Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
SCHOOL OF LAW
GIFT OF
It's*
Richard Hocker
In Memory of
vnvKiv
v\L 1^0^^
A DIGEST
LAW OF EVIDENCE
SIR JAMES FITZTAMES STEPHEN,
K.C.S.I.
Ill
AMERICAN EDITION
WITH ANNOTATIONS AND REFERENCES TO AMERICAN CASES
BY
GEORGE CHASE,
LL.B.
NEW YORK
PRINTED FOR THE EDITOR
1887
Copyright,
1885,
by
GEORGE CHASR
T
$t4'5U
EDITOR'S NOTE.
The
need
repetition.
It
dence.
The
known
to
evi-
its
usefulness for
annotating
it,
in
fully
The contents of
the original
latest and
work are pre-
These transfers
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 correspondence or
difference between the English and the American law is thus
G. C.
New
York, October,
1885.
686436
HAVE
its
decided and
predecessor and
down
to the
altered at
all
J.
32
De Vere Gardens,
May,
88 1.
STEPHEN.
INTRODUCTION.
In the years 1 870-1 871 I drew what afterwards became the
This Act began by reof 1872).
Indian Evidence Act (Act
pealing (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
i
in
am
little
informed that
judicial
it is
generally
commentary
or ex-
position.
autumn of 1872 Lord Coleridge (then Attorney-Genemployed 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
In the
eral)
be printed.
was drawn on the model of the Indian Evidence Act, and
contained a complete system of law upon the subject of Evito
It
dence.
The
present work
it
is
in various respects.
INTRODUCTION.
December
In
Education,
of introducing into
fall,
sort of
make these
may increase
books useless
their utility as
names
the
Law
the
The
']']
which
fills
There
is,
besides, a
21 pages more.
list
of references to
number
and
is
said to be
INTRODUCTION.
intended to examine the principles on which the rules of evidence are founded, contains 908 pages, and refers to about
When we remember that the Law of Evidence
1400 cases.
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 obvious 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 practitioner 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 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 com;
plete.
led
me
to put into a
This work
quired.
it
has,
My
may
say,
is
been
the result.
in
The
an inverse
had ac-
it
to
reduce
it
into a
matter
and
to
compress
statutes as prop-
and arranged.
INTRODUCTION.
were thought desirable, might be used in the preparation
all events, 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
if it
as well as on every
most incomprehensible.
In
1872,
I
my
and
It will
be
sufficient here to
subject
is
arranged
consequence.
INTRODUCTION.
The
Law
xi
The
doctrine that
all facts in
is
not evidence.
and relevant
issue
to the issue,
in
them
instructed about
in this fashion
cats
our sense of the word, nor are tigers nor leopards, though
you might be inclined to think they were." Show me a cat to
in
at
is
him one.
Tell
me what
why
it
is
is
meant by
possible to call
evidence
this
is
evidence?
To
"
gradually dis-
describe a matter of
" evidence"
in the sense of testimony is obviously nonone wants to be told that hearsay, whatever else it
is, is not testimony.
What then does the word mean ? The
only possible answer is It means that the one fact either is or
else is not considered by the person using the expression to
furnish a premiss or part of a premiss from which the existence
fact as
sense.
No
of the other
is
When
is
or
is
in other
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 judicial evidence is only one case of the general problem of science
namely, inferring the unknown from the known. As far as
INTR OD UCTION.
the logical theory of the matter
is
concerned, this
an
is
ulti-
it
resemblance which
'
published
am
my
between Mr.
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
tail
the very
close
exists
Mill's theory
perhaps be said to be so. More frequently they treat as irrelevant facts which are really relevant, but exceptions excepted,
all their
may be
proved.
will
show
may be
All law
cases.
The Law
of Evidence
is
Law
of Procedure
cases
II.
What
facts
liabilities
in
such
What
be proved
sort of evidence
must be given of a
fact
which
may
" See, e.g., that able and interesting book 'An Essay on Circumstantial
Evidence,' by the late Mr. Wills, father of Mr. Alfred Wills, (^.C Chief
Baron Gilbert's work on the Law of Evidence is founded on Locke's
'
Essay,'
much
as
my work
is
founded on
Mill's
'
Logic'
INTRODUCTION.
I.
The
facts
which
may be proved
right or hability to
Four classes of
facts,
which
{Res
The
Facts similar
other.
2.
it
in
to,
in certain cases:
fact that a
The
fact that
any person
is
[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 Evi-
dence.
fact
if
INTR OD UCTION.
an assertion by the person who gives
it
testifies.
Documentary evidence is either primary or secondary. Primary evidence is the document itself produced in court for
inspection.
The
whom
witnesses by
a fact
is to
INTRODUCTION.
Law of Evidence properly so called. My view of it exmany things which arc 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 Evithe
cludes
is
Law may be
indicted
for
divided.
This
mind describable
as malice aforethought,
and
all
mat-
Starkie
and Roscoe
INTRODUCTION.
to a dispute as to the validity of a marriage,
ment by a
an action of
eject-
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
After careful consideration,
subjects.
Substantive Law.
Practice, again, appears
Law
of Evidence.
The
to
me
to differ in
manner
in
'
ter,' for
moment
utility of
do not wish
for a
such information,
me
to
INTRODUCTION.
Law
of Evidence.
have tried
draw the
to
line
by deahng
in
be pleaded as such
The result
much shorter
judges
will
no doubt
is
to
make
usual.
As
and correct.
Lord Mansfield
full
is
to brevity,
" The
may
'
Law
of Ev-
It
would,
am
Parliament to delegate
'
R.
V.
upon cases
Bcntbrid^e, 3
Doug.
its
powers
diffi-
to per-
In the meantime
332,
INTRODUCTION.
and generations may pass before a doubt is set at rest by
decision expressly in point.
Hence, if anything
considerable is to be done towards the reduction of the law
to a system, it must, at present at least, be done by private
cur,
a judicial
writers.
is under favorable conditions the best
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 themselves rational and convenIt has, indeed,
ient, is very much better than none at all.
special advantages, which this is not the place to insist upon.
Legislation proper
way
of
enormous mass of
that of an
cause
am
attempts
which
isolated decisions,
;
insist
to
state
the
this
beall
in the
An
ancient
diVid
maxim
guam
upon
exists
is
than
statutes
by elaborate indexes.
propositions of law
"It
and
Melius
for
many
sectari rivulos."
motto of
his
'
It
has
'
'
sified
in
the roughest
possible
'
inferior
INTR OD UCTION.
both in extent and arrangement
'Digest."
to
to
of
its
ers,
from Coke
the excellence of
they showed
Our
form.
its
earlier writ-
its
much
both of substance
insensibility to defects,
their
in
me
in
He was
time were
many
and
it is
itself
obvious to
which
the student
is
is,
as
me
that he
Bentham
certainly was, a
man
of talent, ap-
During the
last twenty-five
exploded
shells,
partly because
some of
his
books are
umes of Reports. The Year Books from 1307-1535, 228 years, would fill
not more than twenty-five such volumes. There are also ten volumes
There are now (Feb. 1877) at least
of Statute?S since 1865 (May 1876).
ninety-three volumes of Reports and eleven volumes of Statutes.
number in existence
volumes must have grown to 120 or more.
in 1881,
have
INTRODUCTION.
most distinguished of
been
man Law.
It
would be
difficult to
be misunthrows
great light on the history of our own law; and the comparison
of the two great bodies of law, under one or the other of which
the laws of the civilised 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 institutions. It would be a complete mistake to
derstood.
The
history of the
is
liable to
Roman Law
is in
our own, or that in point of arrangement and method the InstiThe pseudotutes and the Digest are anything but warnings.
philosophy of the Institutes, and the confusion of the Digest,
are, to
my mind,
infinitely
of arrangement and of
distinguish the
However
all
the absence
Law of England.
may be, I trust the
the law of
as parts of
of,
it.
When
this is
may
Law
In
itself
admits
many
cases
INTRODUCTION.
of separate enactments may be stated in
For instance, the old Common Law as to the
incompetency of certain classes of witnesses was removed by
the result of a
number
a line or two.
which
is
given in
the
net
result of
(106-1 10).
when they are put in their proper places in a genscheme 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 assumes 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.'
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
appreciate
eral
words,
may have
Law
to
given in
make
'
Twenty
Acts
oi
on the subject
Note XL VIII.
to
which
it
refers.
this,
see
INTRODUCTION.
an intelligent manner the proceedings of Courts
to study cases and use
I do
text-books of the common kind with readiness and ease.
I have not attempted to follow the
not say more than this.
matter out into its minute ramifications, and I have avoided
him
to follow in
of Justice,
all are little more than matters of curihowever, that any one who makes himself
thoroughly acquainted with the contents of this book, will know
think,
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
who
its
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
different parts,
each other.
Alden
Abbath
Abbott
"
v.
V.
Railway
People
Co
177
14
z'. Rose
Abeel v. Van Gelder
Abercrombie v. Sheldon
Abington v. Duxbury
Abouloff V. Oppenheimer. 100,
Acklen's Excr. v. Hickman. 68,
Adae v. Zangs
238,
Adair v. England
Adams v. Davidson
V. Greenwich Ins. Co..
V. H. & St.
J. R. Co
V. Lloyd
.
Adee
Ahem
Alison
V.
Alivon V. Furnival
Allan V. Dundas
239
160
43
234
7
206
15, loi
V.
13,
V.
Porter
V.
Wheeler
133
213
119
158, i6o
75
14
43
61
137
85
163
t'.
Killinger
V.
Pink
51
166
Sowerby
163
V.
"
"
V.
Nott
AMgoodv. Blake
Alner v. George
Alpin V. Morton
Alley
45
Furbish
Allen
'
203
Andrews
Coram
239
People
87
268
V.
Alston
z".
256
31
State
58
Berghaus
64
230 American Bible Soc. v. Pratt.. 168
47 American Life Ins. Co. v. Rose207
Howe
168
200
227, 228
Hey
Martin
Comm
262
O'Connor
z/.
V.
V.
f Goodspeed
v.
Chamberlain
Alger
219
Aikin
V.
184
V.
V.
"
23
Merritt
Adie V. Clark
A. G. V. Bryant
A. G. V. Hitchcock
"
42
V.
v.
Agan
160
Goddard
v.
Alderson v. Bell
Aldous V. Cornwall
Alexander v. Cauldwell
199
48
49
140, 221
Alter
V.
nagle
Akers v. Demond
219 Amoskeag Co. v. Head
Alabama, etc. R. Co. v. Hawk..
7 Anderson v. Edwards
"
Albert v. Nor. Central R. Co.. 27
f. Rome, etc. R. Co..
5
64
45
Anderson
v.
State
"
V.
Weston
v,
"
z/.
^tna Ins. Co
Knox Co
"
V.
Ohio,
"
etc. R.
Townshend
Duke
Life Ins. Co
Co.
Angle
Angus
V.
Dalton
Annesly v. Anglesea
Armour
Mich. Cent.
Armoury v. Delamirie
Arms f. Middleton
"
Arnd
z'.
207
"
t'.
Frisbie
166
Bagley
Bailey
"
Danforth
48
68
123
"
z^.
Woods
78
28
v.
Daly
"
z".
Gillett
22
"
t^.
U. S
86
Baker
v.
63
"
i^.
Fehr
Gansin
211
"
V.
Mygatt
80, 121
"
V.
Pike
V.
Stackpole
46
Balbo V. People
Baldwin v. Bricker
55
83
162
52
Marlborough
!^.
137
'
v.
Corliss
195
Ashland
133
V.
Johnson
266
Co
Chapman
Bidwell
V.
R. Co. 193
180
v.
136
v.
f.
Baird
Ashcraft
McMickle
v.
"
171
People
U. S
17
50
202
"
v.
Railroad
V.
Chesney
179
217
154, 162
Amling
Arthur v. James
Artz
v.
224
208
v.
Bacon
205
Anthony v. Harrison
Appel f Byers
Appleton V. Braybrook
Armstrong
208
185, 186
Anon
Anonymous
t/.
124
157, 160
V.
Babcock
v.
Baccigalupo y. Comm
Baccio 57. People
188
V.
V.
PACK
154 Babcock
Andrews
Angell
58
230
'
"
121
32
176, 177
119
139, 140
Dow
f.
Bales V. State
82
Fink
133
Ballinger v. Davis
131
Baltimore 7'. State
123
B. & O. R. Co. V. Campbell...
48
Atwell
141
Banfield
234
Bank
Atchison,
etc.
Balliett v.
Miller
V.
Atwood
V.
'
V.
'
Thul. 128
Audubon
Dearborn
Impson
v.
Augusta V. Winslow
Aurora v. Brown
'
Austin
"
"
I'.
Holland
7/,
State
V.
Thompson
Aveson
Ayers
"
Lord Kinniard
Hewett
v.
v.
zj.
Weed
14
170
" V. Kennedy
Bank of Brighton v. Smith
63 Bank of Hindustan, Alison's
165
87
48
Case
Bank
189 Bank
223 Bank
240 Bank
32 Bank
223
37, 188,
Whipple
v.
Fordyce
233
26
Cobb
V.
'
v.
133
169
88
of Ireland v. Evans
of
Monroe
of
Owego
of U. S.
v.
v.
v.
of Utica v.
"
Bannon
64
Babcock
94
Dandridge... 36
Hillard
208
V. Mersereau... 203
People
98
"
v.
Culver
272
TABLE OF CASES
CITED,
XXV
PAGE
1>AGE
Barber
Barker
Merriam
v.
32
Beckwith v. Phalen
187
Bedford (Duke of) v. Lopes... 12
Beeston's Case
79
Beggarly v. State
55
Behrens z'. Germania Ins. Co.. 176
v.
Bininger
'
V.
221
"
I/.
205
Belfast
189
"
f.
Blount
Cleveland
Haskell
"
V.
Kuhn
'
65
Bellefontaine,
v.
Abbott
Barnum
v.
Barnum
164
75, iii,
Long
Downs
Barrows
v.
Barrs
Jackson
v.
Bartholomew
t'.
Barton
v.
"
V.
Batdorff
V.
7'.
Tarbox
Dawes
Kane
z/.
Bateman
Bates
"
Farwell
Boston Gas Co
Bartlett v.
"
v.
v.
v.
Bailey
103
Benedict
30
Benjamin
V.
Titcomb
181
93
52
Benstine
State
236
Co
loi
New Eng.
A. G
"
7'.
Cockcroft
Beal
Ins.
Bergen
v.
Berney
Berry
Berryhill
Best
V.
Raddin
Co...
38
v.
Bigelow
V.
v.
Foss
"
V. Gillott
"
V.
"
y.
Bigler
v,
Hall
Stilphens
Reyher
v. Williams
Binck V. Wood
127, Bird V. Bird
91
92
Bigley
"
V.
Comm
Green
Beatson v. Skene
200
Hueston
Birmingham v. Anderson
Birt V. Barlow
Bischoff V. Wetherel
Beattie
137
Bissell V.
Bean
Russell
v.
v,
Hilliard
77
260
12,
156
77
Kirchner
171
Beall V. Pearre
v.
75,
Hammond
Bethlehem
igo
221
Beaman
43
Mitchell
v.
-'.
218
State
v.
26, 34
Nichols
V.
z>.
Watertown
115 Bickford v. Cooper
115 Biddle v. Bond
26 Biesching v. St. Louis Gas Co.
Baughman
v.
41
102
"
Baughman
V.
Smith
Clemence
Edwards
v.
v.
157
64
256
"
105
Cowden
v.
Lundy
V. Laudenslager
Bauer v. Indianapolis
Bauerraan v. Radenius
Bayliss
v.
v.
18
Co.
"
234
86
Battles
v.
46
R.
Benson
141
Detroit Post
176
88
Bennett
etc.
160
160
130
165
Barber
Spooner
Bathrick
219
104
Ryan
v.
Harriman
v.
162
Kellogg
Barnett
Barry
Bank
204
^^
v.
Harris
"
Barrett
'
Bell V. Kennedy
" V. McGuiness
" V. Morrison
<'.
-'.
87
Campbell
Barnard
Barnes
41
159
198
''
V.
Adams
no
168
88
86
192
181
41
159
238
158
205
6
89
136
118
67
71
in
100
46
TABLE OF CASES
XXVI
CITED.
PAGE
Campbell
Bissell V.
13,
213
Bond's Appeal
234
80
Bonelli,
Goods of
v. Lynde
V.
Cornell
"
I/.
Hamblin
"
V.
"
7/.
Kellogg
Saxton
"
V.
Starr
Bonney v. Morrill
Bonynge v. Field
226 Boomer v. Laine
V.
West
102
'
'
'
'
Black
V.
'
'
V.
"
t'.
.66, 75,
Cleveland Mill
46
"
V.
Powers
Robinson
78
Boree
v.
Danville
203
Rockland
128
Milwaukee Ins. Co. 176
V.
Blair v. Bartlett
-'
V.
Blair
V.
Pelham
"
V.
Seaver
195
Blaisdell v. Pray
Blake
"
98
v.
z/.
V. Sawin
Blanchard v. Hodgkins
'
132
'
"
V.
...
Bleecker v. Johnston
Bliss V. Brainerd
'
V.
Nichols
40
Nusen-
Boardman v. Woodman
Bob V. State
Bock V. Weigant
Bodman
v.
108
38, 115
v.
Kreitzer
Bond
V.
Fitzpatrick
"
/.
State
130
204
Boston
f.
Fonts
Richardson.
.12, 156,
Worthington
Boston, etc. Co. v. Hanlon..
B. & A. R. Co. V. Shanly
''
53
229
.
169
.12, 81
& W.
R. Co. V.
State
V.
94
Dana
. . .
177
138
179
140
Bowen
Bower
165
Chase
Hoffman
v.
v.
Bowling
Boyle
State
V.
98
28
85
46
42
Hax
v.
132
92
27
38
82
Boynton v. Boynton
Boyse v. Rossborough
141
Brachmann
109
Brackett
zi.
Barney
v.
Bradshaw
233
Brague
v.
v.
v.
163
155
68
78, 79,
222
Combs
163
Rich
163
v.
Lord
Preece
Brainard v^ Fowler
Brain
21
Hall
Bradford v. Randall
Bradley v. James
"
V. Mirick
Bradstreet
179
82
.72,
Bosworth V. Vandewalker
Bottomley f. U. S
Bouldin v. Alexander
Bound V. Lathrop
Bourne v. Buffington
168
43, 44
250
z'.
Bowyer v. Schofield
26 Boyce v. Cheshire R. Co
220 Boylan v. Meeker
181
v.
181
18
Steamboat Co
Board of Trustees
heimer
162
v.
B.
78
128
107
157, 160
Borum
Boswell
Ellsworth
Co
Borst V. Empire
89
V.
'
'
92
"
'
Booth
26
199
V.
Lamb
Woodrow
z/.
163
f.
161
53
Blackettv. Royal Exchange Co. 170
221
Blackington v. Johnson
Blaeser
105
...140, 141, 207
'
Bachelder
"
Bonesteel
93
48
Blackburn v. Crawfords.
"
V. State
'
PAGB
168
194
66
149
TABLE OF CASES
CITED.
PAGE
Brown
v.
Foster
"
V.
Gallaudet
V.
Jewett
203
"
f.
Kimball
131
"
V.
Littlefield
Brake v. Kimball
Brandt v. Klein
Branson v. Caruthers
49
136
Brassington
207
168
131
"
t'.
64
"
164
"
"
Brawley
v.
199
Brassington
U. S
v.
Breton v. Cope
Brewster v. Doane
Brick
Brick
V.
Bridgeport
Ins.
Co.
v.
Wilson.
Bridgewater v. Plymouth
Brierly v. Miles
Briggs V, Briggs
"
V.
"
V.
Rafferty
Young
V.
Bristow
Broad v. Pitt
Brobston v. Cahill
Brodhead v. Wiltsee
Brogy V. Comm
Bronner
v.
Frauenthal
"
V.
Loomis
'
'
V.
People
V.
Lord Scarsdale.
v.
Callender
V.
Bowers
Powell
v.
Co
192
Schofield
122
I/.
Priest
115
Westcott
160
no
82
77
155
20
no
42
...
V.
I/.
218
"
234
120
"
Brotherton
Brough
Brower
Piper
"
122
Brotherton
Mooers
V.
132
Bronson v. Gleason
Brooks V. Goss
I/.
V.
199
276
Lapham
Brolley v.
41.50
Brownell v. Palmer
187
Brubaker's Adm'r v. Taylor... 230
Bruce f. Nicolopulo
137
97
204
Britton v. Lorenz
176
Pearsall
231
Bunnell v. Butler
Burdick v. Hunt
"
V. Norwich
Shannon
201
158
121
Burlen
13
Burnell
43
Burnett
v.
Smith
171
Burney
v.
Russell
137
178
v.
v.
v.
Allen
V.
f.
170
"
V.
173
"
T'.
"
Brown
z". Cambridge
V.Campbell
Brennan
Dorr
"
z'.
"
V.
Cole
234
201
Burns
"
V.
Comm.
258
"
"
V.
"
v.
Evans
Everhard
v.
State
Thompson
115
Burress" Case
164
Burt
Panjaud
96
147
87
43
162, 173
Roberts
Morrissey
!<.
V.
85, 93,
Weld
"
93
164
61
Burnham
"
234
202
30
"
98
207, 210
Creditors
140, 208
v.
165, 169
v.
Barnes
Brown
86
151
V.
Ex parte
Brown,
139
Mailler
27
206
105
Brittain v. Kinniard
87
Browne
133
Sequeville
V.
'
205
201
64
Smith
Brigham v. Palmer
Bright
95
'
203
207
60
173
no
,
180
TABLE OF CASES
XXVlll
CITED.
PAGE
Burt
"
V.
Place
I/.
Saxton
"
V.
State
"
V.
Winona,
Burton
Bush
'
'
V.
Comm
V.
Stowell
Bussom
V.
Buswell
V.
Butler
etc.
"
V. Millett
"
"
V. St.
"
z/.
Moore
Louis
v.
Comm
164
"
V.
Hall
17
"
V.
Johnston
140
213
Ins.
90
118
"
V.
Patterson
"
f.
People
195
"
V.
Rankin
Co
46
Forsyth
Lincks
Gale
V.
Campbell
R.
Driggs
v.
PAGE
211
85
Canal Co.
v.
14
86
Ray
164
"
z/. Templeton
Cancemi v. People
170 Carey v. Bright
"
z'. White
41
275 Carland v. Bieme
"
z/. Cunningham
Co.... 66
28 Carlton v. Hescox
Watkins
Button z'. Amer. Tract Soc
Buxton V. Edwards
"
V. Somerset Works
Byass v. Sullivan
76
121
19
113
169
Carnes
v.
"
z'.
46
...
170
204
136
142
26
Piatt
103
Carpenter
207
"
White
v. Cohoes
z-.
"
"
205
82
Dame
138
V.
Dexter
Eastern
"
V.
G. T. R.
"
z'.
Welden
V.
50
118
Trans.
Co
Caddy
Barlow
Caermarthen R. C.
chester R.
Caldwell
v.
"
V.
Calkins
V.
v.
12,
Ins.
Murphy
Sigourney
Hartford
v.
Man-
Cagger v. Lansing
Cahen v. Continental
Cahill V. Palmer
Call
85
v.
Dunning
Co.
Carr
v.
Dooley
50
"
V.
Gale
86
"
z".
L.
136
"
V.
156
Boehm
103
V.
Carter
235
"
z'.
Fishing
"
V.
51
"
z'.
State
118, 238
"
V.
Thurston
v. Green
Carter
"
^f.
Friebus
199
Cameron
t'.
"
V.
Games
Campan
z*.
Crandall
Dubois
Campbell v. Chace
v.
96
v.
240
Palmer Co
Blackman
Peck
26
'
Flower
v.
272
'
v.
Camerlin
..
V.
v.
The
47
166
Calvert
"
Calypso,
Carroll
v.
104
240
& N. W. Railway
Moore
Carroll
Callender
Callender
105
Co
52
95
138
Co
Montgomery
185
75
194
102
Cartwright
209
Marks
Casoni v. Jerome
160
75
52
Case
198
Cass
V.
f.
B.
&
L. R.
115
Co
34
Cassady
Castner
Trustees
v.
77
Sliker
v.
7,
loi
Cattison
v.
Cattison
Caujolle
V.
Ferrie
19
75, 88
Whisler
Cavanaugh v. Austin
V. Smith
Caw V. Robertson
Caylus V. N. Y. etc. R.
Caulkins
Central
Bank
v.
Taylor
U. S
Chamberlain f. Ball
Chaffee
"
t'.
"
"
"
"
"
Chamberlin
Chambers
"
''
"
Smith
67
98
"
V.
Sycamore,
"
V.
51
42
141
145
34
V.
Huguenot Co.
135
V.
People
184
V.
Sands
238
z:
State
84
V.
Vance
30
77,
Co
81
loi
186
t,'.
Wilson
18Q
Cheeney v. Arnold
132
Chelmsford Co. v. Demarest
48
Chenango Bridge Co. v. Lewis 63
Chatfield
v.
"
"
Cherry
v.
"
V.
Chicago,
"v.
"
119
State
Co.
etc. R.
v.
"
"
7'.
''
"
"
V.
''
"
"
z'.
Adler.
Chapman,
Chapman
Clark.
34
Klauber. 117
Packet Co. 95
.
Jordan
Chilton V. People
Christmas v. Russell
41
V.
155
100
Ossipee
Bernasconi
237
66
Chubb
V.
Gsell
115
V.
Hunt
219
'
V.
Salomons
200
v.
V.
People
196
Church
V.
Howard
V.
State
226
"
V.
Hubbart
poration
26
Le Barron
Dobson
no
In re
203
v.
Chapman
I*.
Edwards
''
"
"
"
74
227
v.
t/.
v.
66
Paige.
Baker
"
Childs
42,
I'.
Rodgers
Rose
V.
Twitchell
V.
166
75
42
City of Phila.
City
v.
v.
gomery
Claflin V.
Clanton
94
loi
Mont94
Meyer
v.
178, 181
202
State
hire
131 Clark V. Bond
"
f. Boyd
189
"
f. Brown
51, 72
Clark,
239
218
Gilmartin
Rochester
of
47
121
z: Watson
168 Chute V. State
Champlin v. Stoddart
207 Cincinnati v. Cameron
Chandler v. Jamaica, etc. CorCity Bank v. Dearborn
Chapin
78
Ins.
etc.
Winans
Chasemore
Richards
108
63,64,66
Enfield
179
V.
Butler 178
v.
t'.
V.
"
90
Chadsey v. Green
Chadwick <. Fonner
''
v. U. S
159
203
268
30
141
v.
Huber
v.
131
Co
Allen
Charles
112
Herrold 165
v.
Charlton v. Coombes
Charter v. Charter
Chase v. People
189
v.
PAG^
Chapman v. Wilber
Chapman Township
.,
50
234
131
116
TABLE OF CASES
CITED.
PAGE
Clark
'
'
"
"
"
"
V.
Burn
V.
Clark
128
V.
108
V.
Freeman
Houghton
V.
Life Ins.
46, 68
131,135
Co
"
r.
Miller
?/.
Morrison
V.
Owens
''
-j-^'
Vorce
Langslow
'
V.
'
etc.
"
"
R. Co.
"
"
"
v.
Kehr
V.
Clifford V.
"
V.
21
223
w.
f.
V.
People
Ball..
102
Collins V.
V.
Mara
V.
Per-
v.
194
118
168
29
24,
Coleman's Appeal
7 Collender v. Dinsmore
44
49
Drake
w. Collins
z'.
Comm
Comins
v.
Comm.
V.
Abbott
"
z'.
Allen
z;.
154
68
Codman v. Caldwell
Coe V. Hobby
Coffin V. Buckman
.,,.,..,
V.
7^.
V.
Billings
'
V. Blair
209
"
V.
Bradford
98
"
z/.
Brady
"
z/.
Brailey
83
"
z/,
209
"
z/.
76
"
z/.
64
"
z/.
15
14, 25,
19
Brayman
Brown
loi
18,196
238
"
z'.
Castles
V.
Choate.
110
^^
21
V.
V.
10
20
14
"
'
14
29
212
68
'
222
16,
Brownbridge
Burke
Campbell
Carey
164
Vincent
'
"
Annis
Barnacle
Bigelow
'
15
97, 165
V.
'
228
4,
"
R.
Coburn v. Odell
Cochrane w. Libby
Hetfield
'
'
jj
26
V.
165
195
167
133
Ill
Dorchester
"
z/. Stephenson
Colt V. People
Colton V. Beardsley
''
93
Bayntun
237, 238
92
etc.
"
''
168
Burton
Teller
v.
"
Co
V,
Comm
"
"
McDaniel
Cloyes V. Thayer
Coan V. Clow
Cob^n
229
171
V.
V.
123
State
Coleman
83
"
159
238
155
201
Cleverly
Burlington,
V.
'
224
98
V.
'
256
Hulett
Closmadeuc v. Carrel
Coates
43
120
82
Champagne
Clough
Milliken
98
Dobbins
Manhattan Co
Clink V. Thurston
Clinton v. State
Clodfelter
2'.
223
Clifton V. Litchfield
Cliquot's
Howe
51
98
180
128
Clews
V.
'
78,
kins
Cleverly
'
"
Coit
7^>
Clay V.
Clayes v. Ferris
Clayton v. Lord Nugent
Clegg V. Lemessurier
Clement w. Spear
Cleveland v. Newson
Cleveland,
V.
