiction, judicially noticed, 168, 169.
of States, notice acts of Congress, 164.
of U. S., notice State laws, 164.
records of, how proved, 201, 202.
Credit, to whom given on a sale of goods, 31.
of witness, impeaching. (See Witness.)
Crime, burden of proof in trials for. (See Burden of Proof.)
one crime not provable by evidence that accused committed an-
other, 35.
aliter, when one forms the motive or preparation for the other,
or they are parts of a general scheme, etc., 35.
intent or knowledge provable by similar crimes, 43, 44.
provable by evidence of system, 50-52.
proof of by defendant's silence when accused, 15, 25, 27, 75.
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, 237.
evidence of character in trials for, when relevant. (See Character. )
conviction for crime, disqualifies witness, when. (See Infamous
Persons ; Witness.)
competency of defendant as witness, 275-277.
of husband or wife of defendant, 275-277.
witness privileged from disclosing information as to commission
of crimes, 283.
attorney privileged as to disclosing communications relating to
crime, 288, 291.
INDEX. 423
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Crime {continued).
preliminary examination of prisoner before committing magistrate,
83, 85, 308, 346. (See Examination.)
deposition taken on examination, admissibility of, 109, 346,
347. (See Confession ; Dying Declarations, etc.)
Crimen falsi, denned, 273.
Criminal conversation, in actions for, woman's unchaste reputation
provable, 161.
marriage not provable by cohabitation and repute, 155, 156.
expressions and letters showing state of feeling, competent, 46,
47, 2I°.
Criminating documents or evidence, witness not compellable to pro-
duce or give, 187, 294, 296-300. (See Witness; Subpoena duces
tecum.)
Cross-examination, of witness. (See Witness.)
Cumulative evidence, 4.
Custom, evidence of facts showing, 18.
provable by oral evidence to affect writing, 223, 224, 227, 232. m
provable by one witness, 19, 305.
public or general, declarations concerning, 100-103.
of business and those recognized in courts, judicially noticed, 165,
166.
of others in same business or employment, when relevant, 50.
Cyclopaedia, as evidence, 117..
Damages, evidence of opinion concerning, relevancy of, 143.
opinion as to value of property, services, etc., 143, 144.
as to cases of taking property by eminent domain, 144.
in actions for unliquidated damages, where defendant pleads
affirmative defence, burden of proof on plaintiff, 242.
Date of document, presumption as to, 209, 210.
true date may be proved by parol, 220.
day of week on which date falls, judicially noticed, 171.
day of mailing letter not presumed from date of post-mark, 54.
Deaf and dumb persons, competency of as witnesses, 272.
Death, as matter of pedigree, 104, 107.
as ground to receive evidence given in former proceeding, 108, 109.
presumption of from seven years' absence, 257.
sometimes inferred from shorter absence, 258.
presumption as to time of absent person's death, 257, 258.
order of death when several persons perish in same calamity, how
established, 258.
of witness before his examination is concluded, effect of, 315, 316.
424 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Deceased persons, relevancy of their declarations, 86-1 1 1. (See Dec-
larations.)
Declarations, provable when part of the res gestce. (See Res Gestce.)
of conspirators, when provable. (See Conspirators.)
in presence of a person, when provable, 15, 25, 26, 27, 58, 72, 75.
concerning domicil, 26, 30.
as to bodily and mental feelings, provable, 46-48, 210.
of deceased attesting witness, irrelevant, 55.
constituting hearsay evidence, not admissible, 55. (See Hearsay.)
amounting to admissions. (See Admissions.)
of owner of land or chattels characterizing his possession, 61, 62.
amounting to confessions. (See Confessions.)
by persons since deceased, 86-1 1 1.
dying declarations, 86-90. (See Dying Declarations.)
made in course of business or professional duty, 90-95. (See
Course of Business ; Book Entries.)
declarations against interest, 95-99.
nature of the interest required, 95, 97, 99.
whole of declaration relevant, though it contains matter
of charge and discharge, 95.
effect of declarant's having a limited interest in property,
96, 99.
effect of indorsement of payment on bond, bill, note, etc.,
96, 97-
by testators as to intention and as to contents of will, 99, 100.
as to public and general rights, 100-103.
must be made ante lite»i motam, 106.
provable by ancient maps, 115.
relevancy of judgment relating to, 131, 134.
as to public and private boundaries, 101, 102, 115.
as to pedigree, 103-107. (See Pedigree.)
of deceased persons, how impeachable, 340, 341.
Decree of court, as evidence of public and general rights, 103.
of executive, when judicially noticed, 169.
proof of foreign, 205.
Deed, as evidence of public and general rights, 103.
as evidence of pedigree, 107.
presumptions as to sealing and delivery of, 209, 211, 212. (See
Seal.)
as to date of execution and delivery, 209.
proof of execution of, 181, 182, 185, 213. (See Document.)
ancient, presumption as to, 212-214.
competency of as rvidence, 102.
INDEX. , 425
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Deed {continued).
effect of alteration of, 214-217. (See Alteration.)
filling blanks in, 218.
modification by oral evidence. (See Oral Evidence.)
consideration or lack of it shown by oral evidence, 221. (See
Acknowledged Deed.)
shown by oral evidence to be an advancement, or a mortgage,
221.
weight of evidence required, 240.
cannot be delivered to grantee in escrow, 222.
weight of evidence required to impeach certificate of acknowledg-
ment, 240.
production of by witness, whether compellable, 293, 294, 296.
Default, judgment on is a bar, 122, 125.
Definitions, general, 3.
Delivery of deed. (See Deed ; Presumption.)
Demand, provable orally, though made in writing, 191.
Demonstrative evidence, 3.
Demurrer, when judgment on is a bar, 122.
effect of as an admission, 174.
Depositions, admissions contained in, 58.
whether necessary in order to prove contents of absent docu-
ment, 189.
may be taken under a commission, 309.
methods prescribed by commission must be followed, 310.
commissioners, how enabled to obtain evidence, 309.
when taken under letters rogatory, 309.
objections to, what may be made and when, 312, 340, 341.
motion to suppress, 312.
though deposition taken, yet personal testimony of witness prefer-
able, 313.
on preliminary examination before magistrate, when admissible,
109, 347-
before committing magistrates in criminal cases, 83, 85, 308, 346, 347.
under 30 & 31 Vict. c. 35, s. 6, 347.
under Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (England), 348, 349.
Deputy-sheriff, admissions of, when competent against sheriff, 41.
signature of, not judicially noticed, 168.
Destruction of documents. (See Document ; Presumption.)
Detectives, testimony of does not require corroboration, 302.
are not persons in authority, as respects confessions, 80.
Devisee, admissions of do not bind another devisee, 69.
not bound by admissions of executor, 69.
426 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Devisor, admissions of bind devisee, 60.
Direct evidence, xix.,4, 175, 370.
Discontinuance, judgment of not a bar, 121, 122.
Discovery, of title-deeds and other papers by party, when required,
293, 294, 296.
and inspection of documents before trial, 192.
Dismissal of complaint, judgment of not a bar, 121.
aliter, if on the merits, 171.
Disputable presumption, 5, 351.
Districts, judicial and internal revenue, judicially noticed, 171.
Divorce, effect of judgment granting, 119, 127.
presumed, to sustain the validity of a second marriage, 241.
marriage provable by cohabitation and repute, 156.
adultery provable by preponderance of evidence, 239.
corroboration of complainant's evidence, when required, 301.
power of court to order physical examination in suits for, 177.
Document, definition of, 3.
evidence to show genuineness of, relevant, 20.
evidence to show destruction or concealment of, when relevant, 22.
documentary evidence defined, xix., 3.
proof of contents of, 178-207.
must generally be proved by primary evidence, 180, 219, 373.
what constitutes primary evidence, xix., 178.
in case of duplicates, 179, 191.
in case of counterparts, 179, 191.
in case of lithographed or photographed documents,
179.
in case of telegrams, 179, 180.
contents provable by admissions, 178.
provable by secondary evidence in many cases, 186-191.
what constitutes secondary evidence, xix., 186.
exemplifications, examined copies, office copies, certi-
fied copies, 186, 198-200.
other copies, as letter -press copies, photographic
copies, etc., 180, 186.
counterparts in some cases, 186.
oral testimony of contents, 186.
admissibility of determined by judge, 191.
when secondary evidence may be given, 186-191.
when opponent does not produce document on notice,
187.
when stranger, having privilege, does not produce on
subpoena, 187, 296.
INDEX. 427
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Document (continued).
when document is destroyed or lost, 136.
but not, if intentionally destroyed, 188.
presumption against one who destroys, 263.
how loss provable, 188, 196.
when original is not easily movable, or is out of juris'
diction, 188, 189.
when original is public document, 189.
when party has been deprived of original by fraud,
189.
when mode of proof is authorized by statute, 189.
when originals are numerous documents, not con-
veniently examinable in court, 189, 190, 191.
in case of collateral writings, 190.
(For other cases, see Notice to Produce Documents ;
Public Documents.)
rule as to there being degrees of secondary evidence, 191.
attested, proof of execution of, 180-185, 213%
attesting witness to be called, 180, 181.
who is attesting witness, 180.
proof by handwriting when witness is unprocurable, 181, 182.
when instrument is destroyed, or the party will testify to exe-
cution, 182, 183.
in case of wills, 182.
when party has admitted execution, 183.
cases in which attesting witness need not be called, 183-185.
when document is not produced on notice given, 184.
when opponent produces it and claims interest under it,
184.
when opponent is public officer, bound to procure the
execution, 184. %
when document comes collaterally in question, 185.
when document is acknowledged or recorded deed, 182,
185.
when document is ancient, 213.
proof when attesting witness denies the execution, 185.
unattested, proof of execution of, 185.
presumptions as to, 209-218. (See Presumptions.)
alteration of. (See Alteration.)
modification of by oral evidence, 219-227. (See Oral Evidence.)
interpretation of, 227-236. (See Interpretation and Construction.)
production of by witness, when compellable. (See Subp&na duces
tecum; Notice to produce ; Witness; Attorney.)
\2% INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Document {continued I.
criminating, witness and his attorney not compellable to produce,
187, 294, 296.
seizure or compulsory production of private papers prohibited by
constitution, 294.
aliter, as to physicians' prescriptions, 295.
cross-examination of witness as to prior inconsistent statements in
document, 332, 333.
admissible throughout the Queen's dominions, how proved, 396.
Dogs, injuries by, evidence to show scienter, 44.
Domicil, evidence of declarations concerning, 26.
of infant, how provable, 30.
Drawings, as evidence, 177.