Goldman
Haven
V.
" v. Patchen
Cokely v. State
Cole V. Hills
" t". Jessup
47
" V. Sherard
^S^
V. Little
"
Cohn
i8i
239
25
60
133
Comm.
V.
Coe
V.
Cooper
61,
30
Comm.
237
"
V. Jeffries
James
56
"
v. Jeffs
"
V.
Jenkins
29, 235
"
V.
"
z/.
Damon
30
"
v.
Kane
Kennon
Key es
165
Curtis
54
54
224
67
"
f.
Kimball
36,178
V.
King
V.
Lanman
239
Larrabee
Lawler
233
iii
Crowninshield
V.
Cuffee
V.
Culver
V.
V.
11
55,
V.
Densmore
Desmond
V.
Dorsey
V.
V.
Dowdican
Drake
Eastman
v.
6,
119, 122
'
22, 102
'
238,239
34
58, 59
loi
"
V.
55
"
V.
"
w.
Littlejohn
Eddy
179
"
V.
V.
Elisha
96
"
V.
V.
129
4,
59
V.
V.
V.
18
"
V.
160
"
s/.
McDermott
McGorty
McKie
McPike
128
"
V.
Mead
38, 74, 75
"
V.
Morey
32
"
f.
Morrell
V.
Elmey
V.
Emigrant Sav. Bk
V.
Emmons
211
53
179, 221
178
9
202
V.
Felch
V.
Fenno
V.
Ferrigan
15
"
z/.
Mosler
55
V.
237
"
I/.
MuUins
18
"
V.
Nefus
194
108
V.
Ford
Galavan
Goddard
204
"
I/.
V.
Goodwin
14, 16
"
Nichols
V. Nott
V.
Gorham
228
"
f.
V.
Gormley
188
"
f.
V.
Graves
211
"
V.
V.
Gray
236
"
V.
O'Brien
Parker
Parmenter
People
Pitsinger
V.
V.
V. Pratt
'
V.
Price
29
61, 62
"
z/.
Reynolds
40
56, 58
"
z/.
Ricker
38
236
"
z'.
Roberts
V.
Ryan
Hall
V.
Haney
Harmon
V.
Harris
V.
Hawkins
230
V. Hill
Howe
Hudson
V.
Ingraham ....
V.
Jackson
16
225
"
V.
V.
213
"
V.
V.
54
101,114
9
80
Hackett
Holmes
31,209
198
V. Griffin
V.
V.
55
138
'
"
V.
Sanborn
211
"
f.
Scott
14
10, 53,
'
'
234
25, 28,
30
V.
Sego
V.
Shaw
I/.
'
'
V.
Smith
Sparks
61
34,
201
56, 59
53
209
247
52
10,25,196
54,
56
209
55.109
.
...,..,
210
TABLE OF CASES
xxxu
CITED.
PAGE
Comm.
V.
Sturtivant
V.
Tarr
"
t/.
Tolliver
"
z/.
'
"
V.
"
v.
82, loi,
53
15
Tucker man
Webster
55
''
f.
15
6,
20
Williams
Comstock V. Crawford
V. Smith
Confederate Note Case
Conkey v. People
Conley v. Meeker
Conn. Ins. Co. v. Ellis
"
247
98
158, 159
170
114, 235
227
PAGE
Corbishley's Trusts,
Re
Wilson
Corlies v. Van Note
Cornett v. Williams
Corning v. Ashley
V. Corning
Cornish v. Farm, etc.
Corbley
v.
Cornwell v. Wooley
Corr V. Sellers
Cory V. Bretton
Costello V. Crowell ...
155
138, 187
64
155
Ins.
.74,
75
Co. 107
131
64
51
.63, 106, 110,
83
Schwenk
185
95, 176
238. 239
Costigan v. Lunt
Cotton V. Smithwick
78
168
Matter of
Amer. Exp. Co
Conrad v. Griffey
229, 235 Courney v. Macfarlane
Contf.e V. Piatt
119 Courtenay v. Fuller
Coveney v. Tannahill
Continental Ins. Co. v. Delpench. .100, loi Cowley zi. People
"
Co. V. LathCox V. Davis
Cottrell,
Coulter
134
V.
230
178
164
208
128
"
''
T/.
131
Palmer
Co. V. Union
V. Sayres
206 Coye V. Leach
Trust Co
Converse v. Colton
119 Coyle V. Comm
103,
"
V. Wales
33 Cozzens v. Higgins
Conway v, Nicol
31 Craig V. Browne
Cook V. Barr
40, 42 Craig's Appeal
230 Craighead v. McLoney...
V. Brown
" z/. Champlain, etc. Co... 34 Crawford v. Loper
"
V. Cook
99, 187 Crease v. Barrett
"
V. N. Y. C. R. Co
79 Crill V. Rome
159
'
230
'
'
'
Cooke
Coole
Coon
V.
V.
V.
Cooper
Cope
c/.
Tanswell
Braham
Swan
V.
Cooper
Taylor
Copperman v. People
Corbett v. Gibson
Corbin
50
203
185
Cope
Copeland
"
133
51
v.
V. State
v.
184
Jackson
29
136,
140
53
128
Crispell v.
Dubois
V. Erie R. Co
Crittenden t'. Rogers
Crist
Crocker
"
v.
Crocker
!>.
McGregor
Cromwell v. Sac
Cronk v. Frith
Cronkhite v. Nebeker
Crooks V. Whitford
Crosby v. Berger
185
105, 179
137
147
20
157, 160
78, 82
71
73
81
71
27
238, 239
171
27
87
132
160
171
204
Cross
"
V.
Cross
183
V.
Johnson
207
"
V.
Riggins
203
"
V.
Sabin
Crossley v. Dixon
Crossman
Croudson
Crowell
v.
v.
V.
Bank
Crower
v.
Cuddy
V.
123
192
Grossman
128, 158
Leonard
91
Western Reserve
.
127, 219
Pinckney
Culver's Appeal
Curry
Curtis
"
Curtiss
V.
V.
221
16
Hudson River
Bank
108
Walter
Belknap
199
Ayrault
82
Cushing
V.
Field
160
"
V.
Laird
91
'
'
Cutter
'
'
Cuyler
30
47, 131
141
170
32
205
V. Pitt
51
Hudson River
Ins.
107
iii
Westmoreland
4,
Dartmouth (Lady) v. Roberts
Davenbagh !'. M'Kinnie
Davenport v. Ogg
Davidson v. Cooper
157,
V. Delano
Darling!/.
loi
265
Davie v. Briggs
Davies v. Lowndes
"
207
220
160
68
185
74, 76,
260
Davis
V.
Waters
Byrd
"
V.
Davis
99, 176
"
z/.
Field
238,239
"
I*.
Spooner
V.
State
V.
'
'
208
220
131
83,
235
179
Day
V.
Day
194
V.
Thomas
164
"
V.
Floyd
V.
Wright
125
"
V.
Stickney
85
228
V.
Caruthers
119
V.
Evans
McCartney
Cuthbertson's Appeal
Cutler
Daniel
Kingdom
133
Chicago, etc. R. Co.. 201
V.
McBride
v.
v.
v.
v.
v.
Daniel
Co
Dann
V.
Currier
Dance
98
140
v.
186
Fiedler
v.
164
Arnold
V. Taylor
Cummins v. People
"
7/.
Daniels
Cummings
v.
"
74
206
179
201
Dan V. Brown
Dana v. Conant
168
Brown
Cullison V. Bossom
Cunningham
PACK
Dale V. Dale
Dalrymple v. Williams
Dalton V. Angus
Daly V. Byrne
v.
95
43
Dayton v. Monroe
Dazey v. Mills
11,
Dean v. State
De Armond
Neasmith
z/.
De Camp
D
199, 237
22
Da
P^inese
t/.
Hall
Co
249
60
184
83
98
Deck
Dabney v. Mitchell
Daby v. Ericsson
Costa v. Jones
Daily z/. N. Y. etc. R.
Dain v. Wyckoff
Miller
v.
33
41
V. Johnson
Dederich z;. McAllister
45
180
De Haven
De Kay v.
75
168
z'.
De Haven
Irving
Delafield v.
Hand
115
Delaware, The
104
I2i
193
v. Starrs.
^95
XXXIV
PAGE
Demarest
Darg
v.
87
42
"
V.
Hiscocks
82
"
V.
Hodgson
192
Derwert v. Loomer
De Thoren i/. A. G
47
''
"
'
'
Kemp
ID
172, 268
f.
Palmer
71
V.
190
V.
Pegg
Pulman
V.
Ross
143
V.
Dewey v. Moyer
De Witt V. Barly
loi
'
140
''
Prescott
v.
Hall
v.
Dickerman
v.
Graves
Colgrove
V.
State
v.
Poughkeepsie
Dickerson
Dickinson
v.
Dickson
v.
Diehl
"
Adams
Emig
V.
t-.
Dilleber
Dimick
197
188
"
V.
Tatham
"
V.
Co
81
Donahue
v.
Donellan
Donelson
Donnelly
v.
Phillipps
103
Rose
Armes
Howard Co
Dist. of Col. V.
Division of
26,
192
Nichols
People
Dobson V. Pearce
Dodd V. Gloucester
V,
109
78,
190
250, 253, 262
63
69
121
233
187
Coleman
Hardy
v.
Taylor
v.
State
142
222
61,
Donohue v. People
30 Doon V. Rarey
194 Doran v. Muller
118 Dorman v. Kane
Hammond
Dixon
12
Turford
" z). Vowles
Dole V. Wilson
Dollner v. Lintz
136
Downs
v.
Distin V.
Suckermore
Smyth
32
loi
I/.
v.
Di Sora
V.
13
Life Ins.
"
220
State
'
105
58
187
172,268,269
240
Needs
"
"
"
123
...
V.
"
Dexter
t'.
'
85
10
V.
78
186
V.
iii
v.
d.
'
'
'
Comm
Devlin
207
d.
40, 46
139
z'. Ailing
Rosaz, In the Goods of
Date
'
Dennie v. Williams
Dennison v. Page
Dent V. Dent
De
V.
V.
184
232
Derby
Doe
Derby
Devine v. Wilson
Edwards
Hammond Cooke
De May v. Roberts
Den V. McAllister
Dorrell
15
52
224
34
84
State
v.
223
Doty V. Brown
Doubet V. Kirkman
99 Doughty V. Doughty
"
!<.
123
90
*'
V,
177
116
'
'
Moore
V.
Dodge
V.
"
V.
V.
Trust
Barton
"
V.
Baytup
i".
Beviss
"
"
z*.
"
"
V.
Co
180
Douglass
V. Mitchell's
100
Excr
Co
Brydges
Catomore
230
238
194
190
Downs
69
Doyle
91
158
CouUbred,,,.,,,...,.. iSo
V.
N. Y. C. R.
Co
Jessup
''
z/. N. Y. Infirmary
Draper v. Draper
"
V.
z/.
Hatfield
47
88
235
Haskell
Doe
Ins.
39
236
107
194
52,135
TABLE OF CASES
CITED.
XXXV
PAGE
Drew
Driscoll
Drown
People
V.
Drury
v.
V.
Du
Du
Earl
17,
228
Earl's Trust
115
Earle
157,
158
Eason
Allen
v.
Drum V. Drum
Drummond v. Priestman
Hervey
Midland R. Co
Barre v. Livette
Bois V. Hermance
Dudley
"
Dunham
'
'
v.
Martin
"
r'.
Wadleigh
129
42
v.
Averill
169, 171
Barnes
166
Co
Essex
Durgin
Durkee
v.
Somers
Leland
v.
91,
'
V.
'
f.
Alger
Eaton
"
f.
Tallmadge
157
"
V.
Pickel
157
Gray
V.
Edington v. Life
Edwards, In re
89
"
V.
"
V.
Tracy
207
Egan
179
Egbert
!.
29
"
f.
Eggler
V.
Eidt
Cutler
52
208
Eighmy
Elkin
Eilbert
v.
v.
People
Finkheiner
Ellicott V. Pearl
51
116
Elliott V.
Davey
Duvall's Excr.
v.
Darby
127
Dwight V. Brown
Dyer
v.
of N.
97
-^^
Fredericks
139
E
Eagan
Eames
v. State
v.
Eames
124
,
187
V.
Boyles
V.
"
W.Russell
"
z/.
Hayden
Van Buren
Ellis V. Buzzell
"
V.
48
206
.32,
177
141
135
45, 128
16
loi
183
20
112
18
6,
139
181
McKean
"
67
Dwyer V. Collins
Dyckman v. Mayor
Dye V. Young
Janson
V.
Elkins
Co.
Egbert
Greenwalt
People
v.
100
V.
128
Bowker
V.
223
f.
Ins.
99
Edwards
Dutton V. Woodman
Duval V. Covenhofer
"
23
Edgar v. Richardson
Edgerton v. Wolf
129
z/.
76
Louis
203,205
Vt. R.
74i
v.
Co
I/.
79
162
Bonneau
Noyes
87
76
100
Eckert
State
"
Duttenhofer
v.
Eaton
Eddy
238, 239
V.
V.
56
239
"
229
"
w. Bower
Dunlap V. Cody
Dunn, In re
Dunn V. Record
Dunn's Case
Durant v. Abendroth
233
Hottenstine 102
Eastman
203
Seely
203
Chapman
v.
18
Beck
y.
Grout
v.
71
84
Dugan V- Mahoney
Duncan v. Lawrence
78
123
275
Dufresne v. Weise
Duffy V. People
V.
94
People
v.
Duflfin V.
PAGE
Tupper
i68
Swift
V.
Duncan
Ellison V. Cruser
"
v.
"
z/.
Lindsley
6
71,
73
227
94
115
loi
176
186
240
^^7
Weathers
Ellsworth V. Muldoon
199
Elwell V. Cunningham
"
^, Mersick
144
67
137.139
PAGE
Ely
Ely
V.
158, 159
Emerson
f.
"
V.
Bleakley
78
24, 103
108
Emery
Ennis
Enos
v.
Smith
v.
.41,
V.
159
59
Eslow V. Mitchell
Estabrook v. Boyle
Ettinger
"
z/.
"
V.
14, 18,
Beattie
Evans
Rees
Evanston
Evarts
Comm
v.
v.
Gunn
Young
v.
v.
Excrs. of Shoenberger v.
V.
Guynon
V.
Harlan
"
Fed.
Fellers
230
Fairchild
40
Hastings
Fall River Bk. v. Buffinton
Fanning
Farley
"
v. Ins.
z/.
V.
Farmers'
"
Farnum
Farrar
Few
Ins.
Co.
v.
"
"
V.
"
41
168
N. Y. C. R.
V.
Fife
passin
v.
Hubbard ..,,,,,,,.,.
Co
Comm
V.
27
212
Galbraith
v.
'
V.
'
S3. 54. 55
228
85
89
126
188
Whyland
166
Jones
Finnegan v. Dugan
Finneran v. Leonard
First Nat. Bk. v. Robert
Fillo V.
z*.
Ex
no
63,64
v.
216
McCarty
Brown
65
115
Fitzpatrick f. Fitzpatrick.
Flattery
23
98
parte
Fitzgibbon
V.
25
Mayor
Flagg
Olmstead
v. Payne
47
92
208
Swift
189
39
Bair. 224, 230
Gargett .. 176
Farrington
99
103
Munson
V.
Fitzsimons
120, 122
Farnum
44
98,
Guppy
V.
Fickett
256
92
McConnell
Rodocanachi
v.
v.
Co
41
Emerson
f.
Fitzgerald v.
V.
119
V.
'
Fisk,
Fairlie v.
32
Gibson. 178
v.
Filkins v. People
119
Bascom
R. Co.
65
198
Lee
v.
Fellows
Fisher
Fairchild v.
Co
Hollis
St., etc.
Fierson
Hack-
Gaff
Fay
259
80
165
v.
v.
Field V.
30
70
man
v. Life Ins.
Fa.xon
211
Mc-
v.
Everitt v. Everitt
Eyster
53
50
72
48
166
Feversham
Collins
State
v.
Faunce
27
Bailey
f.
178
140
v.
Faulkner
Nicholls
138
Heath
v.
v.
Smith
Fenwick v. Thornton
Ferguson v. Crawford
V. Hubbell
Ferson v. Wilcox
135
Eschbach
Eskridge
Carrington
Erie R. Co.
Evans
156
104, 152
Tuttle
V.
Entick
78
Faucett
I/.
168, 169
Marks
100
People
v.
54
211
Flattery
Flitters v. Allfrey
88
Flood V. Mitchell
Flowery Co. v. Bonanza Co. ..
Fogarty v. Jordan
Fogg V. Dennis
Follansbee v. Walker. 86, 199,
FoUett V, Jefferyes
Folsom V, Apple River Co
.
239
155
45
108
201
203
237
TABLE OF CASES
CITED.
PAGE
Folsom
V.
Brawn
176, 228
Foot V. Bentley
Foote V. Hayne
Forbes v. Howe
Force v. Craig
Ford v Jones
V.
'
137
222
132
Norcross
103
Gawtry
72
206
Gay
20
Fox
V.
Comm
120
"
V.
Moyer
218
"
V.
People
"
f.
Riel
16
132
Fraser
v.
"
V.
Co.
Ins.
v.
Gruver
Hunter
Jennison
Frauenthals Appeal
Frazer v. Frazer
Frazier
Frear
v.
87
68
Brown
186
E vertson
41
v.
M. Laurence, The
FTee v. Buckingham
Freeman v. Cooke
Frew V. Clarke
220
Fred.
Freydendall
Frost
'
'
Fry
Fuller
"
Funk
V.
McCargar
Wood
V.
"
V.
Baldwin
Deering
v.
V.
Linzee
V.
Naugatuck R. Co
7'.
Rice
V.
Ely
195,
26
z/.
138
70
108
Foye V. Patch
Frank v. Manny
232
190, 240
128
233
16
40
Appeal
People
v.
Gage V. Campbell
Gahagan
B. & L. R. Co
z/. Eberhart
Garland v. Jacomb
Garloch v. Geortner
Garner v. White
Garrard v. Lewis
Garrity v. People
Gartside v. Conn. Ins. Co
Gass V. Stimson
Gassen-Lernier v. State
137, 138
139,
Gaffney
172
Foulkes V. Chadd
Fowler v. Chichester
Franklin
Wright
v. Page
Gait V. Galloway
Gardiner v. People
Gardner v. Collector
65
Furst V.
155
Kissam
Forsythe v. Hardin
'
204
Goodwin
224
Haubert
92
Second Av. R. Co.... 227
v.
v.
236
V.
'
Furley
31
Forrest v. Forrest
'
Furbush
129
227
189, 271
Gallup
Galpin
'
'
Gelott
77
185
33
222
35
Kansas
V.
People
191
188
219
160
179
206
222
25
63
180
Gerish
v.
90, 120
Shields
171
Pilcher
221, 235
Chartier
v.
i'.
31
Distler. .153, 162
Fitchburg R.
V.
Gethin
130, 131
v.
Germania Bank
v.
15s
228
Goodspeed
Hoyt
V.
George
Gertz
234
v.
V.
Gery
15
118
Doane
v.
Gelston
21
98
80
Parpart
V.
Geary
98
132, 134
V.
Co
v.
16
Walker
141 145
,
Geyer v. Aguilar
Gibney v. Marchay
Gibson v. Comm
"
V. Hunter
Gilbert
"
234
Redman
I'.
Flint, etc. R.
I/.
Knox
84,
91
42
196
30
Co
124
71
TABLE OF CASES
CITED.
PAGE
Sage
''
V. Simpson
Gildersleeve v. Landon
Gillespie v. Torrance
Gilbert
v.
223
Gough
V. St.
no
Gould
V.
Conway
66
39
"
V.
Crawford
Lakes
194
7I
John
115
87
"
i;.
Smither
131
"
V.
Gillooley v. State
206
"
V.
Norfolk Lead
R. Co
Gragg
V.
Learned
Gillies V.
Gilman
7/.
Gilman
99, 100
"
zj.
Moody
153
Gilmanton v. Ham
Gilmore v. Driscoll
Giltman v. Strong
Girard
Co.
Ins.
v.
Marr
66,
12
Good
25,
j,'^,
Richardson.
f.
"
179
"
179
G.
237
122
Green
W.
R. Co.
f.
B.
V.
V.
&
38
62
Bacon
z'.
"
V.
V.
Jack
"
V.
V.
Comm
State
Gorrissen
V.
v.
Perrin
Birnie
Lord Nugent
Dinsmore
Roberts
Green,
27
180
Greenabaum
202
22
Co
R. Co
River
84,
163
v.
Bresner.
v. Elliott
Greenawalt
t".
"
V.
94
48
230
R. Co.
etc.
48
238
N. Y. C.
Randall
Rice
156
181
Co
L. R.
"
12,
81
...
V Goodwin
Gray's Case
186
Co
Co
53
122
R.
20
162
Comm
165
34
150
206
State
V.
v.
27,
39,
Graville v. N. Y. C. R.
Gray
Johnson
Baldwin
Appleton
& M.
Bowne
95
Grant v. Coal Co
Grattan v. Ins. Co
Graves v. Jacobs
v.
B.
v.
f.
V.
v.
Co.
32
"
Gordon
199
100
Latham
Weston
v.
233
224
V.
G. T. R. Co.
"
"
New
Goodwin
87
etc.
V.
Goodtitle
V.
35
Rapids,
230
Huntley
V.
V.
V.
Spencer
"
"
Gouge
Graham
V.
"
Smith
Tracy
Gott
V.
'
84
v.
V.
'
45
138
I'.
Goss
Davis
Caulk
Disbrow
Goodrich
Gosling
30
Morgan
v.
Goodnow
V.
Chrystal
V.
Grand
171
204
State
V.
Gooding
'
89
99, 262
French
V.
'
170
Bressler
v.
Goodall
Gore
190
v.
Golder
259
223, 232
George
Goblet V. Beechy
Goble w. Dillon
Godard v. Gray
Goddard v. Foster
"
V. Gardner
Godeau v. Blood
Goersen v. Comm
Glynn
95
245
Gaffney
v.
v.
'
....
134, 144
'
'
'
Gleadow v. Atkin
Glenn v. Gleason
Gloucester
Graham
23
186
Co
30
89
Kohne
161, 163
McEnelley
.116, 198
S3
170
192
Greenfield Bk.
166, 267
v.
Crafts
v.
160, 190
51
26
40
Stowell.
Greenman
v.
O'Connor
219
tABLK Of
CASES' CITED.
PAGE
Greenough
v.
Eccles
278
Haley
"
V.
Gaskell
274
Halifa.Y
Greenwood v. Sias
Forsyth
Gregg
Gregory
Chambers
151
46
J'.
115
x'.
"
''
wright
Hall V. Bainbridge
" f. Brown
"
V.
Costello
104
"
V.
162
24
"
v.
Erwin
Glidden
State
113
'
V.
Hall
173^
'
V.
"
z/.
Lawrence ...........
r-.
Mayo
V.
Ray
Grignon"s Lessee
'
21,
Astor
v.
'
33
97
"
Huse
Grimes v. Kimball
Griscom v. Evens
169
Griswold
120
Halliday
118
Ham
137
Pitcairn
v.
Cushman
McKinley
v.
Gulick
Gulick
V.
"
V.
v.
West
People
59
','.
Potter
104
Kelly
Haines v. Guthrie
Hale z/. Rich
'
'
"
V.
Silloway
V,
Smith
219
22
R.
Co.. 73,
V.
Bradstreet
I'.
Hopping
V.
Varian
73
141
36, 108
74,
46
I/.
''
V.
& M.
"
Happy
"
v.
"
Judge
King
B.
194
82
v.
180
v.
Hahn
Hammond
234
227
V.
t^.
11, 233,
Hanoffz'. State
"
Haddock
People.. 6,
115
127
225
Hackett
'
72
239
134
199
... 119'
Hamsher v. Kline
Hance
Hair
Hancock Ins. Co. z-. Moore
80
Morse
........
McFarlin
Nickerson
v.
"
204
206
Howe
v.
...-.
Hamish v. Herr
234, 236
Verback
V.
Gutterson
V.
v.
193
Gulerette
Guy
Hamilton
Guldin's
v.
65
v. Martinett
63
Wisconsin, etc. R. Co. 245
V.
Hamer
179
Adm'rs
Gurney
'
10
105
Guldin's Adm'rs.
'
40
etc.
Co
Guptill
155
34)36,125
162
Griffith V. Differiderffer
V.
272
232
V.
Grob
Wheel-
v.
Morris
z'.
Griffin v.
229, 234
Guardians
Mason
Auburn
t'.
Grierson
State
v.
South Scituate
V.
V.
Harding
"
Mosher
7
.
135
80
50
v.
Jewell
155
z/.
Williams
284
Hardman
v. Wilcock
Hardy v, Merrill
Harger v. Thomas
"
42
Worrall
V.
192
loi
95
178
75
98
Harland
v.
Eastman
76
74
Harman
v.
Brotherson
97
42
Harrat
42
Harriman
181
v.
Wise
Jones
Harrington v. Gable
v.
33
203
40, 134
TABLE OF CASES
kl
CITED.
PAGE
Harrington
v.
Harris
v.
Barnett
"
V.
Harris
'
V.
Panama
"
z".
White
R.
Harrison
v.
Charlton
"
V.
Clark
v.
146
"
v.
70, 177
"
f.
82
"
z/.
14
Co
104,180
78
95
225
Rowan
V.
'
Harrison's Appeal
V.
"
V.
Hartman
Keystone
Hartranft, Appeal of
Harvey v. Osborn
V.
"
V.
'
v.
'
'
Hatch
Barrett
v.
Riders
V.
Stetson
Brown
V.
"
f.
Carpenter
Douglas
"
V.
Elkins
"
V.
Sigman
z'.
People
Warren
v.
Hastings
Co.
v.
'
Haskins
Ins.
Thorp
Mulry
z*.
Harwood
v.
115
People
200
Heine
225
Heinemann
139
66
Heiser
13,
34
180
162
loi
16, 1 15
42, 219
136
167
48
70
162, 180
c'.
z/.
"
Gustin
z/.
115
204
183
211
Fall River
112
Grimes
no
Hawkes v. Charlemont
Hayden v. Goodnow
Hayes v. Kelley
V.
People
226
no
Hazleton
Heffron
Haughwout
Garrison
Hawes v. Draeger
"
Miller
V.
Hay ward
107
119,147
"
Hays
Hedden v. Roberts
Hedge v. Clapp
Hedrick v. Hughes
Hawkins v.
89
222
Hay's Appeal
194
10
32
v. Diller
''
159
223
230
Harter v. Crill
Hartford v. Palmer
Hassan
17
Haynes
Ledyard
Ordway
f. Union Bk
Hazlewood v. Heminway
Heald z*. Heald
Hudson River Bridge
Co
229 Healy v. O'Sullivan
Stevenson
50 Hebbard v. Haughian
'
Hart
PAGE
Comm
Haynes
Keteltas
108
159
40
Ill
Comm
v.
v.
Hatch
v.
Hemmens v. Bentley
Hemmenway v. Towner
Hendrick z'. Whittemore
Hendrickson v. People
Henry v. Bishop
"
z/.
^j
230
63
201
113
177, 178
95
50
49
205
231
223
183
98
58
130
Bank
209
Mt. Carmel Bank... 78
Salina
Hepler z-.
Herrick v. Malin
"
V. Smith
"
116
162, 205
10,
Heard
Howard
Helyear v. Hawke
Hemenway v. Smith
Hemingway v. Garth
Heller
167
Gallupe
v.
v.
219
z'.
157
235
Swomley
Heslop V. Heslop
Hess V. Griggs
"
z'. Wilcox
Hester z/. Comm. .15, 211,
Hetherington z". Kemp
Hewett V. Chapman
Hewitt V. Morris
Hewlett V. Wood
Hey 's Case
.
no
16
132
221
227, 235
36
201
131
loi, 222
220
TABLE OF CASES
Heyward's Case
Heywoodz'. Hey wood
Hibbs V. Blair
Hickins
Hicks
199
42
199
Lovell
Higbee
v.
Dresser
"
V.
Life Ins.
77
202, 203
Co
Highberger v. Stiffler
Higbie v. Guardian,
etc.
People
"
V.
Reed
Ridgway
v.
''
V.
"
V.
Homan
211
Corning
127
V. Williams
78
Ins. Co. v. Baltimore,
Home
Home
"
Hildreth
v. O'Brien
Blake
163
Hill V.
164
Hood
V.
Canfield
219
Hoover
V.
Eldridge
V.
74
30
V.
Naylor
Packard
143
V.
State
238
V.
Syracuse,
Wylie
Goodyear
Hillis V.
Hills V.
"
Home
V.
Hilton
Himmelmann
V.
Co
v.
Hoadley
Beckwith
v.
v.
"
52
86
Fish
Life Ins.
V.
Co
85
Gehr
v.
Liddell
207
t".
People
25,33
Hopewell v. De Pinna
Hopkins v. Lee
Hoppe
V.
V.
Holcomb
N. Y. C. R. Co....
'
'
V.
Holcomb
V.
People
Holcombe v. Hewson
HoUey v. Young
Holly
V.
Boston Gas
Co
93
102
187
Hornbuckle
120
Horseman
Horstman
v.
v.
71
55
21
17
Stafford
245
Todhunter
Kaufman
Chadbourn
66
12
141, 163
Ins.
V. Smith
Metcalf
v. Grant
z'.
Hall
V.
65
How
43
Howard
loi, 194
229, 232
Houlston
House
67 Hovey
116
''
223
Co. 167
154
27
30
141
19S
If.
Brower
Daly
Hudson
189
v.
236
"
V.
25
"
z^.
McDonough
40 47
"
z'.
Moot
"
t',
Patrick
33
219
209
v.
Horton v.
24 Hosford V. Ballard
159 Hotchkiss t'. Mosher
Chappell
Cregan
Hohensack v. Hallman
Holbrook V. Gay
"
7/. Holbrook
184
Byers
Jarman
Hoffman v. Bank of Milwaukee. 191 Houghton V. Jones
"
"
V. Kemerer
V. Watertown
236
V.
65
V.
48
V.
Hogan
168
Hood
z/.
Hopt V. Utah
Horn V. Pullman
Hornbeck v. State
122
Lament
Hodgkins
Hoey
Ins.
25
233
176
Bender
7'.
Hinckley
Hoag
...
v.
etc. Co
Homer v.
Hope
51
Earle
v.
Homans
139
Co
49
199
69, 258
R.
190
Squire
163
17
etc.
162
229
Trumper
z'.
Holt
204
loi
127
V.
Higham
v. Kimball
Holmes' Appeal
Holmes v. Anderson
Walker
Holzworth V. Koch
Ins.
Co
Higgins
xU
Holman
v.
V.
CITED.
36
238
123,124
77,226
Table of cases
*Iu
ciTEn.
PAGE
Kovvard
v.
Sexton
"
t'.
State
Howe
Howe
V.
ilowe Co.
Co.
v.
Comm
v.
Russell
V.
Hubbell
V.
"
2'.
V.
57.
Hulbert
v.
7'.
Hunnicutt
Hunt
V.
"
t'.
"
z/.
"
V.
"
z'.
'
'
Insurance Co. v.
"
"v.
"
" y.
87
State
v.
120
Woburn
Henshaw. 205
Mosley
7
Newton
39
v.
Weide
4i
Ireland v. Rochester
Iron Cliffs Co.
Irwin
83
Thompson
V.
Isaacson
Isler V.
80
Buhl
v.
v.
N. Y. C. R.
239
164
Co
124
Dewey
234
223
201
Peyton
72
157, 158
J
Jackson
'
'
"
85,100
'
76
'
24, 105
45
v. Allen
V.
Bailey
V.
V.
Benton
Brooks
Browner
Chamberlain
Christman
Cole
'
V.
'
V.
"
I'.
"
V.
191
....
78
127
1C9
74
131
133, 156
Atkins
179
t'.
Leathley
207
"
z/.
Comm
62
V.
State
19
"
V.
Cooley
76
'
V.
Crissey
78
'
V.
French
204
Huntley v. Whittier
Hurlburt v. Meeker
Hurst V. Leach
Huston V. Ticknor
Hutchings v. Corgan
Hutchins v. Hebbard
"
220
67
Hunt
"
Inhab. of
68
Johnson
Lowell Gas Co
Strew
v.
Ingram
Nichols
v.
181
185
103
v.
179, 211
162
Co.
Horst
Ingalls V. State
237
192
R.
etc.
204
O'Bryan
Gray
Hunter
Indianapolis,
81,143
Muscatine
U. S
The
Idaho,
136, 208
''
I/. Westmoreland Co.
Huidekoper 7/. Cotton
Humes
129
128
Oil Co..
Meigs
Comstock
Judd
Hudnutt V.
Huff V. Bennett
Hughes
III, 152
165
201
Hoyt V. Newbold
Hubbard v. Gurney
"
V. Hubbard
"
177, 185
104, 108,
v.
89
Morris
V.
Canton
McDermott
Edwards 217
Goodrich
Howland v. Blake
fiowley V. Whipple
Hoy
y.
218
V.
Howser
Hyde Park
Hynes
33'
...-..-
Pettibone
V.
Howe Machine
Howell
30
179
2/.
Kimmel
7,
jj
223
173
130
'
'
"
'
'
V.
Frost
82
V.
Gager
130
199
V.
Humphrey
164
V.
King
ill
V.
Kingsley
"
V.
Lawson
"
V.
Lunn
78
Hutchinson v. Bernard
219
"
201
z/. Consumers' Coal Co.
"
187
^2
133
79
185
TABLE OF CASES
CITED.
xliii
PAGE
V.
Luquere
McCall
V.
Moore
Jackson
"
v.
"
State
V.
Vail
40, 136
People
Phelps
96, 194
187
168
Roberts
Van Dusen
108
Vickery
131
V.
Waldron
131
V.
Witter
t'.
Woolsey
133
Jaggers f. Binning
Jardine v. Reichert
50
'
'
"
82
99
50
Leonard
Jarrettz'.
Driggs
Jay V. East Livermore
Jefferds v. People
Jarvis
87
v.
Jenner
Jessup
v.
Hinch
V.
Cook
Jewell's Lessee
145
59
Johnson
v.
"
I'.
Tucker
Underwood.
.
Osgood
State
Stewart
10
25, 138
55
Van Epps
Volkenning
Jorden v Money
Joyce V. Maine Ins. Co
Juilliard
Jewell
14, 18
v. Suffolk
Ins.
Sav. Bk.
Co
K
Kallenbach v. Dickinson ....
Hibernia Ins. Co
I'.
105
Kane
136
Kearney
v.
85
"
z/.
176
Denn
Mayor
v. Rinehart
Keen's Excr
Keep V. Griggs
"
V.
H. R. R. Co
124
"
"
V.
Kershaw
138
Keller 7^. N. Y. C. R.
"
V. Stuck
V.
Leggett
Sherwin
231
Kelley
V.
State
V.
Jones
109
140, 207
18
Kellogg
"
123
82
V.
Abraham
213
Greaves
176
'
V.
Hoey
213
"
V.
Jones
"
f.
Keen
23
218
v.
136
v.
V.
V.
'
V.
'
Kelly
V.
"
V.
Kelsea
Kelsey
Miller.
French
Kellogg
Secord
Drew
West
v.
v.
V.
Kemp V.
185
197, 210
61, 196
Keichline
People
v.
60
V.
'
Keichline
Kelliker
70
160
Comm
v.
19
'
Jones
Kehoe
Fletcher
Hanmer
Layne
King
49
176
Keech
Holliday
136
46,
96
of N.
V.
"
163
74, 75
"
t".
107
Chaffee
V.
V.
"
95
190
"
V.
159
86
Arnwein
Daverne
Donaldson
''
103
132, 133, 138
Williams
Jordan
78
v.
Agr.
62
115
173
Jewett V. Banning
"
V. Brooks
Joannes t. Bennett
Jochumsen
131
60, 61,
Stevens
131, 132
V.
153
State
25, 55
I'.
"
Jones
72, 185
V. Sill
V.
Knaus
156
146
Co
107
185
11, 18,
53
26
31
143. 145
77
177
85
238, 239
131
229
207
TABLE OF CASES
xliv
CITED.
PAGE
Kempland v. Macaulay
Kempsey v. McGinnis
Kendall
"
Kendig
May
v.
Kendrick
Weaver
223
Kinney
v.
Overhulser
176
"
!.
'
Comm
v.
v.
209
Augusta
Ins.
Co
Kennedy
v.
Comm
"
V.
Doyle
"
z'.
Gifford
V.
People
z/.
Ry all
'
"
Kent
"
V.
'
"
66
5,
247
21
115
Mason
Tyson
V.
'
z'.
Kenyon
Ashbridge
v.
V.
26
V.
"
7'.
36
"
V.
House
Albetis
118
Kibler
v.
141
Knode
221
Blaisdell
119
Koehler
z".
Stevens
187
Koenig
119
Kolsti
Kilrow V.
Kimball v. Morrill
29
131
233
Knoll V. State
Knolls V. Bambart
Mcllwain
60,
64
233
189
Wiifen
Williamson
v.
Comm
Comm
158, 159
V.
v.
Knox V. Wheelock
Kobbe v. Price
v.
39
165
94
Knight
Knights
133
30
239
99
Furness
Roche
Smith
Clements
Cunnington
v.
Kilpatrick
84
v.
48
V.
Kessel
''
210
Ry
"
237
72
132
Kitchen -. Smith
Kittredge v. Russell
Klein v. Russell
Knapp
21, 75
132
V.
66
Kidder
Bethlehem
Farnsworth
Flynn
v.
Brigham
163 Kirkstall Brewery
119
PAGB
Case. 91, 95,
Kip, In re
Kip
63,
Garvin
Lincoln
V.
of),
105
Kingwood
Kennebec Co.
'
Kingston (Duchess
194
v.
i^.
50
v.
V.
156
247
74
Black River
v.
Bauer
M. & St.
103
83,
Co
155
223
L. R.
Co...
34
Meyer
Konitzky
v.
Koons
V.
State
no
v.
Reed
180
95
V.
Donahue
no
Koster
V.
Faber
238
Kramer
v.
Comm
25
V.
Gallun
124
"
V.
Goodlander
72
V.
N. Y. C. R. Co
Richards
127
V.
Ruckman..
233
z/.
State
59
129
King
'
'
'
'-
"
'
V.
'
"
"
"
V.
Kingsbury
Moses.
Krekeler v. Ritter
Kribs V. Jones
Krise v. Neason
Kurtz V. Hibner
149
Tirrell
v.
192
.127, 138,
Kingsford w. Hood
Kingsland v. Chittenden
Kingsley v. Davis
219
Labaree
v.
Wood
82
La Bau v. Vanderbilt
La Beau v. People
94
Laclede Bank
17
99
164
136, 143
168
240
.
92,
v.
Keeler
197
47
15
233
xlv
PACK
Lacroix Fils
Lady
Laird
v.
Sarrazin
121
Case
Campbell
Ivy's
v.
PAGE
Leeds
Cook
v.
21
Lefever
v.
63
26
Lefevre
v.
141
Johnson
40
Lefevre
Tollervey
171
Leggatt V.
Lake v. Clark
122 Legge V. Edmonds
Lake Co. v. Young
Lake Merced Co. v. Cowles.
119 Lehigh R. Co. v. McFarlan
Lamar v. Micou
42, 118 Lehman v. Central R. Co
Lamb v. Camden, etc. R. Co.. 178 Leland v. Cameron
"
V. Munster
V. Knauth
209
Lambert z'. People
51 Lemmon v. Moore
Lanahan v. Comm
188 Lenahan v. People
123,
Land Co. v. Bonner
139 Lenox v. Fuller
Landell v. Hotchkiss
27 Lentz V. Wallace
Lander v. Arno
86, 93 Leonard v. Kingsley
"
"
V. People
6
V. Pope
Landers v. Bolton
131 Lerned v. Jones
Lane v. B. & A. R. Co
45 Lessee of Clarke v. Courtney
"
z*. Cole
140,207 Lessee of Rhodes v. Selin
Lanergan v. People
18 Lester v. McDowell
Langhorn v. Allnutt
49 Levison v. State
Lanning v. Francis
168 Levy V. People
.
85
184
185
190
63
'
227
212
'
125
233
93
232
31
162
131
Lansing
Lame
Coley
v.
219
Rowland
Larum v. Wilmer
v.
65
Lewis
'
'
92
"
138, 164
"
85
"
Lawrence v. Farley
"
f. Hopkins
Payn
Seabury
128
C.Sumner
f. Woodworth
47
229
Ley
155
Lichtenwallner
t'.
Kimball
67
"
V. Claflin
56
"
V.
V.
'
Lay Grae
Lazier
v.
Glass
141
237, 238
Peterson
Westcott.ioo,
v.
45
Leavitt
v.
v.
Salvor
166
47
207
v.
Lindley v.
Laubach
Battelle
32
144, 151
10,
Taunton Mf'g Co
Lacey
..
Linnell v. Sutherland
Linsday
v.
People..
Co
Stansell
Wolcott
Leconfield
Lonsdale
V.
/.
40
30
107
166
64
Learned v. Tillotson
Leas V. Wells
Leathers
27
Barlow
Laws V. Comm
Lawson v. Bachman
'
Co
Eastern R.
Lincoln
z/.
53
96
V.
52
"
222
V.
c/.
V.
208
196
Linsley v. Lovely
221
190
Linthicum
v.
Ray
180
129
"
V.
Remington
204
227
86
186
172
Lithographing Co.
Little V.
"
7'.
z-.
Kerting..
Herndon
McKeon
Livingston
v.
Arnoux.
82
159
199
.
,66, 67,
153
xlvi
PAGE
Livingston
v.
Kreisted
194
V.
Tyler
63
162
Logue's Appeal
Lohman v. People
& S. W. Bank
Long V. Colton
"
z/. Drew
L.
*'
"
Wentworth
Spencer
Loom Co. v.. Higgins
Loomis V. Wadhams
Lord V. Bigelow
Loring v. Mansfield
"
z/. Whittemore
"
V. Worcester,
"
164
Mackay
167
42, 128
47
89
etc.
MacDougall
240
154
V.
16
191
72
50
V.
225
v.
Hartwell
v.
PAGE
Manning
Lyons v. Lawrence
Lyon
v.
V.
83
162
Maclean
Scripps
129
Macomber v. Scott
Magee v. Raiguel
no
v.
119
43
Maggi V. Cutts
Maguire v. Middlesex R. Co..
27 Mahoney v. Belford
128,135
R.
Co
Los Angeles v. Melius
Losee v. Losee
Lothian v. Henderson
Lothrop V. Adams
87
Maillet v. People
V.
Blake
Lovejoy
v.
Murray
"
z'.
Spafford
189
Payne
Low's Case
Mfg
Lowell
Co.
V.
Lowenstein v. Carey
Lowery v. Telegraph Co
Luce
Lucier
Lund
Dorchester
v.
V.
Ins.
Pierce
Tyngsborough
Lurtoi^z'. Gilliam
Lush
"
Lyon
w.
V,
Manke v. People
Mann v. Langton
" i*. Mann
Lyon
Mandeville
v.
Co
68
120
87
208
181
164
Reynolds.
128, 13s
140
190
210
Co. 128
Mansfield
McEn-
z'.
5
82
McMinn
Comm
119
Shults
238
v.
Barnes
in
V.
Dunlap
Marcly
165
Marcy
"
211
162
v.
v.
March
131
170
Edwards
v.
49
103
233
Ins. Co.. 107
107
249
ery
Marble
f.
198
Philadelphia
w. State, etc.
Dougherty
173
151
Druse
V.
Lyman
Griffey
Malone
De La Cour
V.
V.
R.
Brooks
z/.
V.
v.
64
202
115
250
Safeguard
Co
Ins.
9, 60, 61,
38
V.
34
26
17
Maine v. People
90 Major V. State
115 Malcolmson v. O'Dea
149 Malloney z'. Horan
94 Mallory v. Benjamin
Low
187
Easton
Mackie v. Story
Mackinnon v. Barnes
v.
158
Havi154
Marks v. Townsend
Marlow v. Marlow
Mc^rsh
v.
z^.
Hand
17^
137
,,,,,..,, ;29
TABLE OF CASES
CITED.
xlvii
PAGE
Marshall
v.
Marsters
v.
Davies
Lash
178, 224
104
Marston v. Downs
Martin v. Berens
"
V. Cole
"
V.
"
V.
Cope
Good
"
'
i6i
McQtath
V.
Clark
"
V.
Seagrave
78
156
77
52
225
v.
N. Y. C. R. Co...
123
139
McKinney
Phelps
237
v.
Strickland
v.
Allen
'
V. Sniffen
'
'
Mayer
v.
Appel
"
V.
People
Maynard
V.
V.
v.
B.
Buck
& M. R. Co
Mayo
84
258
McCombs
V. State
McCormick
V.
v.
McKinnon
47
108
v.
Collins
91
V.
Salem
40
f.
"
McKivitt
Cone
V.
McKnight v. Devlin
127 McLain v. Comm
32 McLanathan v. Patten
120 McLaughlin z/. Conley
239
86
163
13,
198
McLean
137
McLellan
66
239
33, loi
88
"
V.
McElroy
30
34
McMillen
229
181
t'.
McMinn
v.
v.
243
43
115
50
Longfellow
McLeod V. Ginther
McMahon v. Harrison
V.
'
77, 106,
192
Cox
v.
McMakin v. Weston
McManus
Comm
McMicken v. Comm
158
28,
Fleming
v.
'
78
102
Andrews
Whelan
203
7
34
184
139
15
95
199
131
McCue
Lee
v.
'
'
194
V.
V.
33
199
45, 133, 141
c'.
iii
Matteson v. N. Y. C. R. Co
Matthews, In re ...
"
V. Yerex
Mauri v. Heffernan
Maxwell v. Chapman
V. Wilkinson
May V. Bradlee
21,
Maybee v. Avery
'
McGregor
Wait
McGuire v. People
Mcintosh
Mclntyre
160, 190
Baldwin
Libbey
Mast V. Perace
Mather v. Parsons
Mayo
v.
Masser
Massey
34
138
238, 239
McGlynn
t^.
v.
Savoy
Kingsbury
McKee v. Nelson
McKeen v. Gammon
McKeone v. Barnes
Maryland
Mason
t'.
161
136
''
V. Rector
Marvich v. Elsey
Marvin v. Richmond
Marx V. Hilsendegen
PAGE
McDonald
McFadden
76
74
72, 82
236
Comm
McCurdy's Appeal
15
156
Mc Vey
v.
Cantrell
219
Mead v. Husted
Meade v. Smith
Meakings
v.
Cromwell
Mechanics' Bank
Me^ch
V,
27
201
Buffalo
v.
207
Gilson .... 123
163
TABLE OF CASES
xlviii
CITED.
PAGE
Melcher v. Flanders
Melia v. Simmons
Melvin v. Melvin
Mercer v. Vose
Mercer's Adm'r v. Mackin
Mercer Co. v. McKee's Adm'r.
130
85
PAGE
Oddy
Mills V.
Milwaukee R. Co.
105
70
Mink
Morgan
v.
Mitchell
Gleason
226
v.
Parkman
Merrill
v.
Merrill
43
240
Merritt
v.
Cornell
155
V.
Day
'
'
46
Messner v. People
Metzger v. Doll
Mey v. Gulliman
Meyer
v.
"
"
'
'
32
20
213
'
'
"
"
207, 208
Moats V. Rymer
Moett V. People
Monfort v. Rowland
Monocacy, etc. Co.
V.
Pickering
V.
State
Sefton
138
Moody
V.
Rowell
163
"
z;.
State
V.
State
^.
U. S
v.
V.
Co.
v.
Hovey
Barber
Binder
v.
Hamilton
"
z'.
Livingston
30
"
z'.
Meacham
155
"
V.
Moore
z'.
People
w. Irish
22
"
z/.
7^.
Co
McKesson
z/.
Payne
R.
People
V. Stevens
"
V. Travers
Milliken v. Barr
Mills V. Barber
'
f. Hallock
z/.
'
'
Moots
V.
74
114
42
131
7i
State
64, 238,
30
Moreson
Northwestern
Co
55
170
Morford
171
"
"
13
v.
Morgan
239
167
53
102
Ins.
176
Peck
Burrows
232
V. Griffiths
166
v.
v.
V.
V.
22
78
227
z^.
178
,,.,,....
31
12
141
62
155
225
118
Moran v. Prather
Morehead v. State
Morehouse
Mathews
125
203
Tenney
Bunker
Moor
Moore
"
184
v.
155
142
z/.
Mooers
175
98
166
118
Haughton
z-.
Hale
I.
v.
iii
z'.
L.
"
"
V.
f.
Ameri-
i'.
"
V.
26
v.
45
Montville
v. Gil-
212
222
Monroe v. Douglas
Montgomery
Montgomery
193
Olmstead
208
5,
Co
can, etc.
157
v.
116
Case
Mitchell's
Huneke
"
"
"
218
Work
Peck
Dungan
Gambie
"
"
Pitts
V.
V.
Dam
Miller
V.
z'.
bert
Mill
137
31
'
82
Jacobs
V.
'
184
Kentucky
v.
Bohlfing
Michels
205
State
z^.
Merrick
103,
107
Minet
Missouri
v.
Kellogg
v.
249
167
Merluzzi
136
People
Railroad
^.Roberts
169
129
Co
188
199
TABLE OF CASES
CITED.
xlix
PAGE
PAGE
162
Shuni
L. C. & D. R. Co. 16,
?vIorgan's Assignees v.
Moriarty
;.
44.
Green
& M.
Morley
v.
Morrill
v.
B.
"
V.
Foster
"
I'.
Co
R.
141
162
"
V.
V.
Green
Murray
177
V.
N. Y. Life
V.
White
213
Morris's Appeal
168
Minn.,
I'.
Stearns
Morss
'
'
"
etc.
V.
Morss
Palmer
V.
Salisbury
V.
141
122
199
234
42
Co
137
123
Ins.
IIS,
V.
Carow
Chase
"
V. Smith
Muggleton t'. Harnett
v.
Muldowney
111. Cen.
Mulford V. MuUer
i*.
24
169
Motley V. Head
Mott V. Consumers' Ice Co
" V. Richtmyer
Mowry
'
Musselman
Mutual
Ins.
234
222
39
153, 161
98
Ins.
Co.. 178
Wise
v.
Co.
"
125
v.
Morris
V.
Tisdale...85, 86
188
95.
96
237
Mortimer v. McCallan
Moseley v. Mastin
Mosley v. Vermont, etc.
Mowatt
'
14
R. Co....
47
84
147
-'.
15,
140
Patchin
"
53.55.56
Elston
I'.
"
State
Chase
I/.
81
Morrow v. Comm
Morse v. Hewett
56
219
v.
I'.
Murray
184
Chapin
Purdy
"
iii
v.
T'.
176
14, 22,
Deyo
Miller
Morrison
People
V.
V.
'
v.
'
Harmer
'
'
'
V.
"
Atwood
74
128
V.
v.
V.
J'.
'
255
207
Robinson
Budlong
Davies
French
Morris
"
Munson
Murphy
Nance
Nason
Lary
Jordan
v.
v.
National Bank
189
139
Bangs
Naugatuck Co. v. Babcock
Naumberg v. Young.. 161, 163,
Nealley v. Greenough
Needham r-. Bremner
Needles v. Hamfan
Neel V. Potter
Neely v. Neely
38,
Neese v. Farmers' Ins. Co
Negley v. Jeffers
Neil V. Case
7/.
"
Jakle
V.
Sun
Co
191
136
166
137
85
173
33
131
104
164
159
18
168
Nelson
104
Nepean
v.
Doe
184
224
"
7/.
Knight
184
13
R. Co. 103
Nesbit
Nettles,
v.
III
Ins.
105, 167
re
Ex parte
177
61
Nevling v. Comm
5, 175
Newcastle (Duke of) v. Bro.vV.
towe
St. Louis Hospital
73
228
Ass'n
225 Newcomb v. Griswold
Mumford v. Bowne
121 Newell V. Carpenter
92
185
V. Nichols
Munn V. Godbold
135, 138
Munshower v. State
83 N. H., etc. R. Co. v. Goodwin. 63
Mullen
Muller
V. St.
John
203
178
TABLE OF CASES
CITED.
PAGE
N.
J.
Newlin
Lyon
v.
Newman v. McComas
New Orleans, The
Newton
219
v.
How's
Ogsbury
134
Ohio
V.
Nichols
100
Oliver
V.
Webb
63
V.
White
46
v.
North Brookfield
128, 162
139
187
267
Branch R. Co.
v.
Pell
v.
78
Arms Co
12
Manhattan Co
47
z'.
Nichols
"
O'Toole,
III
R. Co.
Hofford
v.
Hall... 163
v.
V.
Middleton
99
Owen
Cawley
etc.
V.
10
Maxcy
Oaksmith's Lessee
!.
40,
224
"
Johnston. 185
64
v.
Brinley
13
38
47
109
v.
97
207
re
Otterson
"
Ottawa,
93
6
191
V.
Pacific
47
z'.
14S
Perry
11
.... 212
"
Zim-
Norton v. Huxley
Norwich Co. v. Flint
Nudd V. Burrows
164
76,
Otis
mermann
83
129
Coates
74, 75
v.
Otis.
V.
165
Northrop v. Hale
Northumberland Co.
124
Osgood
v.
Swank
215
118, 122, 124
20
137
W.
47
105, 107
v.
Osborn z^.
Oscanyan
129
Warren. 74,
72
Oppenheim v. Wolf
Ordway v. Haynes
Oregon Steamship Co. z/.
Organ v. Stewart
Ormsby v. People
O'Rourke z/. O'Rourke
103
v.
v.
Gere
Omichund v. Barker
Opinion of Justices
127
Spofford
36
Shapleigh
Bennett
V.
Olmsted
54
State
v.
Olcott
87
118
Oldtown
Waful
Unger
v.
i".
64
Noonan
Nunes
178
185
State
v.
La Farge
Hinchman
V. Tioga R. Co
169
136
NicoU V. Burke
Niskayuna v. Albany
Nixon 7^. Palmer
Noble V. Ward
Noden v. Murray
N. &
Ogletree
Co
V.
R.
7
Haynes
v.
etc.
167
Iron
State
Chicago,
v.
V.
v.
99
175, 178
Co
V.
Nicholson
Norris
O'Connor
140
"
V. Porter
N. Y. Inst, for Blind
Excrs
Nichols V. Allen
Nicolay
46
50
Chaplin
?'.
43
i8i
"
V.
v.
Forester
"
?/.
Salisbury
199
164
6
201
Sickles
Paddock
104
52
,,,,
n6
'
Cole
Carter
V.
Paige
V.
Paine
v. Ins.
"
Co
Upton
Palleys v. Ocean Ins. Co
Palmer v. Albee
"
V. Crook
"
I'. Trower
V.
'
Papendick v. Bridgewater
Parke v. Neely
Parker v. Butterworth
"
f. Foote
Parks
"
Loomis
Mosher
V.
V.
Parsons
Passmore
Elevated R.
V.
Moor
'
'
Patterson
'
Paul
Paulk
'
''
V.
Pears
v.
V.
Ah Fook
Ah Lee
14
V.
46
"
z/.
Aleck
10
186
"
z'.
Alivtre
169
"
z'.
Amanacus
'
V.
Arnold
'
V.
Augsbury
"
z/.
Baker
V.
Blakely
203
205
"
V.
Boscovitch
220
V.
Brown
209
V.
245
"
V.
"
V.
Carrier
229
"
z/.
163
'
'
'
V.
V.
94
23
31
Casey
209,226
Chee Kee
123
Chin Mook Sow ..61, 237
122, 124
"
z/.
Chung Ah Chue
68
"
z/.
Cole
205
"
Z'.
Collins
V.
Cotta
76
'
'
"
f.
Courtney
z/.
Cox
'
V.
Crapo
239
"
V.
239
"
V.
131
"
f.
80, 187
"
z'.
Davis
Dawell
Denison
Dennis
Lake
f.
Valentine
Webquish
'
V.
V.
Jackson
'
115
224
209, 233
236
"
no
v.
'
38,
133
Callaghan
V.
'
23
66
V.
Pells
V.
V.
"
Pelletreau
V.
'
105
85,90
Bank N. America... 190
"
201
'
'
10, 11
"
Shippen
Brewer
"
V.
'
14
234
122
V.
'
''
Beach
Beck
Benson
238
Peck
v.
'
Buckland
Burns
Carney
Langfit
99
234
"
"
Wilson
157
"
134
162
Pearse v. Pearse
Pearson -'. Pearson
Pease
27
Tucker
Payson v. Lamson
Pearce v. Cooper
230
Strana-
Corwithe
Pennywit v. Foote
People V. Ah Fat
V.
V. State
'
100
212
70
104
Co
229
153
145
Co
V.
v.
183
Hodge
v.
32
227
han
Penny
Gaines
State
V.
Payne
167
"
''
v.
Rider
V.
219
v.
v.
Patten
157
162
158
The
Mfrs. Ins.
z/.
v.
94
86
Paromore v. Lindsey
Parr v. Greenbush
Parrashick,
f.
Pennoyer
'
Hahn
Parnell v.
Pendleton
118
Jones
V.
'
164
238
77
222
97
237
ig6
55
227
6,9,10,60,62
99
82,93
20
'
lii
PAGE
People
"
'
"
'*
"
'
"
"
"
"
"
'
V.
Devine
229
People
V.
Matteson
z/.
Devlin
118
"
V.
McGloin
V.
Dibble
29
"
w.
V.
199, 201
"
V.
V.
Dohring
Dowling
196
"
z'.
V.
Doyell
201, 235
"
z/.
V.
Eastwood
loi
"
V.
z*.
Fair
113
z'.
Feilen
z;.
V.
V.
"
'
V.
Gay
Gelabert
'
"
75
209
206
V.
V.
Gray
61
V.
Grunzig
62
"
z'.
Nevins
'
V.
Newman
"
z*.
N. Y. Hospital
"
i;.
Hall
82
Hennessy
Henssler
"
V.
"
V.
Hovey
Hoy Yen
V.
Hulbut
z/.
Hunt
201
"
Niles
225
"
i-.
Nyce
i8i
z'.
Overseers, etc
184
V.
"
'
'
53
30
220
"
Parish
V.
Parton
52
7'.
Phillipps
54
V.
59
16
V.
'
V.
Rolf e
'
V.
Ruloff
V.
Ryland
188
'
V.
Shattuck
202
'
V.
Shaw
z/.
SherifT
'
'
"
i
'
56
201, 202
'
Irving
226
215
58,
209
V.