Drunkenness, habitual, shown by repeated acts, 50.
on one occasion, not provable by showing habit, 51.
evidence of opinion concerning, 142.
effect of upon the competency of a witness, 272.
upon the admissibility of confessions, 85.
Duplicate documents,* each is primary evidence, 179, 191.
one admissible in evidence without notice to produce the other, 194.
Duress, effect of admissions under, 74.
effect of confessions under, 76, 78, 79.
may be shown by parol to avoid written instrument, 220.
Dying declarations, 86-90, 364.
only competent in trials for homicide, 87.
not in civil actions, 87.
whether competent in cases of abortion, 90.
must relate to cause of death, etc., 86.
not competent evidence of prior or subsequent occurrences, 86.
must state facts, not opinions, 86.
admissible for or against defendant, 86.
competent,- though obtained by leading questions, solicitation,
etc., 86.
may be expressed by signs, 86.
not excluded by constitutional provision, 86, 87.
not as weighty as testimony by witness, 88.
declarant must be under sense of impending death, 87, 89.
how this may be shown, 87.
effect of hope existing, 87, 89.
sense of impending death equivalent to an oath, 88.
declarant must be competent to take an oath, 88.
declarations of atheists, very young children, etc., not com-
petent, 88.
INDEX. 429
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Dying declarations (continued).
declarant need not die immediately, 88.
effect of making the declaration in writing, as a deposition, etc.,
88, 89, 90.
how oral declarations may be proved, 89.
burden of proof to render declarations admissible, 253.
declarations impeachable, as if declarant were a living witness,
340.
as by proving him to be an atheist, 341.
or that his general reputation is bad, 341.
or by showing his contradictory statements, 341.
Edict, proof of, 205.
Ejectment, when judgment in is a bar, 122, 123.
Election, days of, judicially noticed, 169.
Eminent domain, opinion-evidence competent as to value of land,
144.
Encyclopaedia as evidence, 117.
Entries in books. (See Book Entries ; Books ; Bankers' Books.)
Equity. (See Chancery.)
Equivocation, parol evidence to explain, 231, 235, 375-377. (See Oral
Evidence.)
Escape, of person charged with crime, provable, 23.
Escrow, deed cannot be delivered to grantee in, 232.
Estoppel, by judgment. (See Judgment.)
admissions amounting to, 59.
by conduct, 262-266.
elements of estoppel in pais, 262-264, 379.
of tenant to deny landlord's title, 266.
of licensee to deny licensor's title, 267, 268.
of acceptor of bill of exchange, 267.
of bailee to deny bailor's title, 267, 268.
of agent to deny principal's title, 267, 268.
of shipmaster signing bill of lading to deny the shipment, 268, 269.
shipowner, whether bound by master's act, 269.
Evidence, definition of, xvi., 3, 4.
distinguished from proof, 3.
oral, 4, 175. (See Oral Evidence.
documentary, xix., 3, 178-207. (See Document.)
demonstrative, 3.
moral, 4.
competent, 4.
satisfactory, or sufficient, 4.
43Q INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Evidence {continued).
cumulative, 4.
corroborative, 4.
direct, xix., 4, 175, 370.
circumstantial, 4. (See Circumstantial Evidence.)
presumptive, 5, 351. (See Presumption.)
of facts in issue and relevant facts, xviii., 6, 351-353.
relevancy of, and the different kinds of relevant evidence. (See
Relevancy ; Res gestce ; Conspirators; Title ; Custom; Mo-
tive; Preparation; Threats; Flight; Character; Opinion;
Hearsay ; Admissions ; Confessions ; Declarations ; Docu-
ment ; Judgment, etc.)
rules of may be changed by the Legislature, 4.
relevant evidence admissible, though improperly obtained, 6.
improper admission of, not a ground for a new trial, unless party
be prejudiced thereby, 350.
offensive to public morals, received when relevant, 354.
in former proceeding, when relevant, 107-m.
grounds of its admission in civil cases, 108, 11 1.
grounds of its admission in criminal cases, 108, 109, H 1,346,347.
how such evidence may be proved, 109, no.
who may testify thereto, no.
such evidence not excluded by constitution, 109.
both proceedings to be between same parties or their privies,
in.
evidence given by party, when relevant, 1 10.
former testimony before arbitrators, provable, no.
before coroners, not provable, m.
Examination, of witnesses. (See Witness.)
of prisoner before committing magistrate in criminal cases, 83, 85,
308, 346.
depositions admissible on trial, if witness dead, insane, etc.,
109, 346, 347.
of parties before trial in civil cases, 308, 309.
not allowed in actions at law in U. S. courts, 309.
of person by physicians, power of court to order, 177.
Examined copy, defined, 197.
is secondary evidence, 186.
Examiners, power of, to take evidence, 310.
when without power to pass on objections to evidence, 310, 311.
Exceptions, bill of, to prove testimony in former proceeding, 1 10.
Execution of documents, proof of. (See Document ; Subscribing Wit-
ness.)
INDEX. 431
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Executive, accession of, judicially noticed, 167.
decrees and messages judicially noticed, 169.
proof of foreign, 205.
Executor, bound by admissions of testator, 60, 63.
admissions of, 62, 69.
effect of judgment appointing, 1 19.
party to suit cannot testify against, as to transactions with dc
cedent, 270.
Exemplification, defined, 198.
is secondary evidence, 186.
Experiments, evidence of, when relevant, 156, 157.
Experts and non-experts, testimony of. (See Opinion, Evidence of.)
Explanatory facts, relevancy of, 28-33.
Expressions of bodily and mental feeling, provable, 42, 47, 48, 210.
Extrajudicial confessions. (See Confessions.)
Fabrication of evidence, presumption from, 263.
Fact, definition of, 3.
collateral, defined, 6.
Facts in issue, definition of, xviii., 5.
admissible in evidence, 6.
Facts relevant to the issue, definition of, xviii., 5, 351-353.
admissible in evidence, 6. (See Relevancy.)
Facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts, admissible,
28-33-
Falsa demons tratio, parol evidence to explain, 230, 231, 234, 375-377.
False imprisonment, information s>n which defendant acted, prov-
able, 27.
whether evidence of character admissible, 161.
False pretences, obtaining goods by, evidence of> similar acts to show
knowledge, 44.
Falsits in uno,falsus in omnibus, effect of maxim, 303.
Federal courts, take judicial notice of State laws, 164.
and of rules of the departments, 162.
production of documents in, 192.
Feelings, bodily and mental, declarations concerning, competent, 42,
47, 48, 210.
Fire caused by locomotive ; evidence of fires caused by other loco-
motives admissible, 40.
incendiary, evidence relevant to prove, 41.
Flight, of an accused person, when provable, 22, 23.
Foreign acts of state, proof of, 146, 207, 399.
courts, seals of, when judicially noticed, 168, 169.
432 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Foreign judgments, effect of as res adjudicata, 138-140.
Foreign law, provable by expert testimony, 145-147,207. (See Opinion,
Evidence of.)
by printed volumes or authenticated copies, 146.
effect of not proving, 146, 147.
provable in trial court, not in appellate court, 146, 147.
when judicially noticed, 164.
Foreign ministers, judicially noticed, 167.
Foreign records, how proved, 146, 207, 399.
Forfeiture, evidence exposing to, privilege of witness, 294, 298.
judgment of, as an estoppel, 127.
Forgery, other forgeries or utterings relevant to show intent, 43.
Former proceeding, evidence in, when relevant, 107-m. (See Evi-
dence.)
Fraud, intent provable by similar acts, 44.
confession obtained by, 85.
when judgment is impeachable for, 137, 140.
in written instrument, provable by parol, 220, 221.
in trials for, defendant's good character irrelevant, 160.
primary evidence obtained by fraud, secondary admissible,
189.
fraudulent alteration of document, effect of, 214, 218.
weight of evidence required to set instrument aside for fraud,
240.
attorney may testify to client's communications, made to effect a
fraud, 288.
Gazetteer, as evidence, 117.
General rights, defined, 102.
declarations concerning, 100-103.
provable by ancient maps^ 115.
judgments relating to, 131.
Geographical features of State, judicially noticed, 170.
Gift causa //lords, weight of evidence required to establish, 240.
Good faith, provable by similar acts or declarations, 42.
Governor of State, accession of, judicially noticed, 167.
not compellable to disclose State secrets, 282, 283.
Grand jurors, competency of as witnesses, 285, 286.
Grantor of land, admissions of bind grantee, 60.
but only if made while he was owner or in possession of the land,
62, 63.
Guardian, effect of judgment appointing, 119.
admissions of, 62.
INDEX. 433
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Guardian {continued).
must prove good faith as to dealings with ward, 254.
cannot be excluded from court-room during trial, 314.
Guilty, plea of, conviction upon, 76.
Habeas Corpus, decision upon as a bar to another writ, 123.
Habit, whether provable by evidence of repeated acts, 50.
whether provable to show commission of a particular act, 51.
Handwriting, evidence of, 151-153. (See Opinion, Evidence of.)
comparison of handwritings, 153, 154.
in proving execution of attested documents, 181, 182. (See Doc-
ument.)
in ancient documents, genuineness of presumed, 212, 213.
Health, expressions as to, provable, 46, 48.
Hearsay evidence, not relevant, xviii., 7, 55, 176, 358-360.
defined, 55, 358-360.
illustrations of, 55, 56.
exceptions to the rule that hearsay is irrelevant are
statements forming part of res gestce. (See Res Gestae.)
admissions, 57-74. (See Admissions.)
confessions, 75-85. (See Confessions.)
dying declarations, 86-90. (See Dying Declarations.)
declarations made in course of business, 90-95. (See Course
of Business ; Book Entries.)
declarations against interest, 95-99- (See Declarations.)
declarations by testator as to contents of will, 99, 100.
declarations as to public and general rights, 100-103.
declarations as to pedigree, 103-107. (See Pedigree.)
evidence given in former proceeding, 107-1 1 1 . (See Evidence.)
Heir, bound by admissions of ancestor, 60.
but not by those of executor or administrator, 69.
Highway, defect therein, and notice thereof, how provable, 38, 39.
boundaries of. (See Boundaries.)
Historical works, statements in as evidence, 114.
matters of public history judicially noticed, 170-172.
but not of private history, 172.
Homicide, insanity as a defence in trials for, 7, 247.
alibi as a defence, 7, 248.
good character of the defendant, when provable, 7, 158, 159.
evidence of threats in trials for, 20, 21.
circumstantial evidence of, 29-31, 52, 352, 353.
dying declarations in trials for, 86-90. (See Dying Declarations.)
malice presumed from deliberate use of deadly weapon, 263.
434 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Hostile witness, impeachment of, 330, 334-336, 386. (See Witness.)
Husband and wife. (See Marriage ; Divorce.)
what are necessaries for wife, how shown, 30.
admissions of either as agent bind the other, 65, 70.
admissions of husband hind widow claiming dower, 60.
declarations of as showing pedigree, 105.
letters and conversations, competent to show state of feeling, 47,
210.
wife committing crime in husband's presence presumed to act
under his coercion, 263.
neither can testify as to marital intercourse, 256.
nor are their declarations competent, unless forming part of
res geslce, 256.
in bastardy cases, right of wife to testify as to paternity of child,
2-56.
competency of as witnesses in criminal cases, 275-277, 401-403.
competency of as witnesses in civil cases, 277-279.
cannot disclose confidential communications, 277, 279, 280.
cannot, in general, give evidence criminating each other, 297, 298,
278.
Identity, evidence of, 28, 35.
of name, to show identity of person, 30, 263.
party or witness may be required to stand up, etc., to be iden-
tified, 177, 298.
evidence of opinion concerning identity, 142.
Illegality, provable by parol to avoid written instrument, 220, 221.
burden of proof, as to defence of, 250.
Impeachment of judgments, 136-140. (See Judgment.)
of witness. (See Witness.)
Impotence, examination of person to ascertain, 177.
Impression, when witness may testify to his, 176.
Incest, in trials for, marriage not provable by cohabitation and repute,
156.
Indecent assault. (See Assault and Battery.)
Indecent evidence, when admissible, 354.
Indemnitors, how affected by judgment against principal, 132. (See
Principal and Surety.)
Indorsement on negotiable instrument. (See Bill of Exchange ;
Promissory Note.) .
capacity to indorse, when party estopped to deny, 267.
of payment on bond, bill, note, etc., effect of as evidence, 96,
97.
INDEX. 435
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Infamous persons, competency of as witnesses, 273.
what makes a person infamous, 273.
crimen falsi defined, 273.
disability how removed, 273. *
infamy must generally be proved by the record, 325.
but in some States proof by cross-examination permitted, and wit-
ness's answer may be contradicted, 325.
Infant. (See Children ; Parent and Child.)
Information as to commission of offences, witness privileged from dis-
closing, 284.
Innocence, presumption of, 237, 238, 249.
In rem, judgments as estoppels, 127. (See Judgment.)
Insanity, of blood relations relevant to prove insanity, 33.
book entries by insane person, 91, 93.
of witness, as ground to receive his former testimony, 108, 109.
as a defence in criminal cases, 7, 247.
burden of proof, and amount of evidence required, 247.
of testator provable by subscribing witnesses, 141, 142.
burden of proof as to testator's insanity, in probate proceed-
ings, 246.
of other persons, how provable, 141, 149.
presumed to continue when it has existed, 261.
competency of insane persons as witnesses, 271, 274, 275.
Insolvency, as evidence that one has not paid a particular debt, 32.
Insurance, expert testimony as to materiality of circumstances affect-
ing risk, 149, 150.
how defence of arson proved, 51, 239, 241.
expressions of assured showing state of health, relevant, 48.
Intent, provable by similar acts or declarations, 42.
expressions of, provable, 47.
intentional and accidental acts, distinguished by evidence of sys-
tem, 49-53-
when witness may testify to his, 176.
oral statements of, when provable to aid in the construction of
documents, 229, 231, 235, 375-377.
Interest, declarations against, 95-99. (See Declarations.)
as affecting competency or credibility of witnesses, 270.
whether judgment for interest, after principal due, bars action for
principal, 125.
Interpretation and construction of documents, 227-236.
construction defined, 227.
construction usually for court and not for jury, 227.
jury may determine facts affecting construction, 227.
436 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Interpretation and construction (contained).
if printed and written parts of document conflict, latter prevail,
• 227, 228.
how far oral evidence is admissible to affect construction, 227-236.
(See Oral Evidence.)
proper legal meaning preferred to one that is less proper, 229.
Interpreter, admissions of, 73.
privileged from disclosing communications to lawyer, 289, 290.
Intestate, admissions of, competent against administrator, 60.
Involuntary confessions. (See Confessions.)
Irish statutes, proof of, 397.
Issue, definition of, 5.
evidence must be relevant to, 6. (See Relevancy.)
Joint contractors, admissions of, 66, 67, 69, 71.
effect of admissions, as to the Statute of Limitations, 67, 69.
effect of judgment against one, 131.
Joint debtors, admissions of. (See Joint Contractors.)
Journals of legislature, not judicially noticed, 165.
proof of, 206, 207, 296.
recitals in as evidence, 112.
Judge, definition of, 3.
judicially recognized, 166.
decides on admissibility of evidence, 4, 77, 191.
minutes of, to prove evidence in*former proceeding, no.
when judgment is conclusive in favor of, 135, 136.
competency of as witness, 280-282, 381.
Judgment, defined, 117.
how proved. (See Public Documents.)
not judicially noticed, 166.
relevancy of, 1 17-140.
conclusive proof of its legal effect, 117-119.
effect of judgment, condemning ship as prize, 118.
of judgment forming muniment of title, 118.
of judgment, appointing executor, guardian, receiver, etc., 1 1<;
of judgment appointing administrator for living person, 1 19.
of judgment of divorce, 119, 127.
of judgment naturalizing an alien, 120.
how far conclusive of facts forming ground of judgment, 120-126.
conclusive as to facts actually decided, 120.
whether appearing on the record or not, 120.
parol evidence admitted to show what was decided, 1 20, 134.
must not contradict the record, 1 20.
INDEX. 437
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Judgment {continued).
conclusive as to matters which were and those which might
have been litigated, 120, 121.
single cause of action not to be split, 120, 124, 125.
defences not set up in one action cannot be afterwards
sued on, 121, 125.
aliter, as to set off and recoupment, 121,
not conclusive as to matters which might have been liti-
gated, when second suit is on different course of action,
121.
not conclusive unless rendered on the merits, 121.
• judgment of nonsuit not conclusive, 121.
so of dismissal, unless on the merits, 121.
of discontinuance, not conclusive, 121, 122.
so of judgment of abatement, 122.
verdict, without judgment, not a bar, 122.
judgment on demurrer, when conclusive, 122.
judgment by confession, or default, or by retraxit, conclusive,
122, 125.
judgment on offer made and accepted, conclusive, 122.
interlocutory order not generally conclusive, 122.
aliter, as to final orders on merits in special proceedings,
122.
judgment bars suit in court of concurrent jurisdiction, 122.
effect of judgment as a bar in actions of ejectment, trespass,
or for nuisance, 122, 123.
effect of decision upon writ of habeas corpus, 123.
whether judgment for interest, after principal due, bars ac-
tion for principal, 125.
judgment for physician's services bars action against him for
malpractice, 125.
statements in, irrelevant as between strangers, except in admiralty
, cases, 126-128.
judgments in rem and'their effect, 127.
of prize and forfeiture, 127, 128.
as to personal status, marriage, divorce, etc., 127.
in attachment suits, 127, 140.
effect of not pleading judgment as estoppel, 128, 129.
may be conclusive though given in evidence without plead-
ing, 129.
irrelevant as between strangers, 130-134.
and between parties and privies when the issue is different,
13°. J33-
43** INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Judgment {continued).
not binding on parties as to matters not passed upon, 130.
nor as to immaterial matters, 130.
nor as to matters incidentally cognizable, 130.
judgment against person in one capacity, not binding on him in
another, 130.
judgment against one administrator not binding on another, 130.
effect of judgment against one tort-feasor, upon the others, 131.
of judgment against one co-contractor, 131.
of judgment against indorsee of bill or note, 132.
of judgment against principal, upon surety or indemnitor, 132.
of judgment against principal felon as respects accessory, 134.
effect of judgment as admission, 131, 134.
effect of, to prove matters of public and general right, 103, 131.
conclusive in favor of judge, 134, 135.
so as to jurisdictional facts which court has power to decide,
135.
impeachable for lack of jurisdiction, 135-138.
judgment of superior domestic court not impeachable col-
laterally, except when record shows lack of jurisdic-
tion, 136.
in some cases, lack of jurisdiction available as equitable de-
fence, 137.
judgment upon unauthorized appearance of attorney, effect
of, 138.
judgments of inferior courts, etc., impeachable, 136.
impeachable by showing its reversal, 137.
effect of pending appeal from judgment, 137.
impeachable by stranger for fraud, 137.
by party for fraud, in equity, 137.
not impeachable for error or irregularity, 137.
foreign judgments and those of sister States, effect of, 138-140.
impeachable for lack of jurisdiction, fraud, etc., 139, 140.
proof of, 146, 207, 399.
Judicial confession. (See Confessions.)
Judicial notice, of what facts taken, 163-173.
taken of common and statute law, corporate charters, etc., 163, 164.
of the laws of antecedent government, 163.
Federal courts notice laws of States, 164.
State courts notice Acts of Congress, 164.
of the legislature, its sessions, etc., 164, 165.
of customs of business, and customs enforced by courts, 165,
166.
INDEX. 430
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Judicial notice {continued).
of domestic courts, their judges, records, rules, orders, terms,
etc., 166, 167.
of the status and signatures of court officers, 167.
of the constitution of the government, the accession of the
executive and his signature, 167.
status of public officers, of sheriffs, marshals, etc., 167, 168.
of foreign states, their seals, and the law of nations, 168, 171.
of foreign admiralty courts and their seals, 168, 169.
of seals of State, of domestic courts, of notaries public, 169.
of proclamations, treaties, executive decrees, etc., 169, 206.
of days of election, 169.
of the extent of the country, its civil divisions, geographical
features, etc., 169, 170.
of location of towns, population, boundaries, navigable rivers,
etc., 170.
of public matters concerning the government, 170, 171.
of matters happening in the course of nature, 171.
of the divisions of time, the meaning of words and abbrevia-
tions, 171, 172.
of matters of public history, 172.
of matters of general knowledge and experience, 172, 173.
Federal courts notice tidal ports and boundaries of States and
districts, 171.
notice not taken of private statutes, nor city ordinances, 163.
nor of transactions in legislative journals, 165.
nor of rules of practice in inferior courts, 167.
nor of former judgment, 166.
nor of pendency of another action, 166.
nor of status of sheriff's deputy, 168.
nor of seals of foreign municipal courts or of foreign officers,
169.
nor of orders of military commander, nor private executive
acts, 169.
nor of matters of private history, 172.
no evidence need be given of facts judicially noticed, 173.
nor of facts admitted, 174.
judge may refer to books, etc., to ascertain matters requiring no-
tice, 173.