Knapp
61,
227
"
z;.
Knickerbocker
"
"
z/.
71.
V.
V.
f.
V.
z'.
"
V.
"
w.
"
V,
"
"
t'.
59
loi
53
Jackson
Jacobs
Johnson
Keith
Kelley
"
"
"
225
Ramirez
Rathbun
Robinson
"
36,
V.
V.
"
223, 225
"
"
77
194
Noelke
"
"
92
V.
127
V.
"
119
112
V.
"
102
V.
"
86
25,113
119,223
'
"
"
Gibbs
Gonzalez
V.
'
234
53
24
'
'
175
Co
Freshour
Gates
V.
V.
"
Finley
V. Fire Ins.
Miller
Montgomery
Morgan
Murray
'
177,185
McGowan
Mead
195
55, 58, 195
Lake
Lane
Langtree
Laurence
V.
Mahaney
Manning
Markham
V,
Mather. 224,
'
!
230
93
245
'
"
"
"
z*.
Shulman
Simpson
V.
Sligh
V.
Snyder
z".
6i
"
z'.
1061
"
z/.
53
196,1981
"
z'.
"
V.
"
V.
237
118
"
227
z'.
z'.
Soto
Stephens
Stevens
Stone
Suppiger
Swinford
Taylor
60
208
28,30,33
9,59,61
77
122, 153
54,212
47i 87
53
213
122
179
58,60,61
233
"
V.
Thayer
58
"
z/.
Thrall
53
TABLE OF CASES
CITED.
liii
PAGE
People
"
"
"
"
71
"
w.
Jamieson
139
"
V.
Mahan
V.
Walker
Walsh
219
"
V.
McCombs
170
V.
Ward
56
"
f.
Middlesex
Welsh
^ Wentz
I/. Wheeler
V. White
16
"
w.
Thorn
43
234
Philpot
V.
Gruninger
153
Pickard
v.
Bailey
104
"
z*.
Sears
189,271
Pickens
v.
Davis
70
206
V.
V.
"
"
"
54.59
82,238
113
18
Willett
z/.
"
"
V.
Wilson
Wolcott
"
7/.
Wreden
V.
Zeyst
V.
176
147
Bailey
V.
"
V.
"
V.
"
V.
Dickerson
Lovejoy
Randall
Simpson,
Petch
Peter
V.
Lyon
v.
Thickstun
63
Thomas
"
Bury
73
238
Cahill
"
V.
219
Pitts V. State
247
'
'
V.
85
73
120
Wilder
Pittsburg, etc.
42
R, Co.
v.
An-
drews
229
'o. Rob.
"
"
inson... 102
Place V. Gould
"
V.Minster
Plate
z/.
17
11
N. Y. C. R. Co
92
39, 221
Platner v. Platner
83
Fulcher
Piper V. Chappell
Pitcher v. Clark
V.
184
228
206
157
V.
86
15, 25,
Currell
"
Henrice
20
R. Co. v. Anderson 178
*'
" V. Hickman 109
Philbrook v Eaton
Philips V.
V.
186
w.
47
Case
Pipe
V.
"
Pim
208
'
43,
21
83
142
Phene's Trust, In re
Phenix v. Castner
"
Pierce
49
209
"
V.
Andrus
Kenderdine
"
104, 121
v.
v.
"
Indseth
Pinney
Co. ..40, 47
162
Phila., etc.
v.
Pierce
"
Pigott's
Davis
Co.
loi, 105
32
V.
Phil. R.
95
96
Prew
42
103
36
218
Peugh
V.
V. Reynolds
Case
Picton's
Pierson v. Atlantic Bk
"
V. Freeman
"
V. People
Nuttall
Phelps V. Hunt
"
V. Nowlen
Noyes
164
198
etc.
v.
in
v.
'
"
Piers V. Piers
Petrie
'
Pickering
93
68
105
201
v.
v.
loi
81
Perry
"
Petershine
179
55
Phelin
183
233
I/.
"
Phillips V. Allen
Tyler
Velarde
V.
Co
Pleasants
73
etc.
R.
225
v.
Fant
46
liv
PAGE
Plumer
Briscoe
v.
Plummer
Plunkett
v.
133
Currier
52
200
Cobbett
V.
Pocock V. Billing
Poignard v. Smith
44
PAGE
S.
127
v.
Edmonds
184
Pollock
"
V.
Hoag
199
V.
Pollock
230
Appeal
Pullen V. Hutchinson
Pulliam TA Penseneau
Polston
V.
See
176
Putnam
v.
Bond
169
Pontius
V.
People
20
"
57.
Clark
88,159
z/.
Sullivan
Poole
V.
"
V.
14,
Warren
V.
Pope
139
Allen
Devereux
Porter v. Judson
"
7/.
"
!.
Portland
v.
Poteete
v.
Pym
131
169
Richardson
V.
Ex parte
Powers
V.
Gary
V.
Chelsea Sav. Bk
Andrews
White
Pratt's Adm'rs i'. U. S
Preston v. Bowers
Preston's Case
Prevot V. Lawrence
Pratt ?/.
"
V.
McGoldrick
Price
V.
"
w.
State
"
i".
Torrington
13,
88
Quinn
v.
..
115
"
V.
64, 65
Pritt V.
222
20
26
141
195
88,
159
Hobbs.. 233
v.
31
190
36
59
65,258
21
46
153, 222
100,187
Fairclough
65
Bigelow
iii
Proctori'.
85
164
Halbert
32
Radcliff
Ins.
z'.
Co
80
Fursman
Beach
Radcliffe v.
Rae
V.
205
z/.
48
Bk. of Ashland. 117
"
z'.
Cunnington.
"
V.
Nat.
Railroad Co.
"
Woodworth
163
118
z/.
87
232, 250, 279
Quinn
Quinsigamond Bk.
105
Glover
Ehle
80
Groton
Pringle v. Leverich
"
V. Pringle
v.
Prince v. Skillin
v.
166
Q
Quackenbush
Queen's Case
"
Prindle
189
Campbell
71
Bank
Powell,
V.
199
94
',.>.
Priest
134
145, 151
State
Potter V. Deyo
"
f. National
"
Ware
"
194
63
117,122
Waring
Supervisors
V.
133
208
48
Wilson
Porter's Appeal
Post
Pulford's
Bk
Randegger v. Ehrhardt
Rankin z*. Blackwell
Ransom v. Wheeler
Rapalye v. Rapalye
81
90
141
132
43
35
147
168
TABLE OF CASES
CITED.
Iv
PAGE
Wales
Rathbone v. Hooney
RatclifF V.
197
kau
v.
Brown
93
124
188
V.
Doe
133
People
V.
Rawley
Rawson
Raynes
v.
;'.
Haigh
18
Bennett
21, 198
Rea V. Tucker
Read v. State
Readman v. Conway
197
14
40
226
People
Rearden v. Minter
Rector z*. Comm
Real
Redd
V.
133
56
State
V.
Reddington v. Gilman
Redlich v. Bauerlee
"
V.
Doll
f.
"
t-.
"
I/.
V.
.
U. S
Wilson
168
179
Cheadle
Chidley & Cummins
138
270
173,
58
66
Clapham
Cliviger
36
Castleton
20
Butler
Canning
Clarke
235
209
Clewes
56
Boyes
65
Spaulding
Boswell
139
160
Reedz^. N. Y. C. R. Co..
"
56
54,
R.
235
57
15,
209, 210
Cole
24
Cooper
29
Cresswell
187
Davis
Donellan
Doolin
29
21
222
Dove
106
Drummond
.Dunn
237
29
117
Edmunds
18
127
Eriswell
76
108
Exeter
70
196
Fennell
54
Reffell V. Reffell
162
Forster
29
Regan
Dickinson
Reinhart v. People
31
15
Reitz
23
v.
V.
State
Remington Co.
Remsen
v.
People
Ressequie v. Byers
R. V.
v.
6,
Foster
Francis
Francklin
113
Garbett
89
249
174
Garner
Gazard
Geering
Gilham
V.
Adamson
V.
All Saints,
V.
Baker
V.
Baldry
V.
Barnard
V.
Bathvvick
209
Griffin
V.
Bedingfield
7,
Halliday
V.
Bembridge
xvii
V.
Blake
11
V. Bliss
Worcester
54,
210
258
=57
21
73
Fowkes
Gordon
Gould
Gray
Harborne
Hardy
Harringworth
30
80
29,
58,
209
35,
252
198
35
57
159
35,
57
253
276
210
184
11,
200
132,
264
TABLE OF CASES
Ivi
CITED.
PAGE
R.
PAGE
V.
88;
ter
.
R. V. Stone
Haworth
'
V.
'
"
136
y.
181
Sutton
Tait
242
Thompson
195
80
Heyford
.Hind
69
62
Hogg
76
125
V.
Turberfield
114
Turner
V.
Home Tooke
109
"
Hull
Hutchins
167
"
V.
Holt
Thornhill
V.
'
"
Holmes
z'.
'
30
"
j
235
'
'
62
'
54, 181
'
Jenkins
Llanfaethly
V.
Twyning
Walker
'
V.
Warwickshall
'
V.
Watson
'
V.
Webb
'
V.
Weeks
'
88
Hutchinson
Jarvis
'
Whitehead
140
"
f.
Widdop
57
"
z/.
Wiltshire
21
"
V.
Wood
19
Woodcock
63
Luffe
184
Reynolds, In re
Lumley
184
Reynolds
v.
Manning
Mainwaring
iii
"
V.
Robinson
Mansfield
Martin
184
"
235
62
.Mead
.
Moore
29
222
I'.
57
129, 135
"
251
62
274
19,
194
Lloyd
Lord George Gordon
Lord Thanet
96
177
Mosly
57
62
Oddy
29
" f.
Rhine
J'U. s
Robinson
v.
Rhodes
v.
Rice
Comm
V.
Seibert
58
177
209
52, 64
102, 170
^^
78
137
211, 220
V. Rice
Richards v. Skiff
131
236
'
'
loi
Orton
82,
Palmer
15, 32, 106,
Parbhudas and Others
Patch
Payne
226
Richie v. State
107
Rider
v.
248
"
V.
Legg
White
Riggs
V.
Pursell
87
V.
Tayloe
139
Pike
237
Reeve
Richardson
Robinson
15
'
195
54
35, 200, 201
Rowton
58
114, 262
Russell
274
Scaife
Scott
58,
Sparkes
Stephenson
210
275
241
'
Riley
v.
Ripley
Ripon
Suydam
v.
V.
Burgess
Bittell
131
30
49
119
83
Roady
v. Finegan
Roath V. Driscoll
Robards v. Marley
Robb V. Hackley
Robb's Appeal
Robbins v. Chicago
209
104
235
197
94
Ivii
PAGE
Robbins
f.
Robbins
"
7'.
State
Roberge
I'.
211
Burnham
Good
V.
PAGE
226
Hamilton
60
"
z'.
'176
"
V.
132
Rose
V.
Chapman
177
"
V.
Himely
Robert ?.
Roberts -'. Chittenden
King
Wright
80,116,151
202, 204
45
84
V.
Doxen
138
Roseboom
V.
Johnson
105
V.
43
Rosenthal v. Walker
Ross V. Ackerman
V.
Medbery
Noyes
V.
Ogdensburgh,
R.
V.
V.
Orr
Spencer
V.
State
V.
Walley
Robertson
i*.
19,
Bullions
Hay
Adams
"
v.
7'.
"
V.
"
V.
"
V.
"
V.
"
V.
I'-
& W.
R. Co...
Rounds
171
Rowand
v.
Rowley
v.
State
"
V.
Stophel
West
Ins.
Rock Island
v. Decker
V.
213
Rumsey v.
Runyan v.
191
Rusling
19
85,
v.
99
Finney
162
L. & N. W. Ry.... 105
Co. v. Noble
210
Ruddell V. Fhalor
Rufer V. State
RulofTs Case
Rockwell V. Taylor
7, 47
Roderigas v. East River Sav.
Inst
127
Rousillon
87
176
Rodgers
Ruch
McCormick
V.
Ruckman
Randall
13.
Royal
V.
34
158
U. S
Yarrow
99
Roth V. Roth
100
Rothrock v. Gallaher
230
Rothschild v. Amer. Ins. Co... 176
Rousillon
Marks
Myers
State
189
104
33
119
Brown
V. F.
Doland
Wood
218
158, 160
V.
Robinson
54
16
240
Price
231
225
V.
Bray
Church
V.
Hallett
185
z".
Russell
97
"
V.
Hudson
"
7'.
Place
163
Riv. R.
v.
Hannam
Merram
155
128
Ryall
V.
v.
Allen
12
Ryan
v.
"
I'.
Anderson
48
"
f.
Andrews
Greenwood
Gwinn
47
People
Pyerson v. Abington
Ryerss v. Wheeler
''
'
'
V.
V.
v.
'
V. Ritter
'
V.
'
Davis
Zook
47
100
z^.
log
Co. 237
93
Page
Rutland
Rogers
d.
78
45
189
Lovell
119
4
37
z*.
"
14
68
t'.
"
128
139
Billington
34
123
V.
86
v.
Boswell
191
"
etc.
Co
Roberts' Will, In re
Roe
Root
172
41
IS
231
168, 170
104
232
32
Sage
Harpending
Sailor v. Hertzogg
V.
98
la
TABLE OF CASES
Iviii
CITED.
PAGE
St.
John
"
V.
Amer.
V.
Croll
Ins.
Co
St.
St.
Females
Samuels v. Borrowscale
Sanderson v. Coleman
V. Peabody
Sandifer
Sandilands, In re
Sargeant v. Sargeant
Sargent v. Adams
'
'
Schaser
Schell
V.
94
v.
Ocean Nat.
Secor
94
86
Sturgis
V.
144
Secrist v. Petty
125
191
f.
Engell
222
86
Seeley
Selden
v.
Canal Co
43
Selkirk
v.
Cobb
146
222
155
Selover
y.
Rexford's E.xcr
237
Servis v. Nelson
169
Sewell
233
Se.xton
V.
230
Bridgewater
102
iv.
Seymour
129
Shaffer
Fellows
z^.
103, 105
Shaffer
v.
Shaffner
131
Gardner
-'.
Seybolt
104
199
76, 156
223
Plumb
83
Schisby
v.
Westenholz
Schlicht
V.
State
Schmidt f. N. Y.,
Schmied v. Frand
99
124
etc. Ins.
46
192
Bk
State
v.
v.
68
Comm
v.
25
Bumstead
199 Shaughnessy v. Lewis
Keener
v.
Wingate
15
Miller
V.
Scharff
Sears
85
Sayres v. Comm
Schafer v. Schafer
Schall
146
47
Briggs
v.
v.
41
V. Wilson
Saunders v. McCarthy
Savage v. O'Neil
Saveland v. Green
Sayles
Searight
169
Hoard
v.
PAGE
Craighead
134
Co. 176
198
Shailer
Shaw
v.
^2>^
47
42,
162
V.
Emmery
233
V.
Mason
137
W.Tobias
Shawneetown v. Mason
loi
'
'
"
Sheaffer
Sheen
117
Eakman
v.
42
Bumpstead
v.
31
v.
Towns-
ley
36
Ex parte
210
Sheldon
v.
Benham
63
Freeman v. Buckingham.
Schrauth v. Dry Dock Bk
193
"
z/.
Patterson
92
V.
Wright
Scholfield,
Sch.
Schroeder
Schultz
w.
V.
Railroad
Co
Third Avenue
Co
Scotia,
"
"
"
v.
Copley
The
z*.
Pentz
V.
People
V.
Sampson
Waithman
t/.
Williams
Scovill V. Baldwin
Searcy v. Miller
V.
Shelp
V.
Shepard
R.
226, 228
Schuylkill Co.
Scott
"
93
128
195
121
141
Morrison
Potter
z'.
Shephard, In re
Shepley v. Waterhouse
Sheppard v. Giddings
"
Yocum
V.
98
140,
141
221
140
46
139
229, 234
60
Sheridan
v.
New Quay
192
115
Sherman
v.
People
128
V.
Wilder
33, 162
133
"
218
Sherwood
v.
Pratt
220
"
V.
"
V.
Sherwood
Titman
195
130
....165, 168
31
Comm
Shifflet V.
Shinkle
PAGE
260
Boucher
v.
55
108
Crock
v.
Shirts V.
Overjohn
Shockey
v.
Miles
Slossen
Small
Smith
V.
Beattie
162
V.
46
"
V.
132
V.
Blakey
Cawlin
Chapin
V.
Collins
45
I/.
Comm
55,56
"
171
'
230
258, 259
State
v.
196
74
29
State
v.
Shufflin V. People
Shuler
160
v. Gillette
Shurtleff v. Parker
"
V. Willard
Shuttle
Waffle
Sibley
v.
Sill V.
Reese
Simmons
f.
Havens
"
V.
New
"
V.
Simpson
v.
"
f.
St.
V.
Sinclair
"
"
"
V.
Forrest
V.
Frankfield
V.
Hickenbottom
V.
Law
V.
204
V.
Long
McCool
McGovvan
McNeal
Morgan
V.
'
"
'
'
"
'
'
"
V.
109
"
V.
"
f.
'
etc.
'
Co
133
153
136
"
I/.
Sac Co
178
44
115
"
V.
Shoemaker
"
V.
Smith
Whippingham
50
Wilson
V. Yaryan
Snow V. B. & M. R. Co
V. Gould
Snyder f. Comm
170
V.
I/.
Murphy
191
Garbett
v.
Slatterie v. Poolcy
v.
Bennett
Sloan
V.
Edwards.
"
V.
N. Y. C. R.
Slocumb
V.
Co.
83
66, 75,
76
41
Burlington
Slingerland
no
36
Co
Co
'
"
'
'
V.
V.
V.
114
McKeever
109
Winsor
McCulloh
Somerville,
188
204
'
77
128
230
236
102
'
Sohns
31
153
86, 172
'
143
Railroad
87
44
Porter
V.
v.
87
158
N. Y. C. R. Co
"
Skilbeck
66
V.
"
etc. R.
loi
64,
V.
154
Cleveland,
73
98
"
95, 195
Gehr
72,
"
Baggallay
V.
13
212
159
42,
Mcf'arland.
129
230
100
v.
v.
84
V.
V.
'
66
Easton
Ehanert
Floyd
Forbes
V.
'
204
Dall
Sitler V.
Slasser
"
'
"
Rudall
'
71
131
Bedford,
Dix
i". Westenberger
Sims
"
Sims
227
222
Thompson
V.
50
"
no
Showalter
Aldrich
"
Shore v. Wilson
Shorey v. Hussey
Lee
61
V.
189
Short) V. Kinzie
V.
27
Comm
127
Short
Co
Railroad
v.
V.
etc.
Doughty
68
47
R.
Co.
v.
223
W.
School Dist.
v.
Williams.
Spargo
Spatz
v.
151
V.
129
"
V.
170
V.
i'.
Hedges
81
"
Jacoby
80
"
z*.
256
"
V.
38
"
V.
z^.
Brown
Lyon
V.
V.
PAGE
State
"
72
Hallenbeck
V.
Bloom
Bohan
B. & M. R. Co
Bridgman
Briggs
v.
"
"
V.
Hedges
83
"
z".
Clare
Clinton
y.
Vincent
104,144
"
V.
Damery
"
V.
Spears
Specht
Sperry
v.
Spitley
V.
v.
State
V.
Howard
55
222
Moore's Estate
Frost
Co.
Evans
State
v.
Stape
v.
V.
'
V.
"
V.
"
z'.
103
"
"
v.
87
"
V.
Egan
V.
Elliott
V.
Kassett
'
V.
Fay
'
V.
Feltes
"
z'.
Fitzgerald
"
7'.
211, 234
'
"
'
'
''
z'.
Foote
Forshner
Fortner
V.
Fraunburg
V.
Gann
V.
Gedicke
Gilman
Glynn
V.
King
201
Genoa
Staring v. Bowen
45
156
61, 62
"
234
"
V.
155
"
V.
Stapleton
Starin
v.
v.
Starkey v. People
Starks v. People
Starkweather
State V. Able
v.
Martin
77, 78
V.
Albert
V.
Alexander
V.
Alford
V.
Allen
V.
Arnold
&
zr.
B.
V.
Barrowes
P. R.
V. Bartlett
V.
Benner
53
14
'
"
"
'
V.
Graham
"
V.
Grant
Grear
'
'
'
V.
"
V.
211
"
z/.
10
*'
224, 245
Co
'
181
'
'
196
"
179
"
"
V.
56
17
125
110,209
222
23
54
Dennin
Dickinson
Dickson
"
'
99
239
z'.
56
Danforth
Davis
V Donovan
V. Dunnell
177
231
195
People
'
V.
87
29
Hopkins
v. Crosby
Stanwood v. McLellan
Stanbro
Stanton
'
222
239
'
34
31,210
210
Brockman
Brown
Byrne
Spaulding
41
113
258
Gurnee
Hamilton
Harper
V.
Hastings
V.
V.
Hayden
Heed
V.
Heinrich
235
60,62
15,101
127
122
233
14.61, 237
201
209
59
77
218
235, 236
55
62
175
32
58,
59
230
14
59
128, 135
179
62
no
loi, 105, 106
213
179
TABLE OF CASES
CITED.
Ixi
PAGE
State
V.
Hendricks
235
t'.
"
"
Henke
185
V.Hodge
"
V.
'
'
"
"
"
"
179
"
V.
Niles
17
iii
"
V.
25
Hoyt
Humbird
198
z'.
V.
Intoxicating Liquors.
V.
V.
V.
!.
Ivins
"
f.
"
"
Jones
Kelly
V.
"
234
211
Hodgskins
Hopkins
Houser
"
'
PAGE
State V. Nelson
"
V. Nichols
I/.
V.
V.
"
V.
"
'
83
'
77
V.
Nugent
Ober
V.
Peck
'
V.
Phair
63
'
V.
59
'
155
n3
'
17
"
V.
Phelps
Pike
17,54,196
"
V.
Potter
179
"
I/.
Powers
King
Kingsbury
Kinney
''
113
209
155
201
55, 187
122
Co
V.
Railroad
Randolph
245
"
z'.
17
"
v.Ked
'
V.
Klinger
105
"
V.
Redemeier
'
V.
231
"
V.
Reed
'
V.
Knight
Knowles
53
"
V.
Resells
V.
Lamb
59
"
V.
Richards
114
"
V.
Riggs
10
"
V.
Rodman
'
'
'
"
"
'
'
"
'
'
V.
Lapage.... 33,
Larkin
Lawlor
V.
Levy
z/.
V.
58,
34, 113,
234
194
Romaine
183
221
'
V.
Roswell
Ill
'
V.
Rush
V.
233
221
Lewis
V.
Lonsdale
V.
Macdonald
86
"
V.
Sayers
Scanlan
V.
Mallon
Markins
16
"
V.
Shaffer
31
"
V.
z'.
"
228
'
208,211
'
''
V.
Mayberry
141
"
"
V.
McAllister
117
"
V.
Shee
Smith
Soper
"
V.
McCaffrey
245
"
V.
Staley
'
"
V.
z'.
McDonnell
V.
McGlothlen
"
V.
McKean
211
"
V.
"
V.
V.
McLaughlin
Mewherter
229
"
203
"
z'.
"
*'
'*
53
''
211
"
f.
Miller
238
"
z'.
Minnick
121
"
V.
Morris
"
V.
Mortimer
Mosley
**
?/.
17
30
113, 220
Rorabacher
Litchfield
'
55
V.
V.
'
179
236
"
z/.
209
18,
V.
"
'*
195.233
209
''
"
"
26,34
'
'
'
'
z*.
Stein
z/.
Sullivan
V S wayze
Tatro
194
179
188
223
200
56. 59
232
61
223
55
V.
Thompson
Timmens
211
V.
Tully
211
"
V.
Turner
56
"
V.
Wagner
96
"
f.
Walker
155
221, 236
81, 125
Ixii
PAGE
Ward
State
V.
"
w.
"
-'.
"
V.
Warner
Welch
Wentworth
"
V.
Westfall
"
>.
White
"
z'.
no,
29,
226, 234
PAGE
Stoddard
z;.
De
V.
209
Stokes
"
z'.
Macken
258
"
V.
People
210
205,236
31,120
Stolp
V.
Stone
V.
V.
"
V.
187
"
V.
Wilson
210
Story
"
"
V.
178
Stott V.
V.
Wingo
Witham
224
Stout
V.
Wood
'
60, 202
"
t'.
Woodson
"
z'.
Worthingham
14
Staunton v. Parker
Stead V. Heaton
Stearns v. Doe
"
206
Strang
137
"
V.
Field
"
V.
Stebbins
Steed
V.
Stein
Bowman
v.
75,
Relief Ins.
Co
217
88
People
"
f.
Vrooman
38
McNamara
Hoy
187
v.
Stevenson
v.
"
V.
Stier
106
139
Superior Ct
v. First
Nat.
Bk
Keteltas
z'.
Carpenter
Stimpson v. Brooks
Stoate
Buckingham
v.
Huidekopers
Stitt V.
232
Strong's Excrs
108
'
Stroud
236
224
Tilton
V.
Freccia
v.
Stockbridge Co.
'
V.
Summerbell
v.
v.
State
211
V. Le\is
'
etc.
164
Co.
Ins.
R. Co.
V.
219
"
V. British, etc.
"
z/.
V.
Swartz
Sweet
Comm
Middlesex
Chickering
V.
V.
Sherman
z'.
Tuttle
'
78
86, 199
Swan
165
77,
Cannon
Susquehanna
'
71
112
61,
221
38
Hudson Co.
Summerbell
Summons
222
Comm
213
89
v.
v.
64
80
39,
Swain v. Frazier
Swaine v. Seamens
142
Dryden
V.
Supples
269
172,
z'.
Sullivan
Co
173, rj4o
Stoate
V.
Stobart
Lord
'
Susq.
117
Stilwell V.
Stirling
V.
v.
Strong
85
41
Allen
Stiles V.
V.
People
Gardiner
Connell
78
164
Wells
Oskaloosa
v.
z'.
93
219
87,
85
179
Moore
V.
136
v.
"
16, 113,
Lord
Bennett
Stephens
Stewart
"
77
z/.
Sturla
Steinbach
Stevens
190
208
v.
V.
155
Cruise
Steele v.
Steen
225
Cook
Stringer
105
Duncan.
z/.
235
21
People
6,
Stowell V. Chamberlain
in
69
117
14,228
Bishop
Rutherford
V.
Stover
97
222
Blair
Segur
Storm V U. S
'
52
v.
Williams
Wilner
Tastet
Johnson
Johnson
17
28, 55,
Stockfleth
v.
Toy
Quick
37
42
...
238
70,
171
163
164
23
Co. ...190, 272
102
239
234
93
Co.
16,
32
'
TABLE OF CASES
CITED.
Ixiii
PAGE
Sydleman
v.
Beckwith
V.
"
z".
"
loi
Van
v.
Tassell
Tarns
V.
Haskell
"
V.
Higginbotham.
V.
Stewart
V.
Whitman
99
V.
Woolf
75
-'
Thomson
134
206
R.
etc.
200
120
.
219
121
v. State
17
18
130
34
"
"
157
Hitner
v.
54.56
189
Co
43
Harris
V.
Comm
89
Taddiker v. Cantrell
Talbot V. Hodson
Talcott
20,
Engle
German,
"
Tabor
Blanchard
Bowie
V.
V.
"
140
Bonner
"
155
Sykes, In re
Sykes v
v.
61
Knapps
v.
Thompson
Heirs
230
Tanner v. Parshall
Tarbox v. State
^
Tate V. Tate
Taylor
v.
Foster
204
"
V.
Oilman
16
"
V.
Glaser
155
"
V.
Gould
V.
V.
G. T. R.
Larkin
V.
Peck
"
"
"
44
66
Co
41,
Thurman
Tillou
'
44
199
128
v.
Thurtell v.
V.
State
V.
Withams
V.
Terwilliger
Tilton
i>.
43
169
107
V.
Titford V.
Titus
69
Co. 158
W.Miller
Tioga Co.
195
176
Tilson
"
146
T'.
"
Cameron
Beaumont
Ash
V.
233
Teague
Tedens
v.
Irwin
Toebbe
58
Tome
Ins.
v.
Huntingdon
z'.
Berger
R.
Tooker
Totten
V.
Bucy
"
-'.
U. S
Tuttle
115
172
"
V.
V.
Nelson
Stivers
Fisher
245
Boston
31
120
95
134
138, 164
123
'
"
v.
v.
52
40
200
Pepperell
134
128, 141
Towne v. Butterfield
Townsend v. Merchants'
Co
230
Conner
v.
Topliff V. Jackson
v.
V.
Derby
233
v.
Thayer
Thielmann v. Burg
Thomas v. Hubbell
"
V. Le Baron
v.
Tompson v.
'
100, 126
"
"
159
etc.
Ill
Tomlinson
234
Thayer
"
V.
Co
224
v.
Co
Tenney
Williams
Parkersburgh,
v.
Schumers
Teerpenning v. Corn Ex.
Teese
71
Everhart
190
Ins.
52
66
21
162
155
TABLE OF CASES
Ixiv
CITED.
PAGE
Brown
Treadway v. S. C, etc.
Trelawney v. Coleman
Travis
Trotter
Truax
R. Co..
,
McLean
v.
169
V.
Farrington
155
V.
Guiteau
197, 198
140, 208
Call
V.
&
R. R.
Payson
v.
v.