Judicial records. (See Public Documents ; Public Records.)
Jurisdiction, of court, when judgment impeachable for lack of, 135-140.
of surrogate to appoint administrator upon estate of living person,
119.
440 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Jurisdiction {continued).
power of court to determine its own, 135.
of superior courts presumed, 136.
aliter, of inferior courts, 137.
of domestic courts judicially noticed, 166.
furors, may testify as to evidence in former proceeding, no.
bribing of, when provable, 23.
decide as to sufficiency of evidence, 4.
grand and petit, competency of as witnesses, 284-286.
Knowledge, provable by similar acts or declarations, 42, 48.
Land, application of presumption to question of ownership of, io, 14.
title to, how provable, 17.
value of, how provable, 36, 37, 143.
admissions concerning. (See Admissions.)
Landlord and tenant :
landlord's admissions bind tenant, 60.
tenant's admissions do not bind landlord, 60.
landlord, by making repairs, admits it to be his duty, 58.
tenant estopped to deny landlord's title, 266.
admissions of tenant in common do not bind co-tenant, 69.
Larceny, presumption of guilt from possession of stolen goods, 245.
Lascivious cohabitation, in trials for, marriage not provable by co-
habitation and repute, 156.
Latent ambiguity, parol evidence to explain. (See Ambiguity.)
Law, common and statute, of forum, judicially noticed, 163, 164.
of nations, judicially noticed, 168.
foreign, how proved, 145-147, 201-207.
Law books, reading of to jury, 1 16.
Law reports as evidence, 117.
Lawyers. (See Attorney ; Barrister.)
Leading questions, nature of, 319, 320.
not permitted on the examination in chief or on re-examination, 319.
except when witness is hostile, 319.
or the examination relates to items, details, etc., 319.
or when necessary to direct witness's attention to subject-
matter, 319.
or when court allows them, 319.
permitted on cross-examination, 319, 320.
but not in some States, when counsel inquires as to new mat-
ter, 320.
objections to leading questions in taking depositions should be
taken before the trial, 312.
INDEX. 441
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Lease, as evidence of public and general rights, 103.
Legatee, admissions of do not bind co-legatee, 69.
Legislative journals. (See Journals of Legislature.)
Legislature, Acts of. (See Statute.)
may change rules of evidence, 4.
judicial notice taken of legislature and its sessions, 164, 165.
Legitimacy of children, presumed, 255.
of relatives, declarations concerning, 105.
Letter-press copies of writings are secondary evidence, 180.
relevancy of, to show handwriting, 155.
Letters, mailing of, raises presumption of delivery, 53, 54, 262.
day of mailing not presumed from date of postmark, 54.
failure to answer, no admission of their contents, 58.
letters, as bearing upon addressee's sanity, 27.
Letters rogatory, when issued for the taking of depositions, 309.
Libel, evidence of similar statements to show malice, 45.
evidence of plaintiff's bad character, when relevant, 161, 395.
aliter, as to reports and particular acts of misconduct,
161.
amount of proof required in justifying charge of crime, 239.
License, burden of proof to show possession of, 251.
in writing, may be varied by oral evidence, 222.
licensee of property estopped to deny licensor's title, 267,
268.
Lien on document, as excusing witness from producing, 295.
Life and annuity tables, as evidence, 117.
Life, continuance of, presumed, 262. (See Presumption.)
when presumption of death arises, 257.
Light and air, prescriptive right to, 260.
Limitations. (See Statute of Limitations.)
Liquors, intoxicating quality of, when judicially noticed, 172.
sale of, provable by preponderance of evidence, 239.
burden of proof as to license, 251.
Lithographed documents as evidence primary or secondary, 179.
Lost grant, presumption of, 259.
Lunatic. (See Insanity.)
Magistrate, confessions to by prisoner, 80, 83, 85.
examination of prisoner before. (See Examination.)
Malice, provable by similar acts or declarations, 42.
in cases of libel and slander, 45.
presumed, in cases of homicide from deliberate use of deadly
weapon, 263.
442 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Malicious prosecution, in trials for, plaintiff's bad character relevant,
161.
plaintiff must prove malice and want of probable cause, 252.
information on which defendant acted provable, 27.
judgment of acquittal competent, 118.
grand jurors may testify to evidence given before them, 286.
Malpractice of physician, what evidence irrelevant, 31.
action for, barred by judgment for physician for his services, 125.
Manslaughter. (See Homicide.)
Maps, competency of as evidence, 114, 115.
to prove public and general rights, 103, 115.
Maritime courts, judicially noticed, 168, 169.
Market-reports, as evidence, 117.
Marriage, as matter of pedigree, 104, 105. (See Husband and Wife.)
effect of judgment as to, 127.
provable by cohabitation and repute, 155, 156.
opinions as to existence of, when relevant, 155.
provable by admissions, 156.
register of, admissibility of entries in, 94.
communications during, privileged, 277-280.
in trials for breach of promise, woman's bad character relevant,
161.
corroboration of plaintiff's evidence, when required, 300, 301.
Marshal, status and signature of, judicially noticed, 168.
aliter, as to his deputy, 168.
Master and servant : m
negligence of servant not provable by prior negligent acts, 37.
of master in retaining servant, how provable, 37, 46, 160.
confession of servant to master, 80, 82.
Masters in chancery, duties of, 310.
minutes of, to prove testimony in former proceeding, 1 10.
Material alterations. (See Alteration.)
Measures, weights and, judicially noticed, 171.
Medical men. (See Physician.)
Medical treatises, as evidence, 115, 116.
Memorandum, does not exclude oral evidence of transaction, 190, 224,
227. •
Memory, refreshing. (See Refreshing Memory.)
Mental feelings, provable by similar acts or declarations, 42.
expressions of, provable, 47-49, 210.
Messages of executive, judicially noticed, 169.
Minutes of judges, stenographers, etc., to prove former testimony,
no.
INDEX. 443
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Misprision of treason, two witnesses needed in trials for, 303.
Mistake, provable by parol to avoid written instrument, 220.
weight of evidence required to set aside instrument for mistake,
240.
Moneys, judicially noticed, 171.
Moral certainty, 237.
Moral evidence, 4.
Mortality tables, as evidence, 117.
Mortgage, oral evidence received to show deed or bill of sale to be a
mortgage, 162.
admissions by mortgagor, 62.
mortgagee's privilege as to producing mortgagor's papers as evi-
dence, 295.
Motions, affidavits used in making and their contents, 309, 311, 312.
Motive, evidence of, when admissible, 19, 21, 35.
witness may testify to his, 176.
Murder. (See Homicide.)
Name, identity of, to show identity of person, 30, 263.
Naturalization, effect of judgment of, 120.
Necessaries for wife, evidence relevant to show what are, 30.
Negligence, not provable by showing prior acts of negligence, 37.
aliter, in some States, 37, 50.
not provable by evidence of repairs after injury, 31.
whether provable by similar injuries or similar defects, 34,
38-41.
whether system or course of business may be shown to prove neg-
ligence, 49, 50.
in trial for, habit of carefulness irrelevant, 51.
so as to reputation for carefulness, 160.
burden of proof to show negligence and contributory negligence,
251.
Negotiable instruments. (See Bill of Exchange ; Promissory Note.)
New trial, not granted for improper admission or rejection of evidence
unless party be prejudiced thereby, 350.
on motion for, jurors not allowed to impeach their verdict, 284.
Nicknames, in document, explainable by parol evidence, 229, 230,
233-
Nol. pros., qualifies co-defendant in criminal cases to testify, 275
276.
Non-experts, evidence of opinion by. (See Opinion, Evidence of.)
Nonsuit, judgment of, not a bar, 121.
Non volo contendere, plea of, conviction upon, 76.
444 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Northampton tables, as evidence, 117.
Notary, judicially noticed, 168.
seal of, judicially noticed, 169.
book entries of, as evidence, 91.
Notice of defect in highway, how provable, 38, 39.
Notice to produce documents, object of, 372.
upon failure to produce, secondary evidence admissible, 187, 206.
but not unless due notice be given, 192.
attesting witness need not be called, 184.
notice may be given to party or his attorney, 192, 296.
must be given a sufficient time beforehand, 192.
and must describe document, 192.
secondary evidence admissible without notice :
when the document is itself a notice, 193.
when the action seeks it in the opponent's possession, 194.
when the opponent has obtained it from person subpoenaed,
194.
when the opponent has the document in court, 194.
verbal notice in court then sufficient, 194.
when there are duplicate originals, 194.
when the document is only collaterally in question, 195.
notice to be given though party notified is absent from State, 194,
195.
party calling for and inspecting document, bound to give it in
evidence, if required by other party, 344.
aliter, in some States, 344.
party refusing to produce when duly notified, cannot use docu-
ment as evidence without consent, 345.
Notices, provable orally, though given in writing, 190, 191.
Nuisance, effect of judgment in action for, 123.
Number of witnesses, 303-305. (See Witness.)
Oath, confessions made under, effect of, 82-84, 298, 363.
witness to be under, 306.
or may affirm, 306, 307.
mode of administering, 307, 308.
wilful false oath constitutes perjury, 306, 307.
Objects, shown to jury as evidence, 176, 177.
Offer, judgment on is a bar, 122.
Office, right to, shown by person's acting as officer, 53, 225.
Office-copy of document, defined, 198, 199.
when admissible in evidence, 198, 199.
is secondary evidence, 186.
INDEX. 445
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Officers, of court, judicially noticed, 167.
public, judicially noticed, 167, 168.
presumed to perform .their official duties, 261.
of corporation. (See Corporation.)
Official communications, privileged from disclosure, 282.
Official documents or records. (See Public Document; Public Record;
Bond.)
Omnia prasumuntur contra spoliatorem, 263.
Omnia prasumuntur rite esse acta, 261, 378.
Open and close, who has right to, 242, 243.
Opinion, evidence of, generally irrelevant, xix., 141.
of subscribing witnesses as to testator's sanity, relevant, 141.
of non-experts as to sanity or insanity, when relevant, 141, 142.
of non-experts as to matters within common comprehension, as
identity, age, sickness, etc., 142.
of experts as to insanity, 148.
evidence of, as to damages, 143.
as to value of property, services, etc., 143, 144.
of experts on points of science or art, relevant, 144-150.
"science or art" defined, 144.
as to foreign law, or the law of sister States, 145-147, 207.
other modes of proving such laws, 145, 146, 205-207.
effect of not proving such laws, 146, 147.
expert usually a lawyer, 146.
as to matters within common knowledge, irrelevant, 145, 150.
competency of expert, determinable by judge, 146, 147.
opinion of expert as to existence of facts, irrelevant, 147, 148.
but may state facts from scientific knowledge, 145.
knowledge of expert tested by standard treatises, 116.
when questions to expert must be in hypothetical form, 147, 148.
mode of framing such question, 147, 148.
opinion of expert as to effect of evidence, irrelevant, 148.
so as to matter of legal or moral obligation, 148.
so as to point in issue in the case, 145, 150.
opinion of expert as to materiality of circumstances affecting
insurance risk, 149, 150.
relevancy of facts bearing upon opinions of experts, 151.
as to handwriting, when relevant, 151-153, 155.
what qualifies a person to testify as to handwriting, 152, 153.
comparison of writings, when permitted, 153, 154.
collateral writings, when admissible as standards, 154.
letter-press copies and photographic copies,when used, 155.
signature made in court, when used as a standard, 154, 155.
446 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Opinion {continued).
as to existence of marriage, when relevant, 155, 156.
grounds of opinion, relevancy of, 156.
evidence of experiments, when received, 156, 157.
opinion-evidence to be given by person having the opinion, 176.
witness may testify to his impression, belief, etc., 176.
Oral evidence, defined, 4.
proof by, 175.
must be direct, xix., 175.
witness may testify to his impression, belief, intent, or motive, 176.
but not to conclusion of law, 176.
relevant to show grounds of judgment, 120.
not relevant to add to, vary, or contradict a writing, xix., 219, 225,
232, 273.
but relevant to show fraud, mistake, illegality, want of con-
sideration, want of capacity, the true date, etc., 220, 221.
and that deed or bill of sale is a mortgage, 221.
and to establish a trust, 221.
and to prove an advancement, 221.
and that signer of instrument is agent, not principal, 221.
and to show true relations of parties to an instrument, 221.
and to vary receipts, licenses, or admissions, 222.
and to show the existence of a distinct oral agreement, 221,
225.
or an oral agreement forming a condition precedent, 222, 226.
aliter, as to delivery of instrument under seal to grantee,
222.
and as to other kinds of conditions, 223.
or a subsequent oral agreement to rescind or modify, 223, 226.
and to show usage or custom, 223, 224, 227, 232.
oral evidence of transaction receivable, though memorandum
made, 190, 224, 227.
legal relation created by writing, provable by parol, 190, 224,
227.
that person is public officer, provable by parol, 53, 225.
contract may be reformed in equity by parol, 225.
weight of evidence required, 240.
a will may not be reformed, 225.
oral evidence competent to explain foreign, obsolete, technical,
etc., expressions, 228.
to explain abbreviations, illegible characters, words used
in special sense, etc., 228, 232.
to supplement incomplete terms of document, 228.
INDEX. 447
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Oral evidence {continued).
to identify persons and things referred to in document,
229, 232.
to show "surrounding circumstances," 229, 230, 231, 233,
234-
but not to change meaning of document whose meaning is
plain, 230, 233.
nor to show the meaning of common words, 228, 232.
nor to show the intent of an unintelligible document, 228,
232.
nor to resolve a "parent ambiguity" or "uncertainty,"
228, 229.
oral statements of intention not provable in cases of falsa
demonstratio, 230, 231, 234, 375-377.
but provable in cases of "equivocation," or "latent am-
biguity," 231, 235, 375-377.
and to rebut an equity, 231, 235.
rule excluding oral evidence only applies when civil right or
liability is in question, 235, 236.
rule may be waived by party, 236.
stranger to document may vary it by oral evidence, 235, 236.
mode of taking oral evidence, 306-345. (See Witness.)
may be taken in open court on preliminary or final hearing,
308.
preliminary examination of prisoner in criminal cases, 83,
85,308,346.
examination of parties and witnesses before trial in civil
cases, 308, 309.
parties not examined before trial in suits at law in U. S.
courts, 309.
may be taken out of court on affidavit, 309, 311. (See Affi-
davit.)
or in taking depositions under a commission, 309-313.
(See Depositions.)
or before officers of the court or other persons duly ap-
pointed or selected, 310.
as referees, auditors, examiners, etc., 310.
Order of court, as evidence of public and general rights, 103.
effect of as res adjndicata, 122.
Orders in council, proof of, 397.
Ordinances, municipal, not judicially noticed, 163.
of state, judicially noticed, 169.
proof of foreign, 205.
448 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Papers. (See Document.)
Parent and child. (See Children.)
parent must prove good faith as to dealings with child, 254.
resemblance of parent to child, evidence of, 32.
Parol evidence to vary a writing. (See Oral Evidence.)
Partners, admissions of one bind the others, 66, 71.
effect of admissions after dissolution, 66, 67.
of part payment by one after dissolution, 67.
one partner cannot confess judgment against another, 66.
must show good faith in dealings with co-partner, 254.
person who has held himself out as partner estopped to deny it, 265.
retiring partner giving no notice, estopped to deny that he is
partner, 264.
entries in partnership books evidence against partner, 58.
Part-owners of ship, admissions of, 71.
Party to action, admissions of. (See Admissions.)
book entries made by, relevancy of, 92.
relations of parties, provable, 28.
may be required to stand up to be identified, 177.
competency of, as witness. (See Witness.)
may be subpoenaed, 193, 296. (See Witness; Subpoena duces tecum.)
may not be excluded from the court-room during trial, 314.
voluntarily becoming witness in criminal case maybe fully cross-
examined, 209.
in some States may only be cross-examined as to matters
stated on the direct examination, 298, 317.
as witness in other cases may be cross-examined like other wit-
nesses, 317, 321.
impeachment of, as witness, 159, 329, 336.
examination of, before trial in civil suits, 308, 309.
not allowed in U. S. courts, in actions at law, 309.
former testimony of deceased party, when provable, 1 10.
latent ambiguity. (See Ambiguity.)
Payment, what evidence irrelevant to show, 32.
effect of not pleading, 125.
burden of proof on defendant, 250.
provable without producing receipt, 190, 191.
indorsement of on bond, bill, note, etc., effect of.as evidence, 96, 97.
Pedigree, declarations concerning, 103-107.
what constitutes pedigree, 103, 104.
includes birth, marriage, death, and the time and place thereof,
104, 107.
aliter, in this country, as to place, 104.
INDEX. 449
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Pedigree {continued).
who may be a declarant, 105.
declarations only competent when pedigree is in issue, 105.
a person's age may be matter of pedigree, 104.
declarations as to legitimacy of relatives, 105.
how declarations may be made, 104, 105.
must be made ante litem motam, 106.
declarations of neighbors, friends, etc., incompetent, 106.
Penalty, evidence exposing to, privilege of witness concerning, 294,
298.
Perjury, in trials for, evidence required to corroborate witness, 304,
305.
wilful false testimony, violating witness's oath or affirmation, con-
stitutes, 306-308.
grand jury may testify to evidence given before them, to disclose
perjury, 286.
conviction for, renders witness incompetent in some States, 274.
Petty jurors, competency of as witnesses, 284-286.
Photographs, as evidence, 32, 177.
photographic copies, when primary and when secondary evidence,
179, 180.
photographic copies, when used to show handwriting, 155.
Physical examination of a party, power of court to order, 177.
Physician, malpractice of, what evidence irrelevant, 31.
book entries of deceased physician, when admissible, 91.
statements of bodily feeling made to, when relevant, 47, 48.
judgment for bars action against for malpractice, 125.
must prove good faith as to dealings with patient, 254.
prescriptions not privileged from compulsory production in evi-
dence, 295.
privilege of as witness as to professional communications, 292,
293-
patient may waive privilege, 292, 293.
examination of party by, power of court to order, 177.
Pictures as evidence, 32, 107, 177.
Plans of land, as evidence, 115.
Pleading, admissions made in, 58, 59, 174.
of judgment, whether necessary or not, 128, 129.
Population of State, county, etc., judicially noticed, 170.
Portraits, inscriptions on as evidence of pedigree, 107.
Possession of property raises presumption of ownership, 262.
of property after crime committed, provable, 23, 353.
raises presumption of guilt, 245.
450 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Preparation, evidence of, relevant, 19, 22, 35.
Preponderance of evidence, required in civil cases, 238, 239. (See
Burden of Proof.)
to prove insanity and alibi in criminal cases, 247, 248.
Prescriptive rig! t to light and air, 260.
President, accession of, judicially noticed, 167.
not compel1 ible to disclose State secrets, 282.
Presumption, definition of, 5.
what presumptions belong to the law of evidence, xxiii.
presumptions of law, conclusive and disputable, 5, 351.
presumption of fact, 351.
as affecting burden of proof, 242, 248, 249.
burden of proof in case of conflicting presumptions, 244, 249.
as to neighboring pieces of land, when relevant, 10, 14.
as to da* ; of mailing letters, 54.
of the delivery of letters from mailing them, 53, 54, 262.
that official publication of statutes contains existing law, 205.
of innr cence when crime is charged, 237, 238, 249.
when preferred to that of continuance of life, 241.
of g''dt from recent possession of stolen goods, 245.
that indorsee of negotiable instrument acquired it bona fide for
value, 244.
that person receiving rent of land, is owner, 249.
of damages against wrongdoer, 249.
of legitimacy of children from birth in wedlock, 259.
of death from ^even years' absence, 257. (See Death.)
sometimes inferred from shorter absence, 258.
of the order of death, when persons perish in the same calamity,
258.
of lost grant, 259.
of ?. right bj prescription to light and air, 260.
of a right to percolating waters, 260.
of regularity in the performance of official acts, 261.
of deeds to complete title, 261.
of the del'very of a deed, found in the grantee's hands, 209, 212.
->> the continuance of a state of things once existing, 261.
as a personal relation, 261.
a law, 261.
continuance of life, 249, 262.
character, habits and appearance, 261.
residence, 261.
insanity, 261.
status, 262.
INDEX. 451
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Presumption {continued).
of the observance of the regular course of business, 262, 358.
that letters duly mailed reach their destination, 53, 54, 263.
that bill or note in hands of acceptor or maker has been paid,
262.
that person in possession of property is the owner, 262.
that a man intends the natural consequences of his acts, 262,
263.
that a wife committing crimes in her husband's presence, acts
under his coercion, 263.
of malice from deliberate use of deadly weapon, 263.
from the destruction, fabrication or suppression of evidence, 263.
of identity of person, from identity of name, 30, 263.
of payment of specialty after lapse of 20 years, 263.
from failure to call a witness, 314.
as to documents, 209-218.
as to date, 210, 220.
of order of execution of instruments having same date, 209.
that instruments of same date are parts of same transaction,
209.
as to stamp, 210.
as to sealing and delivery of deeds, 209, 21 1, 212. (See Seal.)
as to ancient documents, 212-214.
what corroboration required, 213.
as to alterations. (See Alteration.)
equitable presumption as to document may be rebutted by
parol evidence, 231, 235.
burden of proof is on party against whom presumption exists, 242,
248,249.