Comm
V.
Green
Turnpike Co.
V.
v.
Turrell
Warren
V.
Hunter
V.
171
V.
137
V.
Jackson
Jones
Linn
v.
<^
Fickett
"
V.
Flanders
V.
Todd
V.
Ulmer
V.
U.
Macomb
121, 147
r'.
McKee
178
V.
130
I'.
121, 123
J'.
128
V.
Perot
81
V.
Pocklington
204
I'-
10
77,
78
209
98
200
117
36
146
56
V.
Stone
Tilden
55
140
89
V.
Van
233
i>.
Walker
169
V.
Williams
74, 75
V.
Wood
213
Wright
Burrage
117
10
84
Submarine,
202
11
Moses
Noelke
Percheman
S.
223
158
McCarthy
C. P. N. R. Co...
Tyler
58
etc.
123
V.
Knight
140
V.
O'Brien
V.
Twomley
Tyng
Co
176
169,
M'Kean
Turquand
'
V.
18
v. Baily
"
''
V.
117
Co
Turner's Adm'r
'
44
239
Charlestown
V. P.
Turnbull
Tuska
Woolsey
t'.
v.
193
224
McKechnie
v.
'
V.
58, 202
V.
z'.
"
'
36
Clark
Dickinson
V.
Bledsoe
Tucker
Turner
V.
V.
"
v.
32
195, 211
71
"
Tufts
Charles
Calhoun
Colegrove
v.
Tunlow
Biebusch
v.
U. S.
Duff
Duffy
Eighteen Barrels,
Slater
v.
Trustees
"
''
V.
47
iii
v.
etc.
240
V.
Unity
V.
Sickle
98
36
175
Upstone V. People
Upthegrove v. State
Utica Ins. Co. v. Cadwell
loi
14
140
U
Udderzook
v.
Comm
V
20, 128
Ulrich V. People
55
Vaise
Union v. Plainfield
Union Bk. t'. Knapp
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Shoup...
74
Van
Van
Van
Van
Van
U. S.
'
'
"
63
47
V.
Amedy
121, 150
V.
Angell
V.
Babcock
77
^7, 140
v.
Deleval
Aernam
v.
201
Van Aernam
Bokkelen v. Taylor
Brunt v. Day
Buren v. Cockburn
der Donct v. Thellusson.
Vandervoort I'. Smith.
.,,,
.
183
154
163
159
104
12)
TABLE OF CASES
CITED.
Ixv
PAGE
Vanderwerker
v.
Van
Van
Van
Van
People
122
Duyne
v.
Thayre
Gelder
v.
Van Gelder
Houten
Keuren
41, 139
v.
Post
r.'.
Parmalee.
41
170
... 45,
Vanneter v. Grossman
Van Nostrand v. Moore
Van Rensselaer v. Jones
"
"
V. Vickery
Van Sickle v. Gibson
39
169
130
154
v.
Forsaith
Veiths
V.
Hagge
Jackson
188
V.
Hopp
213
Bk
94
Schall
65
46
Randall
Wallize v. Wallize
166
47
162, 171
Walls V. Bailey
Walrath I/. Whittekind
Walsh V. People
164
167
23
224
14,
V. Porterfield
Ward
7
233
236
Henry
120
Kilpatrick
127
Lewis
Oxford
People
15s
'
V.
'
V.
'
179
T'.
I'.
'
V.
'
72
56
224
King
43
185
V.
'
137
158
146
Lockerby
v.
233
N. Y. C. R. Co.... 26
86
Comings
V.
Gabriel
230
Gregg
V. Warren
Washburn v. Cuddihy
Water Comm'rs v. Lansing
Waterman v. Whitney
Waters v. People
Waters Heater Co. v. Smith
Watkins v. Holman
162
V.
92
64
v. Griffiths
V.
237
V. Littell
Vooght V. Winch
Vosburgh v. Thayer
Vrooman
226
Warren
188 Ware v. Morgan
40 Waring v. Smyth
208 Warner v. Hurdy
V. Burrill
Vining v. Baker
Vogel V. Osborne
Volant V. Soyer
Von Sachs v. Kretz.
R'y.
V.
"
Vinal
156
St.
Walter v. Gernant
Walters 7j. State
168 Walton V. State
177 Wandell v. Edwards
V.
v.
v.
87
Vigel
Vilmar
Walker
Taunton
v. Wylie
v.
116, 147
Viele
Nat.
Wallis
74
z/.
Veazie
46
Walker
Wallace
Wallack
V.
Warren
'
'
'
'
V.
'
36
82
'
W
Wadsworth
v.
"
v.
Wagenseller
Wakeman
v.
Sharpsteen
Williams
v.
Immers
84
42
20
208
Bailey
V. Pintard
Walbridge v. Knippen.
77, 78, 79
Waldele v. N. Y. C. R. Co.. 6, 7, 9 Watry v. Ferber
Walden v. Davison
140 Watson V. Brewster
*'
V. Comm
162
Waldron v. Waldron
"
V. Riskamire
Walker v. Chase
.192
"
"
V. Rodwell
V. Dunspaugh
225
.
"
?/.
People
179
'
y.
Walker
145
18
6,
179
.
30
151
141
236
74, 76
179,213
222
125
144, 151
TABLE OF CASES
Ixvi
CITED.
PAGE
Wayland v. Ware
Weaver v. Leiman
Webb
V.
"
"
V.
Buckalew
V.
"
V.
East
Richardson
'
66, 74, 76
Bird
Webster
186
87
State
V.
'
145
Mann
v.
Weed
V.
Weeks
v.
"
V.
Wehle
Lowerre
Sparke
Spelman
z/.
Wehrkamp
v.
Willet
f.
Salisbury
234
Whitcher
"
83
203
207
93
230
z-.
McLaughlin...
V.
Morey
78
z'.
Shattuck
31
"
Whitcomb v. Whiting
White V. Beaman
"
z'.
51
"
V.
233
132
"
z/.
Graves
"
V.
Merritt
48, 49
68
86
Continental Nat. Bk. 191
V.
Miller
V.
131
"
5
86
45
V.
Milwaukee R. Co
Murtland
'
V.
Ross
'
V.
Weatherbee
z*.
Wood
'
'
"
32
88
130
R.
234
40
52
208
"
Whitman
Weston
V.
v. Krumweide
Eames
"
?'.
Gravlin
v.
v.
Norris
Stillman
Wetmore
v.
Carryl
Weyman
v.
People
Whalin
v.
Wharam
Wheat
White
v.
Routledge
Summers
Wheatly v. Baugh ............
V.
Heneberry
156
Whitney
v.
Leominster
34
"
V.
Thacher
v.
83,102
Barlow.. 176
"
Ins.
V.
&
Wiggin
z^.
B.
"
z".
Goodrich
240
"Wiiggins V.
i86
"
V.
A. R.
Burkham
People
Wigglesworth
V.
Co.
80,
ISO
Whittlesey
35
190
40
45
185
165
179
82
Nicoll
V.
"
V. Edmunds
87 Whitney Arms Co. v.
Western Trans. Co. v. Barber. 192 Whiton V. Albany, etc.
W. U. Tel. Co. V. Hopkins
129
Wetherbee
236
Whitehead v. Kennedy
185 Whitehouse v. Bickford
Co. 140 Whiting V. Lake
Smith
Westcott z'. Atlantic Co
Wetherill
128
163
V.
Westmann
66, 136
Chase
"
97
194
Wentworth
Wertheim v. Continental
Wertz V. May
Wesner v. Stein
West
"
120
V. Wells
Wendlinger v. Smith
v.
76
"
Stevens
Wentvvorth
Jackson
28
Wellford v. Eakin
Wells V. Company
7/.
z/.
199, 237
7'.
"
"
"
25
87
v.
210
jj
71, 259, 260
Weigand v. Sichels
Welcome v. Batchelder
Weldon
Harlem R. Co
Ruckman
v.
Lynch
Whelpley v. Loder
Whitaker v. Izod
67
V.
'
Whelan
237
Paul
People
'
PAGE
Wheeler
Co
102, 180
85
76
23
132, 264
164
42
166
40, 124
14
PallisQH,.i64, 267
TABLE OF CASES
Wightman
v.
Coates
211
WikofTs Case
Wilberforce
Wilbur
Wilder
v.
159
82
Hearfield
Selden
77
v. Cowles
177
Wilkins w. Babbershall
230
Willett V. People
54
Williams v. Bridges
50
"
I/. Comm
58,213,247
"
w. East India Co
177
V.
Wing
Winn
CITED.
Ixvii
V.
Chesterfield
z/.
Patefson
24J
156
Winooski v. Gokey
Withington v. Warren
Wolf
117
199
Comm
V.
56
Womack Tankersley
Wood V. Chetwood
in
?'.
198
"
z'.
Fowler
"
z/.
Ins.
Co
123
"
V.
Morehouse
187
122
"
V,
Floyd
132
"
V.
State
"
I/.
Freeman
162
"
V.
Steele
"
z/.
z/.
Graves
Gunnels
176
Woodbury
Woodcock
V.
Obear
Houldsworth
V.
Montgomery
201
Woodford
v.
People
V.
Sergeant
42,221
Woodman
v.
Dana
no
V.
State
no
zi.
Segar
131
Wilkes
Williams
121
"
"
"
"
"
z/.
"
z/.
69
91
Willis V. Hulbert
163
Wilmington v. Burlington
Wilson V. Anderton
74
192
"
V.
"
V.
"
V.
'
'
V.
'
V.
'
"
"
"
"
"
Boerem
Bowden
Deen
Granby
V.
Knapp
M. & N.
z*.
New
z".
O'Day
47
z/.
Powers
163
>.
Randall
161
R.
Co
Bedford
186
204
"
V.
Sullivan
173
"
z'.
"
V.
Terry
Bishop
78
People
v.
235,236
Leavitt
Grand
St.
201
R. Co.
26
z*.
z*.
z/.
V.
Hanna
Masseras
Nostrand
Paige
71
200
197
102
19,
233
18
14
233
v.U.S
Xenia Bank
v.
149
Stewart
45
223
207
Willson V. Belts
Winchester v. Charter
Angrave
V.
89
19
Wagar
Webber
V.
Wooley
"
233
V.
z'.
Woodward
"
"
"
"
R as tall
"
"
66
State
Wing
Woodruff V. Woodruff
Woods V. Keyes
129
z'.
V.
36
54
Wooster v. Butler
50 Worthington v. Scribner
163 Wottrich V. Freeman
32 Wright V. Doe d. Tatham
z/.
'
"
105
....
60
"
'
v.
6
160
131, 156
43
185
,
41,
90
Yale 7K Comstock
Yates V. Fassett
"
z'. People
"
V, Yates.,,. ..,,,.,
78,
79
87
25
iiQ
TABLE OF CASES
Ixviii
CITED.
PAGE
Fry
Yocum V. Smith
York V. Pease
Yeaton
v.
York
Co.!'. Central R.
York,
etc. R.
V.
Comm
V.
Edwards
"
z/.
Grote
"
z/.
Makepeace
"
"
Young
V.
Perkins
190
"
V.
State
PAGE
68
54, 55
Youngs V. Youngs
219 Yount V. Howell
224
Co
Co. v. Winans
Hall
Young V. Clare
151
209
120
120
258
55
224
Zabriskie
Zepp
V.
v.
State
Hager
190,272
Zerley
v.
23
Zitske
V.
Wilson
Goldberg
211
99
132
199
2oCh.
7
&
12
c.
I.
II. c.
279
186
"
&
7&
Geo. IV.
"
Will. IV.
&
&
&
"
14,
c.
"
0.
212, 279
&
II.
s.
s.
s.
c.
42
c.
50,
c.
94, ss.
"
I
6
8
& 2 Vict.
& 4 Vict.
& 4 Vict.
& 7 Vict.
& 9 Vict.
& 9 Vict.
"
"
"
12 Vict.
s.
"
ss.
c.
"
3
4-7
42
"
280, 287
280
216, 257
s.
279
s.
13
14
&
&
14 Vict.
c.
s.
283
289
ss. 9, 10, II,
I,
s.
14...
146
s.
16...
215
83, ss. I, 2,
279
216
68, 279
100
16
&
17 Vict.
c.
273
114, 279
12, 13
281
17
286
17
146
13
&
&
S.
273
283
s.
i9
18 Vict.
104,
s.
18 Vict.
125,
S.
234
s.
20
214
c.
105
215
ss.
c.
26
c.
105
273
216
c.
85
273, 280
22, 23.
10, s.
113 (preamble)
278
281,
282
ss.
22-27.
282,
283
211, 279
c.
0.
286
19...
48, 279
67, 68,
s.
272, 273
273
.114, 279
118
21, ss. 7, 8
243
114
22
4 Will. IV.
6 Will. IV.
2 Vict.
"
&
113,
287
"
II
c.
210, 280
28
0.
"
9 Geo. IV.
"
"
& 9 Vict.
c.
40 Geo. III. c. 93
41 Geo. III. 0. 90, s. 9
46 Geo. III. c. 37
7 Geo. IV. c. 64, s. 4
39
212,
. .
279
216
63
" ss. 40, 42, 44.. 216
13 Geo. III.
"
PAGE
8
145,
s.
24.
232
280
s.
26.
134.
s.
27
"
"
s. 1
146,
280
"
"
s.
122,
280
265
1
10
Ixx
1-6
PAGE
282
2-3
288
PAGE
i8
19
&
&
19 Vict.
c.
20 Vict.
"
c.
25 Vict.
"
c.
25 Vict.
c. 96, s.
"
24
&
"
24
24
&
&
97,
"
c-
& 29
28 & 29
30 & 31
31 & 32
14
1-3
&
32 Vict.
c. 37, ss.
32
&
33 Vict.
c. 68, ss.
"
"
"
"
33
34 Vict.
282
33
234
284
34
3-8
232
35
no
36
s.
s.
s.
18
106,
I, 7.
228
290
Vict. c. 104,
c.
35,
Vict.
c.
37
197
34
6.217, 242, 279
288
s.
s.
210
3. 197, 273,
281
s.
S.
21
35 Vict.
c.
70,
s.
35 Vict.
36 Vict.
C.
112,
37 Vict,
0.
S.
c. 6, s.
37
37
40
&
&
38 Vict.
c.
38 Vict.
&
41 Vict.
42
&
&
42
214, 283
ss. 2,
79,
66,
"
.134, 265
s.
s.
C.
34 Vict.
103
c. 63, s.
Vict.
34
&
&
&
&
&
s.
"
1-8
3
ss.
c. 49, s. I
282
Vict.
31
279
48
214, 282
282
99- s. 2>7
ss.
28
13
s.
& 29
s.
s.
ss.
ss.
28
192
3.
s.
66
"
25 Vict.
28 Vict.
Ill,
283
288
288
28,
19
279
216, 279
s.
25
s.
76
118
122
273
c.
35
96
c.
14
43 Vict
C.
197
285
43 Vict.
c.
273
207, 285
II
"
ss. 3,
286
..
148
[AMERICAN.]
United States.
Revised Statutes.
(Edition of 1878.)
PAGE
PAGE
218
143
$ 908
145
$ 1778
892
147
895
151
$$4194,4195. 147
214
% 5392
150
pp.1090-1092 149
147
863-868
$ 882-898
216
858
194
$ 882-900
147
^S
863
217
147
863-876.. 217,
lOI
460, 461
140
828
$183
$213
724
214
216
$1
216
Act of Congress
242
$ 474
March
16,
905
148;
906
149
216
196
1878
Maine.
Revised Statutes.
{Edition of 1883.)
c- 73.
c. 81,
19
% 100
130
68
PAGE
PAGE
PAGE
c.
82, 98,
IOC
c. 82,
109
$ 108,
104
c.
82, 109.
c.
82,
c.
134, $ 19.
152
lie. 134
242
Hampshire.
General Laws.
(Edition of 1878.)
PAGE
c.
228, 14.
207
PAGE
c.
I
228, $ 15.
230
PAGE
c.
I
Vermont.
Revised Laws.
(Edition of 1880.)
$1938
130
^ 1943
130
Massachusetts.
Public Statutes.
(Edition of 1882.)
PAGE
Ixxi
TABLE OP STATUTES
Nbw York Code
CITED.
PAGE
PAGE
$$845-851.. 215
214
$ 847
$ 910,911.. 219
214
146
943. 944-
64
943-947-
$851
$ 868
$ 870-886.
942
140
924
% 928
146
63,
14s, 152
145
1209
932
149
217
$ 933
144
957.958.
935-937.. 134
%% 957-962.
961
146
63, 143,
IOII-IO26 217
218
IOI8
144
145
936
148
948-951
$ 952-956. .121,
928-941..
%% 900-909.. 218
962
1521
$ 887-920 ..217,
242
$899
921-924.. 145,
216
PAGB
104 149.
\ 1753
87
211
152
1865
144
2591
145
147
2618-2620 131
70
2621
70
85
188-221
198
PAGE
PAGE
216
PAGE
PAGE
201
265
196
393
58
266
202
211
399
I
55
395
620-657
PAGE
PAGE
New
196
...
71
242
Laws
Laws
of 1880,
c.
36
no
of 1883,
c.
195
134
Jersey.
Revision of Statutes.
(Edition of 1877.)
PAGE
PAGE
p. 378, I.. 228
Illinois.
p. 379,
9.. 228
"
"
PAGE
no
p. 381
of 1883),
"
c.
PAGE
I
p. 595,
$51
Nebraska.
48
228
51, i
p. 543.
10
134
231
229
338
228
228
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
& E
App. Cas
Atk
B.
&A
& Ad
rj
a.
B.
'
B.
Atkyn's Reports.
r>
''
& C
C.
Bell's
& S
Bing. N.
Bligh, N.
B.
Bligh's
& P
N. P
Burr
Burrows' Reports.
Court of Appeal.
Campbell's Reports.
Carrington & Kirwan's Reports.
Camp
&
Car.
C.
Kir
Common Bench
Common Bench
C. B. (N. S.)
Ch.
Reports.
Reports,
Chancery Division.
C C.
C.
r^
Cox, Cr.
'
r^'
C. C.
Puller's Reports.
BuUer, N.
C.
Cases.
Bosanquet &
Br. P.
Crown
Bingham's Reports.
Bingham's New Cases.
Bing
B.
Reports.
Best,
B.
& Bingham's
Beav
Bell,
Broderip
A
Ca
Cox's
Crown Cases.
New
Series.
Series.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
Ixxiv
&F
C.
M. & R
& Marsh
C.
C.
Cowp
& P
'
Cowper's Reports.
Carrington & Paine's Reports.
C.
."
C. P. Div
&
C.
Dear
)
,
Dearsly
De
De
De
G.
&
o T^
&
P
&
Jervis's Reports.
Dearsly
'
_,
^
Crown Cases.
G. M.
G.
Pleas Division.
Crompton &
D. & B.
B
op.
Dear.
Common
& S
Den. C. C
Dovig
Dru. & War
Denison's
Ea
East's Reports,
East, P.
Crown Cases.
Douglas's Reports.
Drury & Warren's Reports.
& B
E. & E
Esp
Ex
E.
Ellis
Ellis
Crown.
Espinasse's Reports.
Exchequer Reports.
Ex. D. .
Ex. Div.
F.
Reports.
& F
Exchequer Division.
Foster
&
Finlason's Reports.
Gen. View. Cr. Law. Stephen's General View of the Criminal Law.
Giffard's Reports, Chancery.
Giff
Godb
Godbolt's Reports.
Hale, P.
Hare,
Hare's Reports.
H. Bl
H. & C
H. & N
H. L. C
H. Blackstone's Reports.
Ir,
Cir.
Ir.
Eq.
Rep
Rep
Irish
Equity Reports
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
& Wal
C
Jac.
Jebb, C.
Keen
L.
& C
Leach
L.
L.
L.
L.
[^.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L,
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
L.
Leach's
Crown
Cases.
J.
Madd
Maddock's Reports.
Man. &
McNally Ev
M. & G
M. &
M. & M
M. & S
M. &
Moo. C. C
Mo. & Ro
Moo. P. C
Pea.
Phi.
Ev
Phill
Reports.
Reports.
on Evidence, loth
Phillips' Reports.
ed.
Ixxv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
Ixxvi
Price
P.
Q.
Price's Reports.
Probate Division.
Q. B.
Rep
Coke's Reports.
R. N.
R.
& R
Russell
Russ. Cri
Simon
Reports.
^
/XT
Simon (N.
c-
S.)
Simon
Simon &
Reports,
^
New
Series.
Stuart's Reports.
'
^.
& Stu
S
L_
'
Sim
.
Simon
Sim.
Selw. N.
Mo
&
Ry.
/-,
Russ. on Crimes
'
Smith, L.
U
C
Star
Starkie's Reports.
Starkie
'!,
,.'
Swa. & Tr
S. T.
or St. Tri
T.
T.
Ad
Term
Tau
Vesey's Reports.
Abr
Wigram,
yj^.
Reports.
Taunton's Reports.
Ve
Vin.
Reports.
'^
State Trials.
Swab.
Swabey
^ & Tristram's
p-
.f
Viner's Abridgment.
or
Wills' Circ.
Ev
Wigram on
Extrinsic Evidence.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
Ixxvii
Abb. Dec
Abb. N. C
Abb. Pr
Abb. Pr. (N.
New
Cases, N. Y.
"
"
"
Alb. L. J
Allen
New
"
Series.
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.
Barbour's Reports, Supreme Court, N. Y.
Barbour's Chancery Reports, N. Y.
Barb
Barb.
Ch
Barr,
Baxt
Beas
Ben
Binn
Bishop, Cr.
Bishop, M.
J.
&
Black
Blackf
Blatch
B.
Mon
Bos
Bradw
Brews
Bump's Fed. Pro
Bush
Cai
Caine's Reports, N. Y.
C. E. Gr
Cf
Cine
Cow
Cowen's Reports, N. Y.
Cranch's Reports, U. S. Supreme Court.
Cr
Bump
111.
on Federal Procedure.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
Ixxviii
Cr. C.
Ct. of CI
Cush
Daly,
Daniel, Neg. Inst
Ch
Del.
Dem
Den
Dill
Disney
Duer
Dutch
Dutcher's Reports, N.
Sm
E. D.
J.
Common
Pleas,
N. Y.
F.
Fost
&
G.
Gill
Gr.
Gr.
& Johnson's
Gill's
Gill
Reports, Md.
Reports, Md.
Ch
Ev
Gratt
Gray
N. Y.
Hill,
Hill's Reports,
Hilt
Houst. C.
How. Pr
How. (U.
S.)
& Sp
Johns. Cas
Ch .,,,....,
Pleas,
N. Y.
Y.
Johns
Johns.
Common
Humph
Hun
J.
J.
. .
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
Comm
Kent's
Keyes
Ann
La.
Lans
Lea
Low
McCrary
McL
Mackey
Mass. Pub. St
Md. Ch
Met
Mo. App
N. J. Eq
N. J. L
N. J. Rev
N. S
Code
Code
N. Y.
Civ.
O. St
P.
&
Pai
Cr
Park.
Cr. Pro.
Pet
Pet. C.
Pick
R. S
Revised
Redf
Rev. St
Revised Statutes.
Robertson's Reports, Superior Court, N. Yt
Rob
S
S.
.Statutes.
Section.
S. P.
Same
Same
Case.
Principle,
Ixxix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
Ixxx
S.
& R
Sandf.
Sandf.
Ch
Scammon's Reports,
Scam
Sneed,
Story,
Sumn
T.
& C
111.
Reports,
Supreme Court,
N. Y.
Tucker
Vr.
Vroom's Reports, N.
W. D
W. & M
Weekly Digest, N. Y.
Woodbury & Minot's Reports, U.
Wall
Wash. C. C
Washb. R. P
Watts
Wend
Wh. Cr. Ev
Wh. Ev
Whart
Wheat
J.
S. Circuit Court.
Washburn on Real
Wharton on Evidence.
Woods
Zab
Zabhskie's Reports, N.
J.
CONTENTS.
PART
I.
RELEVANCY.
Chapter
Art.
Definition of
I.
Chaptfr
Art.
3.
2.
II.
Of Facts
Preliminary.
Pages
in issue
3-4
issue.
may be proved
Facts in issue
7.
I.
Terms
4.
Acts of Conspirators
subsequent
Motive, preparation,
5.
Title
6.
Customs
explanatory
conduct,
state-
ments
Chapter
Art.
14.
Art.
15.
IV.
Section
I.
certain cases.
when
Admissions defined
in
and
16.
17.
CONTENTS.
Ixxxii
21.
to by party
Confessions defined
threat, or promise,
ceeding
23.
made under a promise of secrecy
when deemed
sons,
of death
27.
sional duty
to
be relevant
Declarations
28.
made
general rights
25.
26.
in the
31.
29. Declarations by
Declarations as to public and
Declarations as to pedigree 32. Evidence given
in
22.
when irrelevant in Criminal ProConfessions made upon oath, etc. 24. Confession
by inducement,
30.
Section
Pages 39-79
II.
relevant.
Chapter
Art.
48.
V.
Opinions,
49.
Opinion as
to handwriting,
parison of handwritings
when
relevant
54.
when deemed
53.
Grounds
not.
Opinion as
of opinion,
vant
to
be relevant
52.
51.
Com-
to existence of marriage,
when deemed
to be relePages 100-112
55.
Criminal
CONTENTS.
PART
Ixxxiii
II.
ON PROOF.
Chapter VII. Facts proved otherwise than by Evidence.
Judicial Notice.
Art.
Of what Facts
58.
Chapter
Art.
the
60.
VIII.
Of Oral Evidence.
61.
62.
Page 126
direct
Art.
testing witness
69.
68.
Proof of public documents 74. Production of document itExamined copies 76. [General records of the Nation or
73.
75.
self
77.
79. Certified copies 80.
Stale]
tions
Exemplifications 78.
Copies equivalent
83.
82.
sev-
printed copies]
to exemplifica-
etc.]
84.
....Pages 142-152
CONTENTS.
Ixxxiv
Chapter
XI.
Presumptions as to Documents.
XII.
Of the Exclusion of Oral by Documentary
Evidence, and of the Modification and Interpretation of Documentary by Oral Evidence.
Chapter
Art.
90.
may be
CONTENTS.
PART
Ixxxv
III.
93.
95.
as to particular Fact
97.
be proved to
Pages 175-182
to
Presumption of legitimacy
98.
99.
Pages 183-192
licensee
Chapter XV.
Art.
106.
Who may
Competency
107.
What
in
offences
title-
Art.
123.
CONTENTS.
Ixxxvi
memory 138.
Chapter XVII.
Art.
140.
Pages 241-244
1854
XVIII.
Of
Art. 143
Appendix of Notes
Index
Of Depositions.
31 Vict.
Chapter
Page 291
A DIGEST
OF
C
o S o
O
!0)
-2
rt
5
^-
-l->
-<->
<u
(D
'p
"S
rt
<"
^
OS
.^
1-1
0)
a;
>-, .ti
5 o o
o
^ I
c o _2
(fl
12
<D
C
M dJ ^
*^
en
-Si
3 =
m
>^
1-1
1-1
'^
r-
X o
-
'^
Xi -^
>^
'^
rt
o"
o
G
"O
G O
0)
II
C3
is
"o
u
G
ti
'So
tn
r-
OJ
-d
<D
-d
tn
G G
.b:i
OJ
.^
0)
"^
N
^
a -2
a ^
o ^
O en
^ ^^
'h
en
S
P
CO
--^
:^
G
O
^
-*'
<l^
!,
.ii^
en
Ti
-2
1-1
c^
ro
en
(u
rG
2
-iS
^-
0)
O G
rt!
Pi,
*^
T5
,0 GH
-d
G
O
S
O
c
1^
>^
.2
_e^
en
4_.
-j-j
;^
^
b/},
<i>
'd
en
-:;
UK
^^ CG
iT
(4-1
PU
* See Note
I.
'41!
Ti-
3 -
4^
^ ^
G
G
<=
coo
en
.5 -3
o3
P-,
05
I-
G
o
>.
vh
rj
n3
Jj
o .S ^o G G -d o
G 03 t: (U 3
2
(U
:5 rt '^
-2 S pq
G 2 '^
O
S 'in ^
G.
-5
^o
S 2
<J
2 S
^ S
> G -2
O
03
o
en
->-'
-4-*
jTj
Ji
"H
en
rJG
-S
.S
2:J
r;
-1-'
C/2
"g
3
CT*
r;
5
^
.
'^ o
m
Si
u C
G
03
4-5
0)
P-r
03
en
rt
G
3 O^
+^
0)
*"
^'
On
-^
.*-
i.;
-t->
.to
><i
cr Pm
'+-'
0)
*.l-l
>-;
(/5
"tl
'^ CO
a o
CO
c^-22
an
<u
en
en
Pi.
3
G
^
2
Gh en
eu
>
L/~>
C/^
coo
STEPHEN'S DIGEST.
,cts
.cts
,cts
Facts in issu
Facte releva
(relation n
(
I.
Wli;it faints
may and
.
.
Dying
3.
horn and in
declarations.
sapin
.
be- C
Opinion.
Admittii
Declaratio
Declaratio
Declaratio
Evidence
G,
18.
some
Bacon
115.
S, Art.
by
of intention
the testator.