Previous conviction, relevancy of, in prosecutions for receiving stolen
goods, 42.
Price current list, as evidence, 116.
Primary evidence. (See Document.)
Principal and agent :
admissions of agent bind principal, 65, 66, 70, 362.
parol evidence competent to show that signer of instrument
signed as agent, not as principal, 221.
agent must show good faith as to dealings with principal, 254.
agent estopped to deny principal's title, 267, 268.
agency shown by person's acting as agent on other .occasions, 53.
aliter, as to agency to commit crimes, 53.
agent of lawyer, privileged from disclosing client's communica-
tions, 2QO,
452 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Principal and surety :
principal's admissions do not bind surety, 70, 71.
effect of judgment against principal, 132.
parol evidence competent to show parties to instrument to be co-
sureties, 221.
principal must show good faith as to dealings with surety, 254.
alteration of document by principal's consent may avoid it as to
surety, 215.
Principal felon, judgment against as affecting accessory, 134.
Printed documents as evidence, primary or secondary, 179.
Private boundaries, declarations concerning, 101, 102.
when provable by ancient maps, 1 15.
Private papers. (See Document ; Subpoena duces tecum ; Witness.)
Private rights, declarations concerning, 102.
Privies, admissions by. (See Admissions.)
when bound by judgment against party, 120, 126, 128, 130.
in subsequent suit between same parties or privies, former testi-
mony of deceased witness admissible, in.
Privilege of witnesses. (See Witness.)
Privileged communications between husband and wife, 277, 279, 280.
between attorney and client, 286-292. (See Attorney.)
between clergyman and person confessing, 292, 293.
between physician and patient, 292, 293, 382.
Prize, effect of judgment of, 118, 127, 128.
Probate of will, evidence to procure, 100, 182.
effect of judgment granting, 1 19.
burden of proof as to testator's sanity and as to undue influence,
246, 247.
Probate courts, grade of, 136.
effect of judgments of, 136.
Proclamations, recitals in as evidence, 112.
judicially noticed, 169, 206.
proof of, 205, 206, 397.
Professional communications. (See Privileged Communications.)
Promissory note, admissions of holder of, 63, 64.
indorsement of payment on, effect of as evidence, 96, 97.
effect of judgment against indorser, 132.
character of party, not relevant, 160.
alteration of. (See Alteration.)
filling blanks in, 218.
presumption that indorsee acquired it bona fide for value before
maturity, 244.
when in hands of maker, presumed to have been paid, 262.
INDEX. 453
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Promissory note {continued).
whether party competent to testify that it was invalid in its in-
ception, 271.
whether judgment for interest, after principal due, bars action for
principal, 125.
Proof, defined. (See Evidence.)
conclusive, definition of, 4, 351.
order of discretionary with court, 315.
burden of. (See Burden of Proof.)
Property, value of, how provable, 36, 37, 143, 144.
possession of raises presumption of ownership, 262.
after larceny of raises presumption of guilt, 23, 245.
facts showing rights of, or exercise of rights, 17.
Public acts and records of other States, to receive full credit, 139, 201.
Public affairs, privilege of witness as to disclosing, 282.
Public books and records, admissibility of entries in, 94.
Public documents, proof of, 196-207.
by producing document itself, 196.
by testimony of witness, 146, 196.
by copies, 186, 187, 189.
by examined or sworn copy, 186, 197, 205, 207.
by exemplification, 186, 198, 199, 205, 207.
by office copy, 186, 198, 199.
by certified copy, 186, 198, 199.
by officially printed copy, 204, 205, 206.
of Revised Statutes of U. S., 204, 205.
of State statutes, 146, 205.
of proclamation, edict, decree, etc., 205, 206.
of foreign law, 146, 207.
official publication presumed to contain existing law,
unless contrary shown, 205.
if printed statute differs from enrolled, latter prevails,
205, 206.
proof of general records of the nation or State, 197, 396.
of records of the several American States, 201, 202, 203.
of statutes of any State or Territory, 146, 205, 206.
of proclamations, acts of state, legislative journals, etc., 205,
206.
of foreign written laws, acts of state, records, etc., 146, 207, 399.
English and Irish public documents, proof of, 396-400.
Public facts, recitals of as evidence, 112.
Public history, matters of, judicially noticed, 172.
Public laws, when judicially noticed, 163, 164,
454 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Public officers. (See Officers.)
Public records, entries in as evidence, 94, 112, 113. (See Public
Documents.)
of the weather, 1 13, 1 17.
how contents proved in case of loss, 196.
Public rights, defined, 102.
declarations concerning, 101-103.
provable by ancient maps, 115.
judgments relating to, 131, 134.
Publication of will, 100.
Quarrelsome character of person, when provable, 20.
Queen's printers' copies of Acts of Parliament, as evidence, 396.
Rape, evidence of woman's complaint in trials for, 24, 25, 27.
particulars of complaint not generally provable, 24, 25, 27, 356.
corroboration of the woman's evidence required in some States, 301.
evidence of her bad reputation for chastity, competent, 337-339.
evidence of her previous connection with the prisoner or other
persons, competency of, 338, 339.
Reading law books and other books to jury, whether permissible, 116.
Reasonable doubt, defined, 237.
Rebuttal, evidence in, when given, 319.
of an equity, by oral evidence, 231, 235.
Receipt, not necessary as evidence to prove payment, 100, 191.
may be varied by oral evidence, 222.
Receiver, effect of judgment appointing, 1 19.
Receiving stolen goods, similar acts relevant to show knowledge, 43.
Recitals of public facts, in statutes, proclamations, etc., when relevant,
112.
Record, imports absolute verity, 136.
Records, public. (See Public Documents; Public Records.)
Record books of courts, judicially noticed, 166.
Recorded deeds, proof of execution of, 185. (See Deed; Acknowl-
edged Deed.)
presumption as to delivery of, 212.
Recoupment, matter of may be set up in defence, or sued on inde-
pendently, 121.
Re-examination of witness. (See Witness.)
Referee, competency of as witness, 287.
power of to take testimony, decide causes, etc., 310.
appointed to take evidence, cannot pass upon objections, 311.
alitcr, when he acts as judge to decide causes, 311.
INDEX. 4$5
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Reformation of document in equity. (See Oral Evidence.)
Refreshing memory of witness :
witness may use writing made at or near time of transaction, 341,
343-
three cases of refreshing memory, 341, 342.
writing not itself competent evidence, generally, 342, 343.
aliter, in some States as to writing made by witness, when he
has no present recollection of the facts, 343.
opposite party allowed to inspect writing, and may cross-examine
thereon, 343.
object of cross-examination, 343.
writing made too long after transaction, not allowed to be used, 344.
dying declarations made in writing, used to refresh recollection, 88.
Registers, public, entries in as evidence, 94, 112, 113.
as evidence of pedigree, 107.
Relationship of parties, evidence of, 28. (See Pedigree.)
insanity shown by insanity of blood relations, 33.
Relevancy, definition of, xviii., 5, 351-354. (See Evidence.)
relevant facts admissible in evidence, 6.
except when too remote, 6, 19, 40.
relevant evidence admissible, though improperly obtained, 6.
of facts forming part of the res gestce. (See Res Gesta.)
of facts and declarations of conspirators. (See Conspirators.)
of facts showing title, 17, 355.
of facts showing custom, 18. -
of facts showing motive, preparation, subsequent conduct, explana-
tory statements, 19-23, 35.
of complaints, statements in person's presence, etc., 23-27.
of facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant facts, 28-33.
of identity, genuineness of documents, relations of parties, oppor-
tunity for act, etc., 218.
of similar but unconnected facts, 34-41, 357.
of evidence to show value of property, 36, 37.
of acts showing intention, good faith, etc., 42-49, 357.
of facts showing system, 49-53, 357.
of facts showing course of business, 49, 50, 53, 54.
of hearsay evidence, 55. (See Hearsay.)
of admissions, 57-74. (See Admissions.)
of confessions, 75-85. (See Confessions.)
of statements of deceased persons, 86-1 1 1. (See Declarations.)
of statements in public documents and records, 112.
of statements in historical and scientific works, maps, etc., 1 13-1 16.
of statements in judgments, 1 17-140. (See Judgment.)
456 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Relevancy {continued).
of evidence of opinion. (See Opinion, Evidence of.)
of evidence of character. (See Character, Evidence of.)
Remoteness of evidence, excludes it, 6, 19, 40.
Kent of land, person receiving presumed to be owner, 249.
Reports, law, as evidence, 112, 196.
to prove foreign law, 146.
Reputation. (See Character, Evidence of.)
as evidence of pedigree, 107.
Res adjudicata. (See Judgment.)
Res gestce, doctrine of, 8-14, 23, 57, 356.
when acts or declarations will form a part of, 9, 10.
admissible though in declarant's own favor, 57, 61.
illustrations of doctrine, 11-14, 26, 29, 47.
declarations of conspirators, 14-16, 63, 355.
declarations of woman in cases of rape, 24, 25.
expressions of bodily and mental feeling, 47-49, 210.
declarations of owner of land or chattels, characterizing his pos-
session, 61, 62.
declarations as to boundaries of private estates, 101.
declarations of agents in course of agency, 65, 66, 70, 362.
declarations of principal as affecting surety, 70, 71.
declarations made in course of business, etc., 90-95.
letters of parent as to legitimacy of child, 256, 257.
Res inter alios acta, xviii., 357.
Res ipsa loquitur, 243, 249, 250.
Resemblance of child to parent, evidence of, 32.
Retraxit, judgment on is a bar, 122.
Rights, public and general, declarations concerning, 100-103.
private, declarations concerning, 102.
Roman law, compared with common law, xxv.
Rules of court, judicially noticed, 166.
but not those of inferior courts, 167.
Sanity, of testator, provable by subscribing witnesses, 141. (See In-
sanity.)
of other persons, whether provable by evidence of opinion, 141.
provable by letters sent to person, with evidence of his acting
thereon, 27.
Satisfactory evidence, 4.
Science, matters of, provable by opinion-evidence, 144.
Scienter, provable by similar cases of injury by animals, 44.
Scientific treatises, competency of as evidence, 115, 116.
INDEX. 457
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Seal, of States, of admiralty courts, of notaries, etc., judicially noticed,
168, 169.
but not those of foreign municipal courts, or of foreign officers, 169.
English seals recognized in English courts, 168-170.
to be used on copies of public documents, 197, 198.
of a deed, what is sufficient as, 211.
instrument without seal not a deed, though it allege a sealing,
211.
if deed be recorded without a seal, sealing may be presumed, 21 1.
if seal omitted by mistake, equity will supply it, 211.
seal of deed presumed to be that of signer, 211, 212.
deed sealed and signed, presumed to have been regularly de-
livered, 212.
contract under seal, how far modifiable by oral evidence, 223.
when condition affecting sealed instrument may be shown by
parol, 222.
Secondary evidence. (See Document.)
Seduction, plaintiff's bad character irrelevant in actions for, 160.
aliter, as to woman's bad character, 161, 339.
under promise of marriage, is a crime, 301.
corroboration of woman's evidence in trials for, when re-
quired, 301.
woman cannot generally be cross-examined as to connection
with other men, 340.
Self-defence, burden of proof as to, and amount of evidence required,
248.
Senator, status of, judicially noticed, 167.
Servant. (See Master and Servant.)
Set-off, may be set up in defence or sued on independently, 121.
Sheriff, when bound by admissions of deputy, 60.
status and signature of, judicially noticed, 168.
aliter, as to his deputy, 168.
effect of judgment against, as to sureties on his bond, 132.
admissions of judgment debtor, when competent against sheriff, 72.
Shifting of burden of proof. (See Burden of Proof.)
Shipmaster, when estopped to deny bill of lading signed by him, 268,
269.
shipowner, whether bound by master's act, 269.
Sickness of witness, as ground to receive his former testimony, 108.
evidence of opinion as to person's illness, 142.
Signatures, of judges and public officers, judicially noticed, 167, 168.
proof of, to show execution of document, 181, 182.
made in court, when used as standards of comparison, 154, 155.
458 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Silence, admissions and confessions by, 15, 25, 26, 58, 72, 75.
Similar facts to those in issue, generally irrelevant, xviii., 34-41,
357-
illustrations of rule, 35-41.
but relevant when they are the effects of the same cause, acting
under like conditions, 34, 38-41.
relevant to show the quality of an act, 34, 37-39.
relevant to show intention, knowledge, good or bad faith, malice,
etc., 42-49, 357.
relevant to show system, 49-53, 357.
Slander, evidence of similar statements to show malice, relevant,
45-
evidence of plaintiff's bad character relevant, 161, 395.
aliter, as to reports and particular acts of misconduct, 161.
amount of proof required in justifying charge of crime, 239.
Solicitor. (See Attorney.)
of patents, has not a lawyer's privilege as to professional com-
munications, 290.
Special proceeding, effect of order in, 122.
Specialty. (See Bond ; Deed ; Document ; Oral Evidence ; Seal ;
Presumption.)
Splitting cause of action, not permissible, 120, 124, 125.
Spoliation, distinguished from alteration, 215.
Spoliator, presumptions against, 263.
Stamp in documents, presumption as to, 210.
State of mind or body, provable by similar acts or declarations, 42.
expressions of provable, 47-49.
State affairs, privilege of witness as to disclosing, 282.
State papers. (See Public Documents.)
Statements. (See Declarations ; Document ; Judgment ; Witness.)
Statute, recitals in as evidence, 1 12.
of forum, judicially noticed, 163, 164.
aliter, as to private statutes, 163.
of other States or countries, how provable, 145-147, 205, 206,
207.
of the United States, how proved, 204.
if printed statute differs from enrolled, latter prevails, 205, 206.
official publication presumed to contain existing law, unless con-
trary shown, 205.
weight of evidence required to show statute to be unconstitutional,
240.
Statute of Frauds, contract within, how far modifiable by parol evi-
dence, 222, 223.
INDEX. 4S9
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Statute of Limitations, effect of admissions by one partner or joint
contractor in removing the bar of, 66, 67, 69.
effect of indorsement of payment on bond, bill, note, etc., in re-
moving bar of the statute, 96* 97.
effect of prosecution being barred, upon the privilege of witness
as to criminating evidence, 297.
Stenographer's minutes or testimony, to prove testimony of deceased
witness, 1 10.
Stipulations of attorney, binding on client, 68.
Stolen goods, receiving, facts relevant to show knowledge, 43.
Strangers to suit, admissions by, 72.
effect of judgment upon, 126-128, 130-134. (See Judgment.)
subpcena served upon, 193.
to document, may vary it by oral evidence, 235, 236.
Suborning of witnesses, effect of as evidence, 22, 23.
Subpcena, ambassadors and foreign consuls not required to obey, 283.
Subpoena duces tecum, is a compulsory writ, 193.
penalties for disobeying, 193.
on whom served, 193.
may now be served on party to action or on corporation, 193, 296.
should describe document definitely, 193.,
not used to compel the production of iron plates and the like, 193.
witness compellable to produce his private papers, 294.
but court may relieve him of this duty, 294.
not privileged from producing papers on which he has a lien
or which would expose him to civil liability, 294, 295.
attorney or agent compellable to produce papers which client
could be required to produce, 296.
but professional communications protected from dis-
closure, 296.
solicitor, trustee, or mortgagee not compelled to produce
papers entrusted to him, 295.
witness not compellable to produce papers that would criminate
him, 187, 294, 296-300.
or would expose him to a penalty or forfeiture, 294, 298.
private papers protected from seizure, 294.
when privileged witness withholds document, secondary evidence
admissible, 187, 296.
aliter, when witness not privileged withholds it, 193.
agents of telegraph company compellable to produce messages,
193. 297.
witness not cross-examinable, when merely called to produce
paper on subpcena, 315.
46o INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Subscribing witness, who is, 180.
proof of execution of document attested by, 180-185, 371. (See-
Document.)
deceased, declarations of irrelevant, 55.
to will, may testify as to his opinion of testator's sanity, 141.
proof of will by, 182.
in ancient documents, need not be examined, 213.
if attorney be subscribing witness to will, he may testify to its
execution, 287.
may be impeached by party calling him by proof of his contra-
dictory statements, 330.
Sufficiency of evidence, 4.
determined by jury, 4.
Supreme Court of Justice (England), rules of practice in judicially
noticed, 166, 167.
does not notice rules of inferior courts, 167.
signatures of its judges judicially noticed, 168.
Surety. (See Principal and Surety.)
Surrogate, power of to appoint administrator on estate of living per-
son, 119.
Surveys of land, as evidence, 115.
Surveyors, declarations of deceased to prove boundaries, 101.
Survivorship, presumption as to, when persons perish in the same
calamity, 258.
Sustaining of impeached witness. (See Witness.)
Sworn copy, of a document, 197.
System, provable by evidence of similar acts, 40-53, 357.
Tables, life and annuity, as evidence, 117, 179, 180.
Technical words, explained by parol evidence, 228.
Telegrams, as evidence, whether primary or secondary, 179, 180.
presumption of delivery from sending, 54.
agent of telegraph company required to produce on subpcena
duces tecum, 193, 297.
Telephone, witness may testify as to message, 175.
Tenant. (See Landlord and Tenant.)
Tender of payment, admits debt, 58.
Terms of court, judicially noticed, 166.
Testator, admissions of, 60, 63.
statements of, as bearing upon undue influence, 48, 49.
declarations of as to intention and contents of will, and as to un-
due influence, 99, 100.
sanity or insanity provable by subscribing witness, 141, 142.
INDEX. 461
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Testator {continued).
burden of proof as to testator's mental condition in probate pro-
ceedings, 246, 247.
intention of, when shown by parol evidence, 231, 234, 235, 375—
377-
Testimony, defined, 4.
Threats, evidence of, when relevant, 20, 21.
confessions made under, 77-82.
dying declarations not evidence of, 86.
Time, divisions of, judicially noticed, 171, 172.
Title, evidence of facts showing, 17, 355.
Title-deeds. (See Deed.)
Tort, admissions of defendant in actions for, effect of, 69.
effect of judgment against one tort-feasor, 131.
Towns and their location, judicially noticed, 170.
Trade, usages of. (See Custom.)
Trade secrets, privileged from disclosure, 294.
Transaction, defined, 8.
Treason, two witnesses needed in trials for, 303, 304.
Treaties, when judicially noticed, 169.
proof of, 399.
Treatises, medical, scientific, etc., as evidence, 115, 116.
Trespass, effect of judgment in action for, 123.
Trust, established by oral evidence, 221.
weight of evidence required to establish resulting trust, 240.
Trustee, privilege as to producing documents in evidence, 295.
effect of judgment appointing, 119.
must prove good faith as to dealings with cestui que trust, 254.
presumed to have executed deeds to complete title, when his duty
so requires, 261.
of bankrupt, debtor's admissions competent against, 72.
Uncertainty, parol evidence to explain, 228, 229.
Understanding, when witness may testify to his, 176.
Undue influence in making will, evidence of, 29, 30.
when charged, testamentary intention may be shown by prior
statements, 48.
burden of proof to establish, 247.
between parties in fiduciary relations, 248, 253, 254, 304.
United States, public documents of, how provable, 197.
seal of, judicially noticed, 169.
Revised Statutes of, provable by officially printed copy, 204,
205.
462 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Jnited States (continued).
no examination of party before trial in U. S. courts in suits at law,
309-
examiners in equity in U. S. courts cannot pass on objections to
testimony, 310, 311.
Usage. (See Custom.)
Usury, provable by oral evidence to avoid writing, 221.
weight of evidence required to establish, 240.
burden of proof on defendant, 250.
Uttering counterfeit money or forged instruments, similar acts to
show knowledge, 43.
Value of property, services, etc., how provable, 36, 37.
provable by opinion-evidence, 143, 144.
by price current lists, market reports, etc., 116, 117.
Verdict, as evidence of public and general rights, 103.
without judgment thereon, not a bar, 122.
evidence of jurors not received to impeach their own verdict, 284.
chance or quotient verdict, invalid, 286.
View, of locus in quo by jury, 177.
Voluntary confessions. (See Confessions.)
Wagers, evidence in actions upon, 354.
Waiver, 223.
by client of privilege as to his attorney's testifying, 287.
by patient or person confessing as to privilege of physician or
clergyman, 292, 293.
of rule excluding oral evidence to vary a writing, 236.
War, existence of judicially noticed, 170, 171, 172.
Water, percolating, no legal right acquired to by lapse of time, 260.
Weather, record of, admissible, 113, 117.
Weights and measures, judicially noticed, 171.