An
G, I 310.
disputable in
a presumption of /ac/
for
the jury
to
the
petent witnesses,
party injured,
declarations of
injury that he
is
competent as
evidence, at
not
made
after the
to a physician in
least
when
professional
Art
erally,
under
but not
if
at
Still
the
L. Rev., 589.
If it appears
to the trial
G> 367.
judge that the child does not sufficiently
vided
it
it
to
is
be properly
instructed, pro-
of sufficient age
and
142
intellect to
Mass., 577.
1883,
Am.
c.
195.)
G, 579.
writing
may
Comparison of a disputed
made by witnesses with
be
to the satisfaction of
'
1^
>
"*^
0)
"o
OJ
en
d
i;
CO
.2
o
tU
3
O
c!
TS
.t;
o
CO
o
C
a;
'^
C3
&-
cn
en
C
-5
0)
-^
ii
.1=:
.5^
CJ
^
3
CO
CO
(U
D.
X
+2
g 6 ^
O
u (u 2
TO
OS
coo
cC
T3
rt
rt
CO
>H
cj
D ^
r-
OJ
CO
G
O
o
PJ
(U
b/)
CT3
,0;'
U
^
en
t^
.tl
CO
en
r:
en
bo
>
.5
s
^ ^
.IJ
to
XI
t3
(U
.G
,0 -^
bo
-<-
o
M
(U
&
CO
^
CO
(U
CO
CO
c3
(u
<U
o
<^
(u
0^-5O
CO
cS
t: JS
c;3
4)
"+-1
^
13
CO
g3
!r;
"^
0)
X.5
'^ '"
CO
"^
CO
a,
coo "^
Ci
T^
tn h_ in
L^
nS
CO
(U
o >
c\3
o
l-(
bjo
(U
:<^
^ o
CO ta
(U
u
CO
C3
<"
^
ii
G
G
CO
<U
(U
a
CO
CO
&,
ri
Jx
On
ON
pq
rrt"
CO
o,
G ^
1^:^
en
O O
CO
:=;
ri;
<o^>
a;
^G 'd
o
G
<+-"
;3
"S;
- _c
G N
G
o
S
i:;
-1^
!::
G
f-
:S
t3
>,
CJ
en
G
_cj
<i^
QJ
t:}
b/)
J>
>
>.
.G
G S ^
o 2
U G
'g'
ex Oh .G
en
bjO
O
I-.
a,
00
o
-
I-.
<U
G
G
A DIGEST
OF
I.
RELEVANCY.
CHAPTER
I.
PRELIMINARY.
Article
i.*
definition of terms.
In
this
in
either
means
Statements
made by
judge
Documents produced
I.
Court or
A DIGEST OF
[Part
the production of
law
to
I.
is
bound by-
tended to disprove
it.^
"A
is
disproved.'
by
means
any
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
(i)
[What
is
95, 98-101.]
[Insurance Co.
Mass. 473
of the following articles to apply not only to evidence which has true
logical relevancy as here defined, but also to evidence which, not being
is nevertheless declared admissible by law, as a means
so as to the expression " deemed to be irrelevant."]
logically relevant,
of proof.
And
Chap.
THE
II.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
CHAPTER
II.
2.*
may
in
fact in
issue,
and of any
inafter declared to
of the case.'
Illustration.
(<t)
The
is
following facts
murder of
may be
time when
knowing
from wrong
right
The
guilty.
fact that
killed
B he was prevented by
killed
2
B,
in issue
A had
the
disease from
received from
B such
\Nicholson
v.
IVa/ul, 70 N. Y. 604
59 N. H. 332.1
\Moett V. People, 85 N. Y.
373
Comm., 98 Pa.
'
39 N. Y. 245,
Niles, 44 Mich. 606
v. People,
v.
Amoskeag
Co. v.
Head,
Nevling\.
St. 322.]
[Bishop Cr. L.
ii.
ij^
701-719
see Shufflin
v.
People, 62 N. Y. 229.]
A DIGEST OF
The
deemed
C and
fact that
be relevant
to
not
was
be relevant
A had
that C on
the fact
his
'
Article
1.
to the issue
[Part
to
3.
relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction as the facts in issue.
V.
deemed not
3
to
[This rule
be relevant.
is
embraced
Greenfield
v.
in the doctrine
People, 85 N. Y. 75.]
which
is
commonly
called in the
law of evidence the doctrine of res gestce. (See Gr. Ev. i. % 108.) This,
briefly stated, is that evidence of acts or declarations forming part of the
res gesttB [i.e., " transaction," or "act to be proved ") so as to explain or
qualify it, is admissible when such " transaction " or " act " forms the
Waldele v. N. Y. C. R. Co.,
fact in issue or is deemed relevant thereto.
95 N. Y. 274
Wall. 3
Chap.
THE
II.]
Whether any
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
same
upon which
no principle has been stated by authority and on which single
particular fact
or
is
is
is
a question of law
When
application to
it
Sliker, 33 N. J. L. 95
Walter v. Gernant, 13 Pa. St. 515
Gansin, 76 Ind. 317 Shile v. Walker, 78 Mo. 380.]
This general doctrine also includes the rule stated fosfnt the beginning
Castner
Baker
v.
v.
of .\rticle
tions
made
course of business,"
in
etc.),
'
Thus
it is
said, "
i.
A DIGEST OF
rebutted, the fact that
[Part
I.
it
is
deemed
to
be
relevant.'
Illustrations.
bell,
L. C. J.2
'
[Gr. Ev.
R.
V.
i.
^ 53 a.^
Ex
relatione O'Brien,
Serjt.
Since the
on
this point
My
is
March
thus given
8,
1856,
father got
up
'
'
Upon
" 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
He stated he
William Fowkes hooted there's butcher at the window
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 thought it was not true that the person he saw wfts the butcher,"
'
'
'
Chap.
1 1. J
THE
The question
{b)
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
A
was, whether
cut
it
herself.
statement
throat
person.
R.
'
V.
The
pro-
tained,
it.
Q-cst(c.
Coinrn. v. Hackett, 2 Allen, 136
see Comin. v. McPike, 3
Cush. 181 People v. Simpson, 48 Mich. 474
Waldele v. A^. Y. C. R. Co.,
95 N. Y. 278.
For a valuable discussion of Bedingfield's case and of the general doc-
the res
The
Law
see American
Review,
.\iv.
817, xv.
been admitted
R.
v.
Foster, 6 C.
&
P. 325.
'
[People
V.
and
71.
in this case.
A DIGEST OF
that he
owns
the entire
bed a
little
[Part
lower down
deemed
is
to
I.
be rele-
vant."
(e)
The
question
is,
to
Article
4.*
acts of conspirators.
When
to
commit any
common
purpose
is
in
but statements as to measures taken in the execution or furtherance of any such common jjurpose are not
deemed to be relevant as such as against any conspirators, ex-
them
of
'
cept those by
whom
* See Note
youes
V.
Williams, 2 M.
&
III. [also
W.
Art. 3, note],
326.
C. 102.
v. Scott,
the conspiracy.
Gr. Ev.
i.
m.]
People
v.
Chap.
THE
II. J
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
ii
which they
re-
late.'
Illustrations.
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
(a)
The question
is,
as against B.
sonally.
An
his
own proceedings
against A.^
upon condition
but
this
were
Kcllcy
People
S. V.
V.
V.
People, 55 N. Y. 565
McKee,
3 Dill. 546;
Comm.
v.
all
v.
acting with a
common
design.
;
see U.
Dayton
A DIGEST OF
12
Article
[Part
I.
5.*
TITLE.
When
over property
title
is
in question,
which
inconsistent with
is
improbable,
is
deemed
to
its
existence or renders
its
existence
be relevant.'
Illustrations.
The question
is,
relevant.
{c)
The
question
is,
whether there
is
land.
The facts that persons were in the habit of using the way, that they
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
Lansing, 64 N. Y. 417
Richardsoti, 105 Mass.
Berry v. Kaddin, 11 Allen, 577
v.
v.
establish
title,
evidence
v.
3 Doe V. Pulman,
3 Q. B. 622, 623, 626 (citing Duke of Bedfordv. Lopes').
The document produced to show the lease was a counterpart signed by
the lessee,
^eepost,
art. 64.
Allen, 77.^
Chap.
'
LAW
THE
II.]
OF EVIDENCE.
to dedicate
Article
it
13
6.
CUSTOMS.
When
deemed
is
to
[a)
The
question
prevailing in the
The
Illustration.
is,
manor
of C,
is
heir to B.
which
stood to B,
is
Article
to
them as
that in
7.
When
there
is
deemed
to
be relevant, that
is
to say
'
Common
practice.
Derby Summer
As
to the title-deeds,
Assizes, 1865.
In this case
it
Warren, 115 Mass. 514 Adams v. Pittsburgh Ins. Co., 95 Pa. St. 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
Assn V. Brinlcy, 34 N. J. Eq. 438.J
v.
A DIGEST OF
14
any
fact
it
[Part
such an
for
I.
or which
act,'
'
;
The
{a)
The
is,
whether
murdered B.
B murdered
and
[Illustrations (a)
'
V.
question
Cotnm.
Murphy
{ab).
Nostratid, 94 N. Y. 31
v.
v. People, 63 N. Y. 592
Wright
Bradford, 126 Mass. 42
Comm. v.
;
Comm., 98 Pa. St. 338, But the evishow 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 tlie one charged. Pontius v.
See Art. 10, post.']
People, 82 N. Y. 339.
3 Illustrations
{b) and {be).
[See Walsh v. People, 88 N. Y. 458;
Comm. V. Choate, 105 Mass. 451. In trials for homicide, evidence of
antecedent threats made by the defendant against the deceased is admisState v. Hoyt, 46 Ct. 330 Read v.
sible {Comm. v. Goodwin, 14 Gray, 55
and so in cases of forcible injury, yewett v. Banning,
State, 68 Ala. 492
and so in cases where it appears that the deceased was or
21 N. Y. 27)
may have been the aggressor, so as to cause the defendant to act in
self-defence, evidence s received in many States of threats made by the
deceased against the defendant, though the defendant had not heard of
such threats Wiggins v. People, 93 U. S. 465 Stokes v. People, 53 N. Y.
Httdson, 97 Mass. 565; Ettinger v.
dence
to
164
People
v.
Roberts
v.
State
State v. Elliott, 45
la. 486.
So evidence of the
is
only received
violent
when
acting in self-defence.
State, 37
61
la.
608
Comm
V.
St.
Morris
People
V.
662
Roberts
Abbott
v.
People, 86 N. Y. 460
A lexander v.
v. State,
68 Ala. 156
St. I
Wharton
Upthegrove
State
v.
v.
Graham,
see
Illustrations
40
O.
v.
{c)
{d)
and
{e).
Ah Fook,
64 Cal. 380.]
v. Keteltas, 92 N. Y.
Whipple, 10 Allen, 27 ;
[See Harrington
Banfield
v.
Chap.
THE
II.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
15
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.'
[The question is, whether A murdered B.
(^Lib)
The fact that A had been living in adultery with B's w-ife is deemed to
be relevant, as showing motive.
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. ]3
{b) The question is, whether A committed a
The fact that A procured the instruments
committed is deemed to be relevant.*
[A, B,
(be)
The facts
members of
and
murder
crime.
of D.
crirrtes
of
violence against person and property, and for the protection of one an-
(c)
The
is
accused of a crime.
facts that, either before or at the time of, or after the alleged
crime,
facts of
R.
v.
Clcwes, 4 C.
&
deemed
P. 221.
to
be relevant."
[See Sayres
v.
Comm.
McCtte
v.
A DIGEST OF
i6
[Part
I.
The
The
question
facts that,
is,
after the
Article
8.*
if
it.^
Common
practice.
persons are relevant or not according to the rules as to statements hereSee ch. iv. post. \_Swift v. Life Ins. Co., 63 N. Y.
inafter contained.
;;
Chap.
THE
II.]
LAW OF EVIDENCE,
\f
whom
the offence
said to have
is
made
ticular
offence to persons to
whom
in par-
[she]
347
'
829-838
Comm. 28
v.
Gratt. 942.)
Still the
doctrine of
to
make
v.
the analogy to
Baccio
decisions.
State
V.
Ivins, 36
People, 41 N. Y. 265
v.
N.
L. 233
J.
is fully
;
supported by American
Higg-ins
v.
38 Ind. 39 State v.
dence of the particulars of the complaint was held not admissible, but in
V. State,
some
23 O.
States
St.
is
it
admitted.
Nor
394
is
it
State
v.
necessary, by
some
Burt
v. State,
com-
be made "soon after'' the offence, but the lapse of time may be
considered by the jury as affecting the weight of the evidence {State v.
plaint
The making
Niles, 47 Vt. 82
v.
may be
of a complaint
is
see Maillet
explained {Baccio
said to
v.
v.
People, 42
People, supra).
be admissible, not
as constituting
part of the res gestce, but as a fact corroborative of the testimony of the
Am. Law
iii.
not received.
pears to regard
Hornbeck
it
if
213
she
is
Baccio
v.
incompetent to
testify the
evidence
is
pendix).
The
on cross-examinatioa.
State
v.
may be brought
Jones, 61
Mo.
232.]
A DIGEST OF
When a person's conduct
is
in issue or is, or is
deemed
to
be
[Part
made
in his
to be,
presence and
likely to
is
deemed
I.
relevant.'
Illustrations.
relevant. J3
(rtc)
[The question
is,
whether a person
is
Edmunds, 6 C. & P. 164 Neil v. Jaklc, 2 C. & K. 709. [IllusThis is because tacit acquiescence in such statements may
be deemed an admission of their truth. The rule applies when the statements made impute a crime, as well as in other cases (^Kellcy v. People,
Comm. v. Galavan, g Allen, 271; Ettinger y. Comm.,gi
55 N. Y. 565
Pa. St. 338 State v. J?eed, 62 Me. 129 jfewett v. Banning, 21 N. Y. 27)
but it does not apply if the person be incapable of hearing or understanding the statements, though these are made in his presence. Lanergan v.
Wright v. Maseras, 56 Barb. 521 Tufts v. CharlesPeople, 39 N. Y. 39
Comm. v. Elmey, 126 Mass. 49. So if the statements
town, 4 Gray, 537
are made in a judicial proceeding, silence does not admit their truth,
since there is no opportunity to respond. People v. Willett, 92 N. Y. 29
Johnsonv. Holliday, 79 Ind. 151 but see Blanchard \. Hodgkins., 62 Me.
K.
'
V.
tration {d).
119.
call for
if
a reply or explanation.
Drury
v.
Hervey, 126
157]
Y.
Chap.
LAW
THE
II.]
OF EVIDENCE.
19
that
relevant, as statements
are
deemed
to
made
she
(it
a complaint
it
was made,
itself.3
The
ravished,
though it
under article 26.
{d) [The question
The
had been
is
is,
whetlier
committed arson.
be relevant. ]<
to
Article
9.
to
be known
in issue or relevant or
'
Wilson
v.
deemed
a person on leaving
home
to
be relevant
to the issue, or
so
where
made subsequently, yohnson v. ShcrGray, 374 Hunter v. State, 40 N. J. L. 495 Cattison v. Cattison, 22
Pa. St. 275
Robinson v. State, 57 Md. 14. 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
tions are admissible, but not those
7uin, 3
service.
Buswell
v.
Gr. Ev.
i.
% loi.]
Wright
V.
Doe
d.
C. C. C. 46.]
*[_Comm, y, Brailey, 134 Mass. 527.]
A DIGEST OF
[Part
I.
for those
I/lustrations.
The
{a)
question
is,
of
is
hbellous
or not.
The
position
and
may be deemed
published
when
was
the libel
to
to
the
facts in issue.
The particulars of a dispute between A and B about a matter unconnected 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
between A and B.^
whether A wrote an anonymous letter, threatening
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.
relevant
(i^)
if it
The
question
is,
'
State
VVitham,
V.
Doll, 91 N. Y. 365
Cal. 625.
Pontius
166
v.
V.
v.
Comm., 76 Pa.
St.
340
People
v.
v.
Dennis, 39
Quincey
Comm.
Me. 531
j'z
v.
R. Co.
V.
St. 465
for cases of irrelevant evidence, see Reed
Phil.
R. Co., 45 N. Y. 574 Eggler v. People, 56 N. Y. 642
Henrice, 92 Pa. St. 431
Thompson v. Bowie, 4 Wall. 463;
Graves
v.
Immers, 97 Pa.
seller v.
N.
V.
Y.
C.
Common
practice
[see
Fowler
v.
Chap.
The
I I.J
fact that
liad
21
(r)
is
The
a mob.
cries of the
and
mob
is
proved
are
to
deemed
have marched
to
at the
head
of
be relevant, as explanatory
The
made
question
is,
vant.'
Habits of B known to A,
(<f) The question is, whether A poisoned B.
which would afford A an opportunity to administer the poison, are
deemed to be relevant facts.*
(/") The question is, whether A made a will under undue influence.
His way of life and relations with the persons said to have influenced
him unduly, are deemed to be relevant facts.^
(.?) [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.]"
[The question
is,
R.
'
v.
266; Comin.
R.
V.
Allen, 568.]
Lady
'
V.
Diffenderffer^ 50
'
May
v.
v.
v.
Bradlee,
Ashbridge^ 35 Pa.
Griffith
St. 157.]
A DIGEST OF
22
[Part
I.
property.
deemed
to
412.]
6
[Bairdv.
'
[Green
207.]
v.
Gillett, 47 N. Y. 186.]
Disbrow, 56 N. Y. 334
v.
Meacham, 10 N. Y.
Chap.
THE
II.]
LAW OF EVIDENCE,
23
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.]
[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. ^ But if both A and B are in court,
the jury may take into consideration their resemblance or non-resemblance] (<7) [The question is, whether A is insane.
'
(/)
The
insane,
deemed
to
is
or has been
^ [
''
197
contra, Reitz
\_State V.
v. State,
33 Ind. 187
Walsk
v.
State
v.
Danforth, 48
People^ 88 N. Y. 458.]
la. 43.]
A DIGEST OF
24
CHAPTER
[Part
I.
III.
io.*
fact in issue
probable by reason of
its
any
general resemblance
thereto,
in
is
to
* See Note
'
is
is
same
of the
sort,
irrelevant.^
VL
the fact that similar occurrences have, under like conditions, been pro-
is
deemed
to
ited,
by showing
that
under
like conditions
So
be relevant.
etc.,
the quality
may be
exhib-
This rule
is
analogous
But
if
evidence
is
same
Chap.
The
(fi)
THE
III.]
publican.
licans, is
25
The
is,
fact that
same brewing).
(f) [The question
him to be an officer
The
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
is,
at night,
knew
of the law.
payment of
ticket after the time limited therein for its use, without the
fare.
The
fact
used them
that
irrelevant.]
is
(e)
he has
at
being required
to
pay
fare,
[The question
is,
what
is
'
= [
Yates
V.
People, 32 N. Y. 509
see 72 N. Y. 610
[Hill
V.
Syracuse
etc. Ji.
Co.,
63 N. Y. iqi.]
and
Fillo
v.
Joties,
A DIGEST OF
26
[Part
I.
Evidence to prove the value of other vessels with which she might be
compared is irrelevant.]'
(_/") [The question is, whether a servant was negligent on a
particular
occasion.
[The question
is,
Evidence as
is
to the
in a
week
irrelevant.]'
falling
1 \Blanchard v. Steamboat
Co. 59 N. Y. 292
see Gouge v. Roberts, 53
N. Y. 619 Bonynge v. Field., 81 N. Y. 159 Lake v. Clark., 97 Mass. 71
but see Carr v. Moore, 41 N. H. 131. But in Massachusetts the value
of land may be proved by showing the prices received upon sales of
;
Other lands of like description in the vicinity at times not too remote.
Chandler v. Jamaica etc. Corporation, 122 Mass. 305.]
v. iV. Y. etc. R. Co., 59 N. Y. 356; Warner v. TV. Y. C. R.
44 N. Y. 465 Maguire v. Middlesex R. Co.., 115 Mass. 239 Gahagan v. B. is' L. R. Co., 1 Allen, 187 Michigan Cent. R. Co. v. Gilbert,
46 Mich. 176 contra. State v. Railroad Co., 52 N. H. 528 see Art. 12.]
^{Baulec
Co.,
[Carlton
v.
Kelliker
of.
v.
Miller, 97 Mass.
71.]
[Dist. of Col. V.
217, 74
N. Y. 603
Chap.
the
THE
III.]
same
stances,
LAW OF
EVIDENCE.
27
like
circum-
relevant.]'
is
same -construction,
is
relevant.
]-
[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 caused fires at or near the place in question by scattering
sparks and coals, is deemed to be relevant so also is the 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
{k)
another source.]'
question
is, whether a fire causing the destruction of a cerby 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.]*
(m) [The question is, whether the foundering of a vessel, while she is
being towed by a tug, is caused by her being overladen and unseaworthy, or is due to the reckless and improper rate of speed at which she
(/) [Tlie
tain building
is
towed.
The
fact that
'
[Crocker
v.
N. H. 396 House
N. H. 187.]
;
[Bricrly
v.
v.
is
deemed
to
be relevant, as
cf.
Co.,
Co.,
58
60
[Field
y. jV.
The
trains.
New York
*
last
cases.]
C. 580
see Landell
v,
Hotchkiss,
T.
&
A DIGEST OF
28
in
[PART
I.
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.]'
Article
ii.*
When
there
is
"^
[Baird
v.
Daly, 68 N. Y. 547;
Harlan R.
v.
Co., 5 Bos.
576-]
[This rule is fully considered and its proper limitations stated m People
Shuhnan, 80 N. Y. 373 Mayer v. People, id. 364 Comm. v. yackson, 132
Mass. 16. See also Gr. Ev. i. 53 Butler v. Waikins, 13 Wall. 456
State
Bottomlcy v. U. S.,\ Story, 135; Tarbox v. State, 38 O. St. 581
V. Wcntworth, 37 N. H. 196
p. 24, ante, note 2.]
3 [At this point Mr. Stephens adds the following rule derived from an
" Where proceedings are
English statute {34 and 35 Vict. c. 112, s. 19)
taken 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 sub^
2
V.
ject of the
If,
in the
Chap.
THE
III.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
29
Illustrations.
is
'
V.
Shriedly
v. State,
deemed not
to
be relevant.
R.
V.
Francis, L. R. 2 C. C. R. 128.
The
case of R.
v.
Cooper. L.
A DIGEST OF
30
[Part
I.
that
ferocious.
Z,
bill
the
and
that they
of exchange,
same manner
if the payee
had been a real person, is deemed to be relevant, as showing that A knew
that the payee was a fictitious person.
Defamatory statements made by B
{g) A sues B for a malicious libel.
regarding
brousrht are
R.
deemed
be relevant
to
Q. B. D. ^C. C. R.)
stronger.
[S. P.
Mayer
19, is
v.
to
is
show malice.*
similar to R.
People, 80 N. Y. 364;
v.
Comm.
v.
Coe, 115
Mass.
4S1
see People
v.
'
Gibson
v.
lar to the
V.
one
in question.
Sexton, 4 N. Y. 157.
In
Comm.
v.
Cavatiaugh
some
Damon,
v.
Chap.
THE
III.J
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
31
The
fact
act in question.]'
(//)
The
to A's
sued by
is
whereby
B, being
induced
the representation in
is
sued by
who was
that
C was solvent,
time when
knowledge supposed
(/')
to trust C,
is
good
to
faith.
is
owner.
was with C.
The fact that .\ 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.'
{j ) 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.
A's defence
is
damages {Leonard
\.
Pope,
2.7
Ilolitjini^,
'
\^Comm.
V.
A'iehols,
Thayer
v.
Thayer, loi
V.
34
Brid^-man, 49 Vt.
la. 533
see People v. Carrier, 46 Mich. 442.]
Sheen v. Buinpstead, 2 H. & C. 193
[see Slingerlatid
;
''
T.
in
id.
&
C. 446
IVhitcher
v.
Shattiick, 3 Allen,
319
Forbes
v.
v.
Bennett, 6
Howe, 102
Mass. 427.]
3 Gerish v. Chartier, 1 C. B.
[see Moody v. Tenney, 3 Allen, 327
13
Jiej^an v. Dickinson, 105 Mass. 112.]
* 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 relevancy of
the fact, see in particular Lord Campbell's remark on p. 359.
[Cf
Kellogg \. French, 15 Gray, 354.]
;
A DIGEST OF
32
The
(^)
question
is,
whether
[Part
entitled to
is
damages from
I.
B, the
The
deemed to be relevant
The question is, whether A, the
question are
in
{?/)
facts.
captain of a ship,
knew
that a port
was blockaded.
Trelawney
'
v.
Coleman,
&
B.
A. 90.
[Gr.
Ev.
i.
v.
Palmer
v.
102
Perry
'
Ev.
p.
-^(tT,'
377 (evi-
It is a
general rule that expressions of present bodily pain or suffering or symp-
[Gr.
i.
102.
toms of disease are admissible as part of the res gesta ; but not statements as to past sufferings. Caldwell v. Murphy, 11 N. Y. 416 Matteson
Comm. v. Fenno, 134 Mass. 217 AshV. N. V. C. R. Co. 35 N. Y. 487
Wilson v. Granby, 47 Ct. 59 Lichtenland v. Marlborough, 99 id. 47
wallner v. Laubach, 105 Pa. St. 366 State v. Gedicke, 43 N. J. L. 86.
Such statements are provable whether made to physicians or other per;
see Art.
note.]
3,
Aveson
N. Y. 186
v.
are
deemed
also
Barber
v.
Chap.
The
LAW
THE
III.]
OF EVIDENCE.
in the
Gazette
33
is
deemed
to
be
relevant.
[The question is, whether a testator, in making his will, was conby 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;
{0)
trolled
such statements are consistent with the provisions of the will, they
undue influence, otherwise to confirm them.
But statements of the testator to show the fact of undue influence are
if
deemed
not to be relevant.]-
Article
12.*
When
there
is
formed part of a
series
of
was concerned,
is
deemed
>
Harrat
v.
Wise, 9 B.
&
to
be relevant.^
C. 712.
50 Md. 466
Adams, 62 Me. 369 May
V. Bradlee, 127 Mass. 414
Dye v. Youn^^, 55 la. 433. So subsequent
statements or acts may be shown which indicate the state of mind when
the will was made. Shailer v. Bumstcad, 99 Mass. 112
lVater?nan v. Whitney, II 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 feelings 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,
(Shertnan v. Wilder, 106 Mass. 537), or a gift caitsa mortis.
Whitwcll v.
"
\^Neel V. Potter,
Marx
V.
40 Pa.
St.
483
McGlynn, 88 N. Y. 357
Grijith
Robinson
v. Diffenderffer,
v.
ante, notes
So a
and
2.
A DIGEST OF
34
[Part
I.
Illustrations.
{a)
is
which
for
accused of setting
it is
fire to his
house
in
order to obtain
money
insured.
facts that A had previously lived in two other houses succeseach of which he insured, in each of which a fire occurred, and
The
sively,
&
Chap.
THE
111.]
each of those
that after
OP:
EVIDENCE.
A received payment from a different insurbe relevant, as tending to show that the fires
fires
LAW
to
employed
is
make
to
entries in a
The
The
question
is,
whether
tries in the
this false
same book,
A made
deemed to be relevant.'-'
(<-) The question is, whether
by
is
Z,
jects accordingly.
The
that
similar transactions
Article
13.*
When
there
is
when deemed to
be
office or
business accord-
'^
R.
v.
R.
v.
[see
Funk
v.
for
Blake
V.
94.
A DIGEST OF
36
ing to which
[Part
it
is
I.
a relevant
fact.'
When
there
is
deemed
to
be
is
relevant.''
deemed
is
to
be relevant.'
Illustrations.
(a)
The question
is,
whether a
letter
deemed to be relevant.
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
put
(r)
relevant.'
[Gr. Ev.
V.
Oyer and
Comm.
v.
Kimball,
2 I
R. N. P. 46
T. E.
s.
139
graph.]
^[Olcottv. Tioga R. Co., 27 N. Y. 546 Hammond v. Varian, 54 N. Y.
Thurber v. Anderson, 88 111. 167
398 Kent v. Tyson, 20 N. H. 121
Kent's Comm. ii. 615.]
;
S.
v.
N. C. 69.]
6 Hetherington
846,
and Trotter
v.
v.
Daly, 61 N. Y. 362
v.
McGoldrick, 2 Abb.
v.
Garbett, 7 Q. B.
[see
Howard
v.
Warren v.
Warren, 1 C. M. & R. 250 Woodcock v. Houldsworth, 16
M. & W. 124. Many cases on this subject are collected in Roscoe's Nisi
;
Chap.
{(i)
III.j
The
2,7
be relevant
to the question
[^Hcdden
whether
v.
A was
deemed
to
Rosenthal
v.
Walker,
cf.
Ellison
v.
sumption of law.
Huntley
Ins. Co. V. Toy Co., 97 Pa.
The same
'
Blake
Liudsley, 33
v.
IVhittier, 105
St. 424
v.
N.
Austin
U. S.
Society.,
v.
J.
Mass. 391
Susquehanna
Holland, 69 N. Y. 571.
Babcock, 3 Dill. 571.]
v.
L. R. 4 C. P. D. 94,
A DIGEST OF
38
CHAPTER
[Part.
1.
IV.
14.*
The
as a witness,
and
are respectively
deemed
be irrelevant
to
in the
to the
truth of the
cases contained
in
'
first
(a)
in
Illustrations,
{a)
forged
it,
deemed
be irrelevant
to
* See Note
VOL
It is
evidence
is
Beach, 87 N. Y. 508
132
2
id. 22.
II.
Comm.
v.
v.
Vrooman, i6 N. Y. 381
People
Comin.
v.
v. Fetch,
Stobart
v.
Dryden,
M. &
W.
615.
fSome American
decisions
deny
Otterson
Meeker, 4 Dutch. 274, 295
V. Hofford, 36 N.
Neely v. Neely, 17 Pa. St. 227 of. Losee v.
J. L. 129
Losee, 2 Hill, 609); but others follow it {Baxter v. Abbott, 7 Gray, 71;
Boardman v. Woodmtn, 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. Goodwin, 7 Johns. 95 Spatz v. Lyon, 55 Barb. 476.]
the doctrine of this case (Boylan
v.
THE
Chap. IV.]
The question
(3)
The
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
whether
is,
body
was born
for a public
is
deemed
39
to
not being such as to bring the case within the provisions of Article 34.'
SECTION
I.
WHEN RELEVANT.
HEARSAY,
Article
15.*
admissions defined.
An
admission
is
deemed
made by
to
be
to
hereinafter stated)
unless
it is,
or
is
deemed
deemed
* See Note
'
Sturla
V.
some other
reason.^
IX.
[It is
relevant against
543-
A DIGEST OF
40
Article
[Part
I.
i6.*
AND WHEN.
Admissions
may be made on
proceeding
*See Note X.
Admissions may also be implied from acts and conduct. Gr. Ev. i.
^ 195-199; Hayes v. Kelley, 116 Mass. 300; Green^eld Bk. v. Crafts, 2
Wesner v. Stem, 97 Pa. St. 322 Lefever v. Johnson, 79 Ind.
Allen, 269
554 Foster v. Persch, 68 N. Y. 400. Thus, if an account rendered be
not objected to within a reasonable time, it is deemed to be admitted by
the party charged to be priina facie correct.
Wiggins v. Burkham, 10
Wall. 129 Guernsey v. Rexford, 63 N. Y. 631. 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
;
deemed an admission
But
of the truth of
its
contents.
Learned
Tillotson,
v.
8,
ante,
THE
Chap. IV.J
LAW OF
EVIDENCE.
event
in the
41
the proceeding,
;*
to the
'
who
to
by saying
this rule
'
is
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, 8i N. Y. 625. And evidence of such admissions has been generally rejected in this country,
even when the assignee sued in the assignor's name.
Wing v. Bishop, 3
Butler v. Millett, 47 Me. 492 Sargcant v. Sargeant, 18 Vt.
Allen, 456
271 Dazey v. Mills, 5 Gilm. (Ill) 67 Frear v. Evertson, 20 Johns. 142.
But the admissions of the assignee, after a valid assignment, are rele;
[Gr. Ev.
Me. 162
Taylor
who
is
that
he
180
i.
Benjamin
G. T.
v.
J?.
Pickett v. Swift, 41
v.
Wend.
Smith, 4
Co., 48
N. H.
Me. 65
332, 335, 12
Bigelow
Wend.
v.
Foss, 59
see
404, 407
304.
Fya?t
v.
Merriam. 4 Allen,
show
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.
Or.
Ev. $ 180, note.
only receivable
270
2
Stewart
[Thus
Barker
v.
Bininger, 14 N. Y.
ministrator {BroT.vn
378
v.
sions
her.
Slade
v.
made by
Van Diiyne
v.
Thayre, 14
Wend.
deemed
to
be relevant against
233.]
of
A DIGEST OF
42
[Part
I.
of any
owner
land against those who subsequently derive title from or through him.
CJtadwlck V. Fon7ier, 69 N. Y, 404; Simpson v. Dix, 131 Mass. 179; Pickering \. Reynolds, 119 Mass. in. As to personal property, see note i,
(if
next page.
see
Chapman
v.
Edmands, 3 Allen,
512.
(Gr. Ev.
a record
379
title.
Hancock
Gibncy
Ins.
Co.
v.
v.
Moore, 34 Mich. 41
v.
Trust
Co., 93
v.
U. S.
Wad-
ity, his
admissions
made
See Whiton
v.
THE
Chap. IV.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
43
by a privy
is
him
to
make
to
it.'
And
Snyder, 88 N. Y. 299.
receivable against
him
made
his admissions
Phillipps
as party in another.
v.
Middlesex, 127
Mass. 262.]
[Thus declarations by a grantor of land after parting with his interest
are not receivable as admissions against the grantee Vrooman v. King,
'
Winchester v. Charter,
36 N. Y. 477 Brower v. Cullender, 105 III. 88
nor those of an assignor of chattels or choses in action
97 Mass. 140)
;
when they
are
made
if
a transferor of land or
after the
fer of possession.
74 N. Y. 597
39 Me. 142 Benson
;
v.
But
Lyon, 49 N. Y. 661
supra.
erty,
In
made
Roberts
New York
v.
Pier
v.
Medbery, supra
it
Adams
son, 10
N. Y. 309
The admissions
this rule
many
246
111.
made
compeMerrick v. Park-
States held
;
Gray, 547.
note
5.)
against
But
Jin
Von
S(tcAf
A DIGEST OF
44
[Part
I.
Illustrations.
The
(a)
name
of the
obligee.
An
paid
((5)
admission on the part of the obligee that the money due has been
deemed to be relevant on behalf of the defendant.'
is
An admission by
deemed
bond
would
also be
to
holder.]*
(r)
A statement made
a bankrupt
is
not
deemed
As
Von Sacks
w.
Kretz, supra.
I.]
Tanner
'
\SiTnpson
v.
356.]
V.
V.
Morgan, 2 M. & R.
'
pQCOck
V, Billing,
2 Bing. 269.
Chap.
LAW
THE
IV.]
OF EVIDENCE.
Article
45
17.*
with parties,
Admissions
them
may be made by
either expressly or
agents authorized to
by the conduct of
make
their principals;
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.'
makes them
when she
and so of a
husband's admissions as against his wife. The marital relation does not
of itself establish the agency, but it must be otherwise shown to exist
may be
it
express or implied.
2 Sandf. 338;
Deck
v.
The admission
of a
is
member
of an aggregate corporation,
who
is
not a
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
Angell & Ames on Corporations, %% 309, 657-660.]
unless
"
Fogerty
[S. P. as to partners.
Parmalee, 2 N. Y. 523
Smith
v.
v.
Van Keuren
Jordan, 2 Rob. 319
Mass. 388 Ruckman
Collins, 115
v.
v.
A DIGEST OF
46
Barristers
and
[Part
I.
Currier
Hun, 391
21
V. Sias,
Edwards
v.
Silloway^
Tracy, 62 Pa.
v.
Allen, 19
St.
374
Greenwood
Pleasants v.
made
one as
Kcuren
Partnalee, supra)
v.
though
if
one
v. Stackpole,
barred claims
Cow. 420
Van
is
in the business of
adopted similar
Alorrison,
Searight
rules.
Pet. 351
v.
see A^ewmaii
Craighead,
v.
& W.
P.
McComas, 43 Md. 70
135
;
Bell
v.
Parsons on
received against the others, and will remove the bar of the Statute of
Limitations as against all, except so far as the statutes cited below (see p.
Dentiie v. Williarns, 135 Mass. 28 Caldwell
48, note I) modify this rule.
;
worth, 46 N. J. L. 244.
is held (see Kallenbach
v.
Water-
v.
Butter-
Dickinson, 100
111.
427,
many
leading cases).
Thus
it
held in a
number
II N. Y. 176
Hanc(
V.
Bush
V.
Hair, 25 0.
St. 349.
In
New York
Clark
it is
v.
Burn, 86
id.
502
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
THE
Chap. IV.]
47
debtors
'
is
much
[This rule
same
the
is
made
casual conversation,
in
261
S.
As
Person
v.
unsolemn
which are not
etc.,
to
v.
In this country it is the genan attorney cannot compromise or settle a suit without his
Mandeville v. Reynolds, 68 N. Y. 528
consent.
Derwert v.
Thus
is
tablish a
demand
Manhattan
Co., 3
Cow.
612)
v.
Pier
V.
in
common
v.
it
receivable
;
v.
spiracy {^Carpenter
is
415, 418
one tenant
Howard, 79 N. Y.
Osgood
nor the admission of one devisee or
v.
made
Weldcn, S Sandf. 77
Wilson
v.
O'Day, 5 Daly,
A DIGEST OF
[Part
1.
by reason only
made
or signed
The question is, whether a parcel, for the loss of which a Railway
Company is sued, was stolen by one of their servants. Statements made
(</)
19 & 20 Vict.
The language is
by
c.
97,
s.
13
slightly altered.
595,
Mass. 588
Maine Rev.
14 of the
s.
same Act.
Mass. Pub.
St., c. 197, 17
N.
J.
Rev., p.
c.
82,
New York
In
290.
by
States, a similar
common
law rule
but in a number of the States, the contrary rule of the English common law prevails, which was established by IVhitcomb v. IVkiting.
See p. 45 ante, note 2 also Illustration (/).]
= [Gr. Ev. i. % 187
Hatch v. Elkins, 65 N. Y. 489 Rae v. Beach, 76 N.
Chelmsford Co. v. Demarest., 7 Gray, i. But declarations of the
Y. 164
principal are admissible when forming part of the res gestce. Id.; Batik of
Brighton v. Smith, 12 Allen, 243; %qq Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Keeler, 44
Bissell v. Saxton, 66 N. Y. 55.]
Ct. 161
3 Kirkstall Brewery v. Furness Ry.
L. R. 9 Q. B. 468
[see Green v.
B.
L. R. Co. 128 Mass. 221
B. &' O. R. Co. v. Campbell, 36 O. St.
prevails
&
cf.
Hoagv, La-
(b)
OF EVIDENCE.
49
allows his wife to carry on the business of his shop in his ab-
sence.
LAW
THE
Chap, IV.j
the shop
deemed
is
to
agent.'
(c)
A sends
time
is
not
What B
deemed
to
deemed
to be a relevant
what B says upon the subject at some different
be relevant as against A - (though it might have
is
(/)
to
One co-part-owner
make admissions
common
'
'
Lucas
v.
De La
Cour,
M. &
S. 249
[cf.
Brake
v.
Kimball, 5 Sandf.
237.]
5
took
is
v.
I S. L. C. 644.
[The decision in this case was
acknowledgment of one of the drawers of a joint and several note
lVhitco7nb v. Whiting,
that the
it
followed in
some
Dickinson, loo
Holt
V.
111. 427
Squire^ Ry. &
Mo.
282.
This case
Kallenbach
A DIGEST OF
50
even
interest,
if
he
[Part
1.
is
ship.'
as to
missions."
Article
i8.*
admissions by strangers.
Statements by strangers
to a
men-
tioned.'
deemed
to
be relevant as against
the sheriff.*
'^
ruptcy).
made
New York
is
practice.
But
in
it is
Sachs
Me. 107
Von
Games
v.
THE
Chap. IV.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
Article
51
19.*
When
in
who
may be
admissions as against
refers to him.'
Illustration.
The
question
is,
Article
20. f
No
if
it
admission
made
is
is
deemed
either
'
i.
% 182
Gott
v.
Covenkover,
Wend.
Cohn
As
V.
V.
561
Lambert
'^
Cory
People, 76 N. Y. 220
V.
P.
Allen
v.
Kil~
Goldman, 76 N. Y. 284.
an interpreter, see Gr. Ev.
to the statements of
v.
made
i.
(J
183
Camerlin
n.
462
A DIGEST OF
52
evidence of
[Part
it
if it
I.
duress."
Article
21.
confessions defined.
send
deemed
compromise a claim, or
to
to "
&
C.
S.
see Toiun-
So statements made
Sp. 772.
buy peace,"
as
as offers
it is
"duress" under
Tooker
v.
the legal
this rule.
constraint
Gr. Ev.
i.
to
testify
is
not
deemed
ante.,
note 2;
Callendcr
v.
Callender, 53
How.
Pr. 364.]
[The word " confession " denotes an acknowledgment of guilt. Acknowledgments of other matters of fact in a criminal case are termed
"admissions." Gr. Ev.
170; see People v. Parton, 49 Cal. 632;
Comm. v. Sanborn, 116 Mass. 61.
Confessions may not only be made expressly, but may also be implied
from a person's keeping silence when he is charged with a crime under
such circumstances that he would naturally reply. (See Art. 8, atite.
'^
i.
LAW
THE
Chap. IV.J
deemed to be
them only.'
OF EVIDENCE.
53
who make
Article
22.*
be under arrest
This
Ettitiger v.
cf.
XV.
true in
Kelley
at the time.
is
some
even though he
States,
People, 55 N. Y. 565
v.
Comm., 98 Pa.
St. 338
Murphy
contra,
v.
Comm.
V.
It is
delicti.
Gr. Ev.
i.
217
People
v.
Hcimcssy, 15
Wend.
147
N. Y. Code
People
v.
Gr. Ev.
i.
218
State v. McDonnell,
sation
tially
may be
proved,
complete.
54 Ala. 520
Dob
if it
Com.m.
v.
v.
State,
amounts
32
id.
which
to a confession
560
cf.
People
v.
is
substan-
Lez'ison v. State,
Gelabcrt, 39 Cal.
663.]
case
A DIGEST OF
54
[Part
to his
knowledge
1.
in-
'
;
threat, or
promise, gave the accused person reasonable grounds for supposing that
or avoid
Willett V. People, 27
in 1852 (2 Den. C.C. 430), the constable told the prisoner 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. yarvis (L. R. i 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 public, 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
Take care. We know more than you
to it by stating what is untrue.
think we know. So you had better be good boys and tell the truth." R.
decided
Reeve, L. R.
V.
Comm.
v.
C. C. R. 364.
[See R.
Fetinell, 6 Q. B. D. 147
v.
v. Phillips, 42 N. Y. 200
Comm. v. Curtis, 97 Mass. 574
Comm. 29 Pa. St. 429 Flagg v. People, 40 Mich. 706 State v.
But a confession made to a person in authority,,
Jones, 54 Mo. 478.
3
\People
Fife
V.
Chap.
THE
IV.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
55
171
Comm., supra.
competent,
if
no
v.
Hopt
Utah,
v.
fact that confessions are made under actual fear does not make
them involuntary, if this fear were not excited by improper inducements
Comm. v. Smith, 119 Mass. 305.
or threats.
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 evidence, 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. McGloin, 91 N. Y. 241. But cases decided
in New York before this statute are cited herein, since they well illustrate
The
the
common-law
rule.]
Comm.
Drake, 15 Mass.
'
[Illustration
{b)
cf.
v.
161.
N. Y.
Wcntworth, 37 N. H. 196.]
3 [C/. 5. V.
Stone, 8 F. R. 232; Smith v. Comm., 10 Gratt. 734; Shifflet
V. Comm., 14 Id. 652
Yomigv. Comm., 8 Bush. (Ky.) 366; State v. Patterson, 73 Mo. 69s
cf. Ulrich v. People, 39 Mich. 245
State v. Potter, 18 Ct. 166.
In Massachusetts it is said that those confessions are
excluded which are obtained by threats of harm or promises of favor held
out by a person in authority, or standing in any relation from which the
law will presume that his communications would be likely to exercise an
influence over the mind of the accused.
Comm. v. Tuckermau, 10 Gray,
501
State
v.
173, 190.
Murphy
And
in
v. State,
People
v.
this.
v.
569
Jordan
v. State,
32 Miss. 382
A DIGEST OF
56
The
[Part
I.
tody, magistrates,
persons
in
The master
authority.'
of the prisoner
is
not as
deemed
confession
the judge)
such
to
it is
facts,
is
shown
may be
to
proved.''
Illustrations.
{a)
The
question
is,
whether
murdered
B.
pardon to any accomplice who would confess, is brought to the knowledge of A, who, under the influence of the hope of pardon, makes a conThis confession is not voluntary.^
being charged with the murder of B, the chaplain of the gaol
reads the Commination Service to A, and exhorts him upon religious
fession.
{b)
'
V.
v.
Wolf v. Comm., 30
Comm., 10
[Smith
[Illustration
V.
(e)
3,
on
State
v.
Pock-
Minn. 105
and cases
cited
U. S.
p. 54.]
Ward
Gratt. 833
V.
St. 200.]
R,
V.
THE
Chap. IV.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
57
is
to confess
tary confession.''
(/") 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.*
Article
23.*
to a confession
who
gives
that
v.
Gilham,
the accused
Moo.
man
may be
in
used as such
although
R.
'
it,
it
R.
V.
''
R.
v.
A DIGEST OF
58
[Part
I.
reference to the
which
it is
to
'
sion."
Illustrations.
{a)
against
him
in his
is
own
trial.*
(c)
[A
is
murder of B.
[Comm.
V.
Me. 531. On
given by him in a
U. S. v. CAarles, 2 Cr. C. C. 76
State
VVit/iam, 72
V.
is
prior suit
Dickerson
receivable.
v.
28,
30
Comm.
contra, People
47 Cal. 125.
Judicial confessions do not need corroborative proof of the corpus
V. Kelley.,
State v.
delicti.
2
R.
V. Garbett,
People, 10 N. Y. 9, 27, 31
v.
post.'\
3 R. V. Scott, I D. & B. 47
R. v. Robinson, L R. I C. C. R. 80 R. v.
Widdop, L. R. 2 C. C. R. 5.
* R. V. Chidley fs' Cumtnins, 8 C. C. C. 365
[see People v. Thayer, i
;
People
V.
Chap.
THE
V.J
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
Article
59
24.
If a
confession
irrelevant,
Article
25.
deemed
'
418
[People
V.
State
v.
Minn. 105.]
2 \^(:omm. V. Howe, 9 Gray,
no; Jefferds v. People, 5 Park. Cr. 522
State V. Great- 28 Minn. 426 People v. Ramirez, 56 Cal. 533 State v.
Feltes, 51 la. 495
Eskridge v. State, 25 Ala. 30. But if the intoxication
be extreme, the jury may give the confession little or no weight. (A/.)
Words spoken in sleep are not admissible as a confession. People v.
Staley, 14
Comm.
v.
Ciiffee,
108 Mass.
285.]
*
in
and T. E.
5.
804.
Gray. 501.]
'
A DIGEST OF
6o
if
the person
who made
is
I.
the statement
[Part
such a statement as
clarant"
made
in his lifetime.
Article
26.*
trials for
murder
the
is
[Gr. Ev.
>
i.
^ 156.
i.
questions, or obtained
words.
Maine
v.
by
solicitation, or
Hun,
People, 9
113
yottes
v.
The
shall
Comm.
V.
Robbins
v.
V.
etc.
v.
Chicago,
son
V. State,
50 Ala. 456
see Illustration
(<!).]
CH
V.
\'
77/A'
ir
/.. /
OF E VIDENCE.
given up
was made."
Such a declaration is not irrelevant merely because it was
intended to be made as a deposition before a magistrate, but
irregular.'
is
[Gr. Ev.
Kehoe
Comm., 85 Pa.
i6o
i.
v.
v.
St.
and by other
Simpson, 48 Mich.
474 Donnelly v. State, 26 N. J. L. 463 and 601 People v. Taylor^ 59
Cal. 640; Small v. Comm., 91 Pa. St. 304; People v. Knickerbocker, i
Park. Cr. 302 State v. Elliott.^ 45 la. 486.
This preliminary evidence
may be given in the presence of the jury. Sullivan v. Comm. 93 Pa. St.
attendant circumstances.
Gr. Ev.
i.
$ 158
is
People
near,
v.
284
2
People, 17
111.
17.]
v. People, 75 N. Y. 159
Comm. v. Hancy. 127 Mass. 455
Comm., 99 Pa. St. 17 Ex parte A^cttles, 58 Ala. 268 and cases
Even a faint hope of recovery excludes the declarations. People
\^Brotherton
Alison
V.
supra.
V.
v.
Co?nm.
v.
when hope
are competent.
Small
that declarations
made when
v.
If
hope be ex-
is
some hope.
It is
Swisher
v.
The
and
in
In
one
State, 71
an oath.
Comm.
v.
is
.^.
atheists.
Donnelly
v.
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.
So the declarations of very young children
State, 26
N.
J.
L. 463
Gr. Ev.
Knapp,
i.
Edm.
^ 157.]
duced
v.
to writing
A DIGEST OF
62
[Part
I.
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.'
B, at the time of
something, which
is
taken
down
thus
"
make
is
hope of recovery." B, on
the statement being read over, corrects this to " with no hope at present
of
but the writing is not, though it may be used to refresh memory. State
So parol evidence was received when the
v. Fraunburg, 40 la. 555.
memorandum was
lost.
v.
Gr. Ev.
'
"^
R.
R.
i.
V.
V.
Mosley,
Moo. 97
Jenkins^ L.
R.
[cf.
People
C. C.
v.
Grunzig,
v.
Comm., 19
Gratt. 656.]
3 R. v. Hind, Bell, 253, following R. v. Hutchinson, 2 B. & C. 608, n.,
quoted in a note to R. v. Mead. [People v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 95 State v.
Harper, 35 O. St. 78. Aliter, upon a trial for felonious homicide, caused
by an attempt to procure an abortion. State v. Dickinson, 41 Wis. 299
;
Montgomery
v. State,
Gray's Case^
Ir.
80 Ind. 338.]
Cir.
v. State,
9 Baxt. 261.]
THE
Chap. IV. J
The
B makes
question
{d)
is,
LAW OF
whether
EVIDENCE.
murdered
(>^
B.
when
the statement
in
deemed
to
The statement
of recovery.
is
Article
27.*
declaration
is
by the declarant
deemed
the
in
to
be relevant when
course
ordinary
of
was made
it
business, and
in the
A". V.
Woodcoci,
East, P. C. 356.
is
said
have left to the jury the question, whether the deceased was not in fact
under the apprehension of death ? i Leach, 504. The case was decided
to
in 1789.
It is
now
is
Doe
V.
100 Pa.
366.
St.
Thus
159
Livingston
the books
v.
Benham, 4
Hill, 129;
Perkins
A DIGEST OP
64
when
[Part
the
of
I.
own knowl-
his
edge.'
be irrelevant, except so
to
far
must be taken.
if
Brewster
v.
out of
is
Fisher
v.
Mayor,
6-j
N. Y. 73
As
Mass. 273.
in
[It is
in his
own books
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 settled their accounts by his
books and found them accurate.
Vosburgh v. Thayer, 12 Johns. 461;
Corning v. Ashley, 4 Den. 354 Linnell v. Sutherland, 11 Wend. 568. As
to the meaning of " clerk " under the rule, see McGoldrick v. Traphagen
88 N. Y. 334; as to a physician's books, see Knight v. Cunnington, 6
Hun, 100. But such entries are not admissible to sustain a charge for
;
money
lent.
Low
v.
Payne, 4 N. Y. 247.
their
The fact
now
v.
many of the States the party's suppletory oath is required to authenown book entries, but there are diverse rules as to the matters
which may be proved by such entries. Generally, however, they are reIn
ticate his
ceived to prove items of work done and goods sold and delivered. Pratt
White, 132 Mass. 477
Corr v. Sellers, 100 Pa. St. 169 Smith v. Law,
V.
47 Ct. 431
Cod/nan
v.
Caldwell, 31
Me.
560.
As
to the effect of
making
The
THE
Chap. IV.]
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
65
Illustrations.
after notice.
copy entered immediately after the letter was written, in a book kept
by a deceased clerk, is deemed to be relevant.
(f) 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
v.
Torrington,
(Amer. Ed.).
The book to be produced in evidence is the book of original entries.
If this be a ledger, it will be competent {Hoover v. Gehr, 62 Pa. St. 136
Faxon v. Hollis, 13 Mass. 427) but not where the ledger is used for postS. L. C.
made
in
another book.
I'ihnar v. Sckall^ 3 J-
&
Sp.
67
Fitzgerald
\.
477; Holbrook
'
"^
Price
v.
Pritt
v.
V.
Fairclough, 3
Camp.
305.
v.
A DIGEST OF
66
The course
(d)
to
make
I.
it
place.'
get
[Part
entries in a
and
book accordingly.
The
entries
Article
28.*
declaration
means
is
deemed
to
be relevant
if
the declarant
had
peculiar
*
*
Chambers
v.
Bernasconi,
if
see, too,
Smith
v.
Blakey,
L. R. 2 Q. B. 326.
355
hospital record.
Louis
see Butler
v. St.
These are almost the exact words of Bayley, J., in Gleadow v. Atkin,
& M. 423 [Gr. Ev.
Livingston v. Arnoux, 56 N. Y.
^^ 147-155
Chenango Bridge Co. v. Paige, 83 N. Y. 178, 192 Taylor v. Gould.
507
*
C.
i.
'
THE
Chap. IV.]
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
67
relevant,
made
at the
in the
same
place."
may be
declaration
it, if
it
liability,
statement
made by
in
to
537;
glish cases.]
'
^Livingston
Arnoux, supra
v.
Ellsworth
v.
and (<:).
and (<-).
see Lord Campbell's judgment
'
Illustrations
(</)
<
Illustration (g)
'
9 Geo. IV.
c.
14,
s.
3.
in
case quoted,
p. 177.
A DIGEST OF
68
son to
whom
the
is,
[Part
I.
is
Any endorsement or memorandum to the efifect above menmade upon any bond or other specialty by a deceased
tioned
person,
is
in-
if it is
deemed
to
Bradley
>
be relevant as such/
v.
jfames, 13 C. B. 822.
this
is
unaltered.
See the question discussed in i 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
3
The
making
it,
that
is,
is
received in evidence.
and
privity, are
competent.
bert v. Nichol^ 20
Hun, 454
Shaffer
v.
Phillips
v.
v,
Buck-
v. Hick-
establishing the
same
diverse.
Me. Rev.
Mass. Pub.
St.,
c.
81,
Illustration {h).
rule as
above
St., c. 197, 16
v.
[Maine
v.
v.
Davidson
v.
more or
less
100; Bailey
Young"
v.
People, 9
Hun,
113.]
"
LAW
THE
Chap. IV.]
OF EVIDENCE.
69
Illttstratiotis.
{a)
An
The
entry in
deemed
question
to
is,
be relevant
is
;'
''
W. Fowden,
Junr.'s wife,
W. Fowden,
App.
H.
Junr.
Wife,
^i
6s. \d.
The question
is,
in
a part of a
parish.
The following
by deceased church-
It is
Haworth pay
Followed by
to proportion church-lay.
The chapelry
one-fifth, &c.
charge. 3
be
to
pairs
relevant
'
Higham
Stead
Doe
V.
V.
Beviss, 7 C. B. 456.
Williams
* jV.
irrelevint
v.
Doe
v.
Graves,
V.
Div. 605,
V. Vowles.
C.
&
P. 592.
Heyford, note to
A DIGEST OF
70
[Part
I.
{g)
The
question
is,
whether there
is
a right of
common
over a certain
field.
in
ques-
Article
29.
The
will,
are
deemed
be relevant
to
when
what were
to
'
*
3
been
contents
its
lost,
"*
R. V. Exeter, L. R. 4 Q. B. 341.
Papendick v. Bridgewater, 5 E. &
a question as
B. 166.
St. 67.
is
lish
a lost or destroyed
probate,
its
will,
provisions
Everitt
v.
may be
that
evidence of the
I Demarest, 519.
But in certain cases it is held that proof by
one witness is sufficient. Harris v. Harris, 26 N. Y. 433.].
Sigman,
Chap. IV.]
71
were
made
'
Article
will.'
30.*
deemed
to
be relevant (subject
* See Note
Barrett,
300
">
C.
[See Art.
;
{o)
New York
Sparke,
it
is
(2
R. S.*63,
M. &
S. 679
Crease
v.
Hoppe
v.
s.
ment
\.
v.
to par-
R. 917.
11, Illustration
Crispell
[In
relate to
custom or mat-
But declarations as
general interest.*
XX.
M. &
to the third
when they
38).
This
is
it is
and
testa-
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.
Trustees, etc. v. Calhoun, 25 N. Y. 422
Gilbert v. Knox, 52 N. Y. 125.
And similar evidence may be received in other States.]
^Sugden\. St. Leonards, L. R. I P. D. (C. A.) 154. [This is cited by
the author as authority for the whole article.]
In questions between the
heir and the legatee or devisor such statements would probably be relevant as admissions by a privy in law, estate, or blood.
Gould v. Lakes,
L. R. 6 P. D. I Doe v. Palmer, 16 Q. B. 747.
The decision in this case
^t p. 757, followed by Quick v. Quick, 3 Sw. & Tr. 442, is overruled by
Sugden v. St. Leonards.
[The general doctrine of this article is fully
recognized in this country.
;
Gr. Ev.
i.
$$
127-140,
Thompson, 15 Wall.
People
V.
Wooster
151,
145
v,
Ellicott
163
v.
McA'innon
Shuttle
v.
N. Y. 206, 218
Midland R. Co., 127 Mass. 571
v.
Drury v.
Birmingham
Bliss, 21
v.
Anderson, 40 Pa.
St. 506.
A DIGEST OF
72
ticular facts
[Part
I.
may be
jects,^
ever
deemed
inferred, are
right
is
public
if it is
and declarations as
to
be irrelevant.'
common
to all
Her Majesty's
sub-
who-
made them.
A right
erable
or
custom
number
is
general
if it
of persons, as the
is
common
to
any consid-
inhabitants of a parish, or
deemed to be relevant
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 knowlDeclarations as to general rights are
only
edge.
in
But in many States evidence is also received of the declarations of deceased persons as to the boundaries of private estates but the limitaThus in Massations of this doctrine are different in different States.
chusetts the declarations must have been made by one in possession of
land owned by him, while he was on the land and in the act of pointing
;
Long\.
Colton, ii6
Mass. 414.
But
in
some
States
the declarations of deceased surveyors, or of other persons having special means of knowledge of the facts stated are deemed competent.
Kratner v. Goodlander, 98 Pa. St. 366; Himniciitt v. Peyton, 102 U. S.
333 Evarts v. Young, 52 Vt. 329 Smith v. Forrest, 49 N. II. 230 Kinney v. Farnsworth, 17 Ct. 355 contra, Chapman v. Twitchell, 37 Me. 59
ct Jackson v. McCall, 10 Johns. 377. So ancient deeds, vsills, and other
solemn instruments are sometimes deemed competent to prove matters
of a private nature, though evidence of verbal declarations would be ex;
cluded.
78
Ward
Mass. 483.]
^[Hall V. Mayo, 97 Mass. 416; S. W. School Dist. v. Williams, 48
Ct. 504; Fraser v. Hunter, 5 Cr.C.C. 470; and so as to declarations
concerning private rights. Id. Boston.^ etc. Co. v. Hanlon, 132 Mass.
;
483.]
[Or in this country, to all the citizens of the State the " whoever
which follows would apply to any such citizen, Gr. Ev. i. $ 128.]
2
"
THE
Chap. IV.]
LAW OF
EVIDENCE.
j^
Illustrations.
The
(a)
question
statement by
whether a road
is
(deceased) that
it
is,
public.
public
is
is
deemed
to
be
rela-
vant.'
to
made in
Maps prepared
by the direction
by, or
matter 3
Copies of Court
of,
rolls
*
;
bodies'
similar
if final.^
Article
31.*
declarations as to pedigree.
declaration
deemed
is
to
be relevant (subject
to the
con-
it
its
occurrence.*
* See Note
'
Crease
R.
Implied
E.
&
v.
7 A.
V. Bliss,
in
&
^
'
v.
M. &
R. 929.
McCausland
[Cf.
Forrest, 49 N. H. 230
XXL
C.
erly qualified.
<
E. 550.
Hammond
E. III.
v.
and Pipe
map was
Fleming, 63 Pa.
v.
Fulcher,
36; Smith
v.
2.]
N. Y. 434, 442
(a).
;
[Jackson
Haddock
v.
4 B.
& Ad.
273.
266.
A DIGEST OF
74
'
[Part
I.
Weaver
v. Lei??tafi,
Cuddy
Burlington, 4 Pick.
McCarty
v.
Terry, 7 Lans, 236; Union v.
Camden, 74 Me. 56 Tyler v. Flanders, 57 N. H. 618.
A person's age may be a question of pedigree
Pa. St. 381
Conn. Ins. Co. v. Schwenk, 94 U. S.
( Watson V. Brewster, i
593. 598). and he may testify to his own age, stating what he learned
thereon from deceased parents, etc.
Cherry v. State, 68 Ala. 29 Hill -v.
Eldridge, 126 Mass. 234.]
Davies v. Lowndes, 6 M. & G. 527. [yewell's Lessee v. Jewell, I How.
(U. S.) 219, 231
cf. Jackson v. Browner, 18 Johns. 37.]
174;
Greenfield
v.
'
"^
Illustration
[c).
Illustration
field
\.
i.
THE
Chap. IV.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
75
interest.
Illustrations.
{a)
The
question
is,
The
is
the eldest.
St.
Cor.
xvi. 17),
and the
round
fact that a relation present at the birth said that she tied a string
lives
arm
The question
is
is,
to distinguish
it,
are relevant."
in
a lease for
living.
expressions
similar
are
v.
used, Tyler
v.
Barnum, 42 Md.
251), or to
'
Barnum
v.
Barnum, 42 Md.
Vin. Abr.
tit.
251, 304
Evidence, T.
b. 91.
Caujolle
Thq
v.
Ferrie, 23
N. Y.
90, 104.]
A DIGEST OF
76
The
fact that
he was believed
[Part
in his family to
be dead
is
deemed
to
I.
be
is
pedigree
in
known
in
deeds and
wills
in
inscriptions
on tomb-
to the compiler.''
Article
32.*
when relevant.
for the
/?, V.
Chap.
THE
IV.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
when he cannot be
in criminal, tases,
Provided
(i)
'
Fry
Godbolt,
but not
civil,
found.'
in all cases
77
Wood,
whom
the evidence
is
to
be given
R. v. Scai/e, 17 Q. B. 243.
F. v. Scai/e, 17 Q. B. 243. [The death of
the witness will in all States admit his former testimony. As to other
disabilities, there is much difference of doctrine.
Thus, in civil cases,
New York has thus far held only death sufficient absence from the jurisdiction, or the fact that the witness cannot be found, is not enough.
Wilbur V. Stldc-n, 6 Cow. 162
Weeks v. Lowerre, 8 Barb. 530. 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, or has become incompetent to testify
by reason of the death of the opposite party to the suit.
Walbridge v.
Kiiippeti, 96 Pa. St. 48.
In Illinois, death, insanity, or the keeping of the
witness away by the adverse party, is sufficient.
Stout v. Cook, 47 111. 530.
Absence from the jurisdiction is held sufficient in California (Hicks v. Lovcll, 64 Cal. 14)
in Michigan, if due diligence has been used to find the
witness (Howard \. Patrick, 38 Mich. 795 Mat-i'ich v. Elsey, 47 Id. 10)
but not in New Jersey (Berticy v. Mitchell, 34 N. J. L. 337, and that, too,
even though he cannot be found, Id.) nor in Vermont, Illinois, or Iowa, if
there has been a lack of diligence to secure his attendance or deposition.
V.
Atk. 444
case 418
p. 326,
111.
560.
Dcrney
v.
286;
Drown
State
V.
v.
Comm., 73 Pa.
Fitzgerald, 63
la,
268
St. 321
;
Summons
State v. Able, 65
U. S.
v.
v.
Mo.
Angell, 11 F. R. 34
Brogy
v.
'
'
'
A DIGEST OF
78
had the
and opportunity
right
the
[Part
I.
to
as a witness
first
in
Provided also
(3)
if civil,
Woods v.
he can state the substance of the whole of it.
Hepler v. Mt. Carmel Bk., 97 Pa. St. 420; HarriBlack v. Woodrow, 39 Md. 194 Emery v.
la. 573
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. % 163 Ruch v. Rock Island^ 97 U. S. 693 Home v.
Williams, 23 Ind. 37 Hepler v. Mt. Cartitel Bk., 97 Pa. St. 420
U. S.
remembers
if
it,
McL. 286
Alacomb, 5
5 O. St. 325
V.
Mass. 354. The latest New York cases seem to support the former rule,
Crawford v. Loper.,
but it is difficult to extract a definite rule from them.
Mclntyre v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 37 N. Y. 287, 291 Martin v.
25 Barb. 449
Clark v. Vorce, 15 Wend. 193, 19 id. 232.
Cope, 3 Abb. Dec. 182
Such former testimony may be proved by a stenographer from memby a juror who heard it {Hutchings v.
ory {Moore v. Moore, 39 la. 461)
Corgan, 59 111. 70) by an attorney {Earl v. Tupper, 45 Vt. 275 Costigan
v. Limt, 127 Mass. 354
who may refresh his recollection by his minutes.
Id.)
by the judge's minutes, duly authenticated by him as to completeWhitcher v.
ness and accuracy {Martin v. Cope, 3 Abb. Dec. 182
Morey, 39 Vt. 459) by the minutes of stenographers, counsel, masters
in chancery, etc. {Stewart v. First Nat. Bk., 43 Mich. 257; Rhine v.
Yale v. Comstock,
Clark v. Vorce, 15 Wend. 193
Robinson, 27 Pa. St. 30
112 Mass. 267) 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 is not proved on the second trial, the
surviving party cannot be a witness to testify against the decedent's repBradley v. Mirick,
Emerso?!. v. Bleakley, 2 Abb. Dec. 22
resentatives.
91 N. Y. 293; Stewart v. First Nat. Bk., 43 Mich. 257; see Blair v.
;
\Osborn
v, Pell,
v.
Crissey, 3
Wend.
251
CAas(
v.
Chap,
same
If
THE
v.]
That,
(4)
the
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
in
same person
is
79
accused upon
facts.'
evidence
reduced
is
to the
it
was
given.
The
may be
used as evi-
in articles 140-142.
SECTION
II.
33.
When
issue or
ment of
any act of
is,
it
state or
Co., 75
293.
is
in
is
Springz'alt Mills
48, 51,
any
deemed to be, relevant to the issue, any statemade in a recital contained in any public Act of
or
Bradley v. Mirick, 91
it is not exercised.
Privies in blood, in law, or in estate, are "representatives
v.
'
A DIGEST OF
8o
[Part
Parliament, or in any Royal proclamation or speech of the Sovereign in opening Parliament, or in any address to the
House of Parliament,
of either
is
deemed
Crown
be a relevant
to
fact.i
Article
34.
in per-
or
in
nals or resolutions,
McKinnon
v.
is
Bliss, 21
deemed
be a relevant
to
N. Y. 206
Radcliff
Gr. Ev.
fact.
Ins. Co.
v.
i.
491
7 Johns. 38, 51
As
supra; in resolutions of a
51 Barb. 414, 428.]
'
R.
[For
V.
Franckliii, 17 S. T. 636
this
District of
'
common
Sturla
and 643-4.
country
McKinnon
v.
Sutton, 4
M. &
\.
v. Bliss,
Rochester
S. 532.
this
Columbia. "]
V.
Freccia, L. R. 5
T. E.
App.
(from Greenleaf)
Ca
623
ss.
1429,
see
especially p. 633-4
1432.
Proctor
V.
THE
Chap. IV.]
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
Article
8i
35.
deemed
deemed
matter
to
in issue
is
irt
be relevant when
or
is,
or
is
relevant.'
[Submitted)
deemed
to
for
sale as to matters of
public
lin,
6 Duer, 512
(f),
ante.
People
v.
Zeyst, 23
N. Y. 140
Railroad
38
111.
As
Co. v.
Graville
Cunnington, 39 O.
St.
v. jV.
327
215.
to entries in other
books of a private or
A DIGEST OF
82
facts
[Part
;
'
if
I.
they relate to
matters of private concern, or matters not likely to be accurately stated in such documents.^
In R.
'
V.
maps
Orion,
had lived.
commutation map purporting to denote the
boundaries of A's property is irrelevant in a question between A and B
situation of various places at which the defendant said he
2
Wilbei-force
v.
Hearfield, L. R. s
I Black, 209;
Whitehotise v. Bickford, 9 Foster, 471), as
testimony of the surveyors who prepared them. Curtiss
by the
e.g.,
Ayrault,
v.
&
5 T.
C. 611.
and duly
certified
souri
Where
map
a plan or
of land
it
is
is
prepared, and
is
referred to in
making
Chittenden, 6 Lans. 15
cating land to the public.
v.
Some
Thus
here be noticed.
tific
treatise
is
stated therein
J?.
Bos. 7
Co., 3
Ala. 30
V.
York.
Carpcttter
v.
Cohocs, 81 N. Y. 21.
it is
Lithographing
;
Boyle
may
v.
Co.
State, 57
v.
Kerting, 107
Wis. 472
111.
344
People
v.
Brodhead v. Wiltsee, 35 la. 429 [by statute]) nor can such books
argument to the jury Washburn v. Cuddihy, 8 Gray, 430 Boyle
;
in
State,
etc.,
be read
New
supra
People
v.
contra. State
v.
Hoyt, 46
Chap.
IV.]
THE
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
Articles
83
Article
39.*
" judgment."
The word "judgment" in articles 40-47 means any
judgment, order, or decree of any Court.
final
it
V. Bittell,
of places {Spalding
V.
Hedges, 2 Pa.
St. 240),
f.aston, 19
Co. v.
'
and 38
appendix.
in this
v.
Cliffs
Iron
As
but
will
to
be found
Engin
the
books
A DIGEST OF
The
[Part
I.
subject to
all
Article
40.
all
persons of the existence of that state of things which they actually effect
fected
when
The
issue.'
proved
a fact in issue or
is
is,
or
is
deemed
in the
manner prescribed
may be
it
in Part II.
Illustrations.
(a)
The
question
of his servant
is,
A judgment in
whether
has been
damaged by
the negligence
C's horse.
in injuring
an action, in which
is
in
did recover
damages against
that action.
{fi)
The
question
is,
whether A, a shipowner,
is
entitled to recover as
licious prosecution.
[Gr. Ev.
>
i.
Murray
Deyo, 10 Hun, 3
v.
Dorrell
see Smith
v.
v. State,
Wadswortk
v.
Coodnow
v.
Green
tion
[a).
v.
New
River Company, 4 T. R. 590. See article 44, Illustrav. Brigham, 7 Johns. 168
Dubois v. Hermance, 56
Masser v. Strickland, 17 S. & R. 354 Tyler v. Ulmer, 12
[See Kip
N. Y. 673
Mass. 166; and/^5/, Art. 44, Illustration (ab').'\
3 Involved in
Geyer v. Aguilar, 7 T. R. 68r
;
Cr. 241.]
Chap.
THE
IV.]
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
The judgment
conclusive
is
proof that
(d)
85
The grant
of probate to
is
B.
is
B's executor.*
(e)
is
court.
Tne sentence
is
of deprivation in
fact
all
cases.'
(_/)
Divorce Court.
The sentence
is
is
all cases.''
is
:ed States.
The record
'
Leggatt
& Ry.
277
of a
judgment
of
v.
S9I-]
2 Allan v. Dundas, 3 T. R. 125-130.
In this case the will to which probate had been obtained was forged.
[^Kelly v. West, 80 N. Y. 139 N. Y.
Code Civ. Pro. 2591 Day v. Floyd, 130 Mass. 488 Mutual Ins. Co. v.
;
V.
ministration
upon
Stevenson
Superior
is
jurisdiction.
v.
Ct.,
62 Cal. 60
C.
76 N. Y. 316.]
3 Judgment of Lord Holt in Philips
Bouldin v. Alexa?tder, 15 Wall. 131.]
to his clerk, S.
Assumed
[cf.
no
Mass. 463
217
as to
v.
Baker, 76 N. Y.
78.
'
A DIGEST OF
86
come a
is
citizen
facts
[Part
to
1.
such judgment
Article
41.
is
'
S. 238, 245
v.
Marsh, 5 N. Y. 263
People
v.
McGowan,
77
111.
Mutual
644
itself to
be the
Tisdale, 91
Ins. Co. v.
U.
48.]
"^
V.
[Gr. Ev.
i.
judgment
is
Leavitt
; Cagger v. Lansing^ 64 N. Y. 417
Bickford v. Cooper^ 41 Pa. St. 142
White v.
But it is generally held in this country that a
528 et seg.
Wolcott, 95 N. Y. 219
i^S.
not
may be shown by
upon
the record
such as do
v. Rankhi, 99 U. S. 261
Foye v. Patch, 132 Mass.
Smith, 79 N. Y. 634 Stipples v. Ca7t7707i., 44 Ct. 424;
Roberts v. Orr, 56 Pa. St. 176 Lander v. Arno, 65 Me. 26 Sanderson v.
Peabody, 58 N. H. 116; see Art. 44, Illustration {cc).
But such evidence
must not contradict the record. FoUansbcev. Walker, 74. Pa. St. 306 Mc-
termined.
105, III
Campbell
Smith
v.
ered,
it
Baird
bnrs an action
v.
U. S.
judgment goes against him, this will bar any action by him based on
White v. Mersuch grounds of defence (see Illustrations (/) and {g)
Homer v. Fish, i Pick. 435) so this prior judgment
rill, 8 N. Y. 352
will bar the use of such defences in a subsequent action between the same
parties upon the same cause of action, though it will only conclude as
\
Chap.
THE
IV.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
87
if
ferent.
Sac, 94 U. S. 351
v.
i.
A DIGEST OF
[Part
is
I.
intended to be
proved.'
Illustrations.
The
(a)
question
whether C, a pauper,
is,
is
settled in parish
or par-
ish B.
is
children were
ment
arose,
the wife of E.
in the order that D was the wife of E is conclusive as
and B.^
((5) 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 distribiUion of the
The declaration in the first suit is in the second suit coneffects of C.
The statement
between
A company
(c)
sues
that
for
is
nearer of kin to
than A.^
calls.
special case
in the
68 Pa.
18 Johns. 352
"
R.
v.
Qiiinn
v. Qitinn.^
Allfrey, L. R. 10 C. P. 29
172
3
[see Bethlehem
Barrs
16 Vt. 426.]
v.
v.
yackson,
&
B. 780
v.
and see
Flitters v.
Child, L. R.
Wall. 465
White v. Weatherbee, \'2.(i Mass. 450.]
^ Bank of Hindustan^ etc., Allison's Case, L. R. 9 Ch. App.
v.
E.\.
D.
Ferrie, 13
2^,
Chap.
THE
V.J
Afterwards
sues
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
for dissolution of
and desertion.
with cruelty
89
is
deemed
to
goods.
The judgment
in the second.]
()
[A sues B
cluded
in
Stoate
475
cf.
for the
a certain
v.
bill
Stoate, 2
Bradley
v.
conversion of goods which are a part of those inby C to B, and A recovers judgment
of sale given
Bradley,
\^Farringto
\_Blair v. Bartleft, 75
76
v.
556
Haynes
[Binck
id.
V.
\.
Ordway, 58 N. H.
Wood, 43 Barb. 315
v.
Woodruff, 11 Me.
S. P. Dunham v. Bower, 77 N. Y.
Byers, 52 Wis. 650 Sykes v. Bonner, i Cine.
Dillon, 86 Ind. 327; Howell v. Goodrich, 69 111.
N. Y. 150
v.
167.]
Greenabaum
Loring v. Mansfield, 17 Mass. 394. ]
^\Tuska V. O'Brien, 68 N. Y. 446.J
*
\.
367.
contra, Ressequie
is
v.
Elliott,
60 Mo. 25
A DIGEST OF
90
[Part
I.
A for the
A sues B
Afterwards
Article
credit
42.
'
{Doty
"
{Caylus
V.
Brown, 4 N. Y.
N. Y., etc. R.
71.]
76 N. Y. 609
^ 532, 533.]
14
V.
Hull, 16 N. Y. 575
V. Bishop, 3 Allen, 456.]
[Campbell
Wing
v.
This exception
is
treated by
in Lothian v. Henderson, 3 B.
R. 4 E.
Co.,
& L App.
&
it is
Gr. Ev.
Railroad
Lord Eldon
i.
as an objectionable
P. 545.
U. S.
anomaly
v. Itnrie,
L.
434-5.
commonly
called
judgments
itt
rem.
It
a general rule that such judgments are conclusive, not only as to parGelston v. Hoyt, 13 Johns.
ties and privies but even as to all the world.
561, 3 Wheat. 246 Risley v. Phenix Bk., 83 N. Y. 318, 332. Decisions as
is
to personal status, viz., marriage, divorce, bastardy, etc., are often in-
cluded
in the
same category.
Gr. Ev.
i.
some
'
THE
Chap. IV.]
ment
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
is
all
upon the
stated
91
fact
plainly
is
Illustrations.
The
question between
The
question
{a)
evant.
[b)
is,
whether
public
office.
A judgment
in
and B
to
determine the
v.
U. S. 714
Mc Kinney
doctrine as to judgments in
rem
is
Pennoyer
v.
Collins, 88
The English
tion
is
is
title
judgment of condemna-
upheld also
in
some American
courts.
Doe
V.
'
A DIGEST OF
92
title to
the
title, is
Article
[Part
that
had the
I.
rightful
43.
sues
for
>
'
[People
V.
Murray, 73 N. Y.
''[That a judgment
is
535.]
conclusive
when given
an opportunity
in
evidence, as
equally
is
to plead
if
Sheldon
v.
Patterson, 55
111.
507.
But some States follow the English rule. Clink v. Thurston, 47 Cal. 21
Fatiningw. Ins. Co., 37 O. St. 344.]
f Vooghtw.
Winch, 2 B. & A. 662; and see Feversha9n v. Emerson, 11
E.x. 391
Bowyer v. Scho[see Plate v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 37 N. Y. 472
Jield, I Abb. Dec. 177; Newell \. Carpenter, 118 Mass. 411.]
;
'
LAW
THE
Chap. IV.]
"
OF EVIDENCE.
trial
93
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.'
Article
44.
'
926.
doubted.
^
[Gr. Ev.
Sclirauth
"
v.
[Gr. Ev.
i.
Dry Dock
i.
St.
;
252
Russell
v.
Place, 94 U. S. 606
{,cb).
A'orton
So a judgment
is
v.
not
binding on the parties as to matters not passed upon, though they are
stated in the complaint {Stvcct
{cc)),
Tuttlc, 14
v.
N. Y.
up by way of coun-
v.
v. yohnson, 38
which are only incidentally cognizable, or to
from the judgment (Gr. Ev. i. ^ 528 Hopkins v.
v. Shannon, 99 Mass. 200; Lentz\. Wallace.,
N. Y. 63), or as to matters
be inferred by argument
Wheat. 109 Burlen
nor is a
17 Pa. St. 412)
judgment against a party individually binding on him in a suit wherein
he appears in a representative capacity.
Kathbo7ie v. Hooney, 58 N. Y.
463 Lauder v. Arno, 65 Me. 26.]
* [Burdick v. Norwich,
49 Ct. 225 Bissell v. Kellogg, 65 N. Y. 432
see Phillips V. yamieson, 31 Mich. 153 but a judgment against one of
;
Lee, 6
A DIGEST OF
94
But a judgment
strangers
is
deemed
[Part
be relevant
to
I.
between
as
(i)
if it is
(2)
if
it
an admission,' or
Illustrations.
The
question
negligence.
is,
the injury
shown.] ^
two or more
is
other.
Kingsley
v.
[Gr. Ev.
i.
horn, 20
N. Y.
244.]
\_City
is
remedy
THE
Chap. IV.]
The question
(b)
(f)
is
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
w hether a
fact that
between two
95
ships,
and
B, each of which
the
collision
dower.
614
Co., 70
111.
As a general
217.
rule,
it
Hatch, 86 N. Y.
v.
etc.
R. Co.
Packet
v.
may be used
to
is
not
its
recovery), unless the latter agreed to indemnify against the results of the
or unless he
suit,
15 N. Y. 405
bcll,
Giltma?i
v.
official
Thomas
to defend.
Strong, 64 Pa.
St.
sheriffs'
v.
bonds,
etc.,
Hi;b-
upon
Sureties
242.
are often
(in
though they had no notice, such being deemed the obligation of their
Jordan v. Volkenning, 72 N. Y. 300 Harrison v. Clark, 87
N. Y. 572; A/c.Micken \. Comm.., 58 Pa. St. 213; Cutter v. Evans, 115
contracts.
Mass.
280
'
As
27.
sity of
of.
Konitzky
v.
Per Blackburn,
[Gr. Ev.
i.
537
Ahycr, 49 N. Y. 571.]
J.,
see
in Castrique v. Imrie,
Mutual
75 N. Y. 466, 471
Ihomas, 44 Pa. St. 128.]
v. Sims.,
2
3
The Calypso,
On
Swab. Ad.
Corbley
v.
Wilson, 71
U.
111.
&
I.
App. 434;
S. 238, 244
209
Si^ns
Hargcr
v.
28.
813.
<
L. R. 4 E.
A DIGEST OF
96
The
[Part
is
not
deemed
to
be
I.
rele-
dered (i) 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 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 so7ne 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 committed
by
A.
The judgment
against
A is deemed to be irrelevant
as against B,
though
{e)
to B.
A judgment
recovered by B against a person to whom he had delivered the goods, is deemed to be relevant as an admission by B that he
had
them.''
is (at
obstructing a highway on
least)
deemed
to
be
rele-
vant to the question whether the place was a public highway (and
is
possibly conclusive).
[Carrol/
v.
Carroll, 60 N. Y. 121
S. P.
Mutual
Semble from R.
v.
Turner,
Moo. C.
C. 347.
is
it
is
is
therefore, controvert
;
Buller,
Petrie
N.
v.
P. 242, b.
THE
Chap. IV.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
Article
judgments conclusive
97
45.
in
favor of judge.
A
500
sues
lbs.
self of
The
having gunpowder
for
Geo. in.
was a
(a justice of the
in
a boat on
the
Thames
(against 2
28).
c.
conviction
is
boat,'.
Article
46.
is
'
Brittain v. Kinnaird,
Den. 537
115, 119.
People
It
judges) that
the court
is
is
v.
B.
Collins, 19
v.
any
whom
Brotherson, i
Stevens, 2 Gray,
when
its
upon a
fact
which
is
final, until
purpose {Otis
v.
A DIGEST OF
98
it is
so offered
may
jurisdiction,' or that
[On
[Part
it
if
he
it
I.
had no
a stranger
is
it is a gencountry that while the judgment of a domestic court of general jurisdiction, acting in the scope of its
general powers, may be avoided in a collateral proceeding for lack of
jurisdiction apparent on the face of the record itself, yet that this cannot
'
erally received
common
law doctrine
in
this
be done when the recitals of the record show that the court had jurisdiction (Blaisdell v. Pray, 68 Me. 269; Finncran v. Leonard, 7 Allen, 54;
general rule, for lack of jurisdiction. Id.; Coitv. I/aven, 3oCt. 190; Galpin
Kisley v. Phenix Bk., 83 N. Y. 318 but see Hahn v.
V. Page, supra
;
some
v.
Whittemore, 105 Mass. 23, 28. And a judgbe impeached for this cause by a stranger to it.
v.
Baldwin, 103
325
111.
Buffiini v. Ramsdell, 55
Me.
252.
col-
laterally for fraud in acquiring jurisdiction, notwithstanding this contradicts the record.
Ferguson
see Cavanaugh
v.
Crawford, supra
Clark
v. Little,
41
la.
497
v.
shown
to
be
Vandcwalker, 53 N. Y. 597
U. S. v. Walker, 109 U. S. 258 see Ferguson v.
Crawford, supra, and cases cited therein. These rules apply both to jurisBosiuorth
v.
{Smith
426.
As
V.
Frankfield, 77
Y. 414; Clodfelter
v.
Hulett, 92 Ind.
to the effect of
v.
v.
THE
Chap. IV.]
to
it,
that
it
LAW OF
EVIDENCE.
whom
Article
he
is
99
collusion,' to
which
47.
foreign judgments.
The
son
note
'
I,
supra, apply.]
Cases on
this article
collected in T. E.
and Ochsetibein
v.
ss.
1524-1525,
See,
1530.
s.
^ 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.
See, too, Schisby v. Westenhoh, L. R. 6 Q. B. 155, and Rousillon
414,
V. Rousillon, L. R. 14 Ch. D. 370.
[The judgments of sister States are in this country ranked as foreign
judgments within this rule. The U. S. Constitution declares that "full
faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records,
and judicial proceedings of every other State." Art. 4, $ i. Nevertheless, such judgments may be avoided collaterally for lack of jurisdiction,
even in contradiction of recit.ils in the record showing jurisdiction
(^Thompson v. IVkttman, 18 Wall. 457 h'err v. Kerr, 41 N. Y. 272 People V. Dawell, 25 Mich. 247
yardine v. Reichert, 39 N. J. L. 165 Pennywit v. Foote, 27 O. St. 6co Gilman v. Gilman, 126 Mass. 26 see Cook v.
Cook, 56 Wis. 195 contra, as to impeaching recitals, Wetherillx. Stillman,
Zepp V. Hager, 70 111. 223), or for fraud in acquiring juris65 Pa. St. 105
diction over the person.
Stanton v. Crosby, 9 Hun, 370 Ditnlap v. Cody,
So fraud otherwise committed in procuring the judgment (if
31 la. 260.
not available as a defence in the original suit), may be set up in some
States as an equitable defence to the judgment (Dobson v. Pe^vrce, 12
;
A DIGEST OF
loo
CHAPTER
OPINIONS,
[Part
v.*
I.
NOT.
48,
The fact
that
not exist
fact,'
any person
is
relevant or
is
or does
of such
upon
Christmas
90 N. Y. 502
25 N. J. Eq. 60.
v.
Pringle v. Wood-worth,
see Nichols v. Nichols,
in
Abendroth, 97 N. Y. 132.]
' [It is a general rule that witnesses must give evidence
oifacts, not of
opinions.
Conn. Ins. Co. v. Lathrop, 11 1 U. S. 612, 618 Continental Ins.
V.
Simmons
v.
Chap, v.]
loi
Illustrations,
The question
when he made his
{a)
nized
is,
The subscribing
(i)
may
witnesses to a will
Egbert
Egbert, 78 Pa.
326
St.
Wood, 55 N. Y. 635.
may
Hastings
many
In
(2)
v.
connection
in
upon
May
an inquiry.
Mass. 438.
(3)
upon facts
upon which men
ters
to
Shawneetown
v.
Mason, 82
111.
337)
nervous, or
had good
N. Y. 621) that a horse was frightened
{Darling v. Westmoreland, 52 N. H. 401) and many like matters. See
many illustrations given in Sydleman v. Beckwith, 43 Ct. 9 Hardy v. Merrill, 56 N. H. 227
Comm. v. Sturtivant, 117 Mass. 122 see Illustrations
(d) and (c).]
calm, or excited (Dimick
eyesight (Ada?ns
v.
v.
Doiuns