Wife. (See Husband and Wife.)
Will, proof of undue influence in making of, 29, 30, 48.
declarations accompanying destruction of, provable to show in-
tent, 26.
burden of proof as to validity of will and testator's insanity, in
probate proceedings, 246,
as to undue influence, 247.
proof of intent and contents by testator's declarations, 99, 100.
publication of, 100.
subscribing witness to. (See Subscribing Witness.)
proof of lost or destroyed will, 09, 100.
INDEX. 463
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Will {continued).
testator's attorney may testify to his directions, to support the
will, 289.
revoking of by cancellation or obliteration, 217.
as evidence of pedigree, 107.
ancient, presumption as to, 212-214.
alterations in, when presumed to be made, 216, 217.
parol evidence not admissible to vary, 220, 223.
but testator's intention may be shown by parol in cases of
"equivocation," or to rebut an equity, 231, 235, 375-377.
Witness. (See Oral Evidence.)
bribing to go away, when provable, 22.
death, insanity, absence, etc., as ground for receiving former
testimony, 108.
may be required to stand up, etc., to be identified, 177, 298.
suborning, effect of as evidence, 22, 23.
may testify to his impression, intent, or belief, but not to a con-
clusion of law, 176.
when to be served with subpcena duces tecum. (See Subpoena duces
tecum.)
effect of his withholding document, when so served, 187, 193,
296.
subscribing witness. (See Subscribing Witness.)
competency of witnesses, 270-273.
of parties and persons interested, 270, 271. (See Subpcena
duces tecum.)
of party to negotiable instrument to prove it invalid, 271.
of children, 271-274, 380, 405.
of persons of unsound mind, 271, 274, 275.
of intoxicated persons, 272.
of deaf and dumb persons, 272.
of atheists, 272, 273.
of infamous persons, 273.
infamy how proved, 325.
disability how removed, 273.
of defendant or co-defendant in criminal cases, 275, 276, 401-
404.
defendant may now be a witness but his failure to testify
shall not create any presumption against him, 276.
of husband and wife in criminal cases, 275-277, 401-403.
in civil cases, 277-279.
as to marital intercourse, 256.
of wife in bastardy cases as to paternity of child, 256.
464 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Witness {continued).
cannot disclose confidential communications, 277,279,280.
cannot in general give evidence criminating each other,
297, 298.
aliter,\xi collateral proceedings where evidence would
only indirectly tend to criminate, 278, 298.
of judges, referees, auditors, arbitrators, 280-282, 381.
of merchant appraiser, or officer taking acknowledgment of
deed, 282.
of attorney or counsel in same case, 282.
of grand and petty jurors, 284-286.
of lawyers, their agents and interpreters, as to professional
communications, 286-291. (See Attorney.)
of clergymen and physicians, 292, 293, 382.
privilege of witnesses :
as to public affairs or communications between public officers,
282.
as to information concerning the commission of offences, 283.
as to confidential communications between husband and wife,
277, 279, 280.
as to professional communications between attorney and
client, 286-292. (See Attorney.)
between clergymen and person confessing, 292, 293.
between physician and patient, 292, 293.
as to producing documents or giving oral evidence, tending
to criminate or to expose to a penalty or forfeiture, 187,
294, 296-300.
defendant in criminal case, voluntarily becoming witness,
waives privilege as to criminating himself, 298.
as to trade secrets, 294.
as to producing documents on which witness has a lien, 295.
as to producing title-deeds and private papers in evidence,
293, 294, 295. (See Subpoena duces tecum.)
no privilege as to documents or testimony exposing witness
to civil liability, 295, 299.
corroboration 0/ witnesses, when required :
in actions for breach of promise of marriage, 300, 301.
in bastardy proceedings, 300, 301.
in cases of seduction under promise of marriage, 301.
in cases of abduction, rape, etc., 301.
in suits for divorce, 301.
to support the evidence of an accomplice, 301, 302. (See Ac-
complice.)
INDEX. 46s
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Witness {continued).
to support claim on estate of deceased person, 302.
to support the evidence of a witness falsus in uno, 303.
in trials for perjury, 304, 305.
in chancery cases, to support the bill, 305.
number of witnesses required :
in cases of treason, two or more required, 303, 304.
in cases of perjury, more than the evidence of one needed,
3°4, 305-
custom may be proved by one, 19, 305.
examination of witnesses :
witness to be under oath, 306.
mode of administering oath, 307, 308.
allowed to affirm, when, 306, 307.
wilful false testimony, violating oath or affirmation, perjury,
306, 307, 308.
witness may give evidence in court or out of court, 308-313.
(See Oral Evidence ; Affidavit ; Depositions.)
examination in court, order of, 313-315.
witnesses, when ordered to withdraw from the court, 313.
effect of their refusal, 313.
expert witness may be required to withdraw, 313.
but not a party, nor a person interested, nor the
guardian of an infant party, 314.
presumption from party's failure to call a particular witness,
314.
order of proof discretionary with trial court, 315.
witness's death or incapacity before examination is concluded,
generally excludes evidence taken, 315, 316.
aliter, in England and in some cases in this country, 315,
316.
effect of death of a party before examination is concluded,
316.
evidence of witness, who is found to be incompetent during
examination, may be withdrawn from jury, 316.
so incompetent testimony, though admitted, may be
stricken out, 317.
in some States, irrelevant evidence may be contradicted by
party prejudiced, 318.
exa?nination in chief, 313.
must relate to facts in issue or relevant facts, 317.
leading questions not generally permitted, 319. (See
Leading Questions.)
466 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Witness {continued).
party opening case must develop his whole case in chief,
319-
but court may permit evidence in rebuttal which should
have been given in chief, 319.
cross-examination, 313-315.
to be confined to matter testified to in chief, 298, 315, 317
aliter, in England and some American States, 314,
3I5.3I7-
mere production of document, or verification of signa-
ture, does not authorize cross-examination, 315.
witness deemed to be that of the party who introduced
him, 318.
leading questions permitted on, 319, 320.
aliter, in some States when the cross-examination re-
lates to new matter, 320.
questions permitted which test accuracy, veracity, or
credibility, 320.
irrelevant inquiries permitted as to specific facts, tending
to disgrace, 320-323, 384, 3§5-
extent of such examination discretionary with court,
320, 321, 323, 324.
witness entitled to protection from abuse and insult,
324-
witness may claim privilege of not answering, 320.
but material questions as to disgracing facts must be
answered, 320.
questions must be such as to*affect credibility, 321.
in N. Y. questions as to witness's being accused, in-
dicted, arrested, etc., not allowable, 321.
permissible in some States, 321, 322.
these rules apply to parties as witnesses, 321.
witness may be cross-examined as to facts showing his
favor, interest, malice, bias, prejudice, etc., 322, 323.
answers to irrelevant or collateral inquiries cannot be
contradicted, 324, 326.
except when the answers deny favor, interest, malice,
bias, prejudice, etc., 325, 326.
or in England and some States, when the answers
deny conviction for crime, 325.
but conviction usually provable only by record, and
not by cross-examination, 325. (See Infamous
Persons.)
INDEX. 467-
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Witness {continued).
answers to inquiries relevant to the issue may be contra-
dicted, 326, 327, 331.
but witness must on cross-examination be given a
chance to explain the alleged contradictory
statement, 327, 331.
in some States, this is not necessary, 328.
if his absence or death prevents his having a
chance to explain, evidence of the contra-
diction is not received, 327, 331, 332.
the contradictory statements are not evidence of
the facts asserted therein, 328.
party to action, becoming a witness, may be im-
peached in this way, 329.
but if his statements constitute admissions, they
are admissible without giving him a chance
to explain, 329.
cross-examination as to previous statements in writing,
how made, 332-334, 387.
in this country, writing exhibited to witness for
authentication, and then itself read in evi-
dence, 333.
extent of cross-examination of women in trials for rape
and seduction, 337-340.
re-examination, 313, 315.
is for explanation of matters referred to in cross-examina-
tion, 318.
court may allow it to extend to other matters, 318.
whole conversation may be brought out, 318.
leading questions not permitted on, 319.
witness allowed to be recalled for further examination, 315.
impeachment of witnesses :
party cannot impeach his own witness, 320-331.
nor opposing witness whom he makes his own by cross-
examining as to new matter, 329.
nor opposing party, if he calls him as a witness, 330.
but may prove facts ot case by other witnesses, 329, 330, 33 1 .
and may impeach witness whom law obliges him to call,
330.
party surprised by his witness may examine him as to
his contradictory statements, 330, 331.
in England and some States, party may impeach his
witness, 331, 386.
468 INDEX.
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Witness {continued).
party may impeach adversary's witness, 334-336, 386.
by showing by other witnesses his bad general reputation,
334-
number of impeaching witnesses may be limited by
court, 337.
mode of examining such witnesses, 334, 335.
general reputation incmired into, not specific wrong
acts, 337.
in most States only reputation for truth and veracity
provable, 335.
in others, it may relate to general moral character,
335-
reputation, before, at, or after the trial may be proved,
if the time is not too remote, 336.
whether impeaching witness would believe impeached
witness on oath, inquired into in many States,
335-
by showing his former statements contradicting his tes-
timony relevant to the issue, 326, 327, 331. (See
Cross-examination, supra.)
party to action impeached like other witnesses, 159,
336.
impeaching witness may himself be cross-examined or
impeached, 336.
impeached witness may be sustained by party calling
him, 336-338.
by showing by ether witnesses his good general repu-
tation, 337.
to rebut evidence of his bad reputation, 337.
or to rebut evidence of his conviction for crime,
337-
or to rebut evidence that he has suborned wit-
nesses or attempted to suppress testimony,
337-
or, in a few States, to rebut discrediting facts
brought out by his own cross-examination,
337-
but he cannot be so sustained because the testimony
of other witnesses is in conflict with his, 338.
or when he is impeached by proof of his incon-
sistent statements, 337.
aliter, in some States, 337.
INDEX. 469
(The numbers refer to pages.)
Witness (continued).
witness cannot be supported by proving that he made
former statements similar to his testimony, 338.
unless fabrication is charged against him, and
he made them before the motive existed,
338.
but in some States such evidence is received to
rebut evidence of his having made incon-
sistent statements, 338.
refreshing memory of witnesses. (See Refreshing Memory.)
Women, offences against, evidence competent on trials for, 337-340.
(See Rape; Seduction; Adultery; Bastardy.)
Words, defective or ambiguous in documents, evidence to explain,
228-230, 232. (See Oral Evidence.)
meaning of, judicially noticed, 171, 172.
THE END.
UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
AA 000 836 828 4
'm
^»x K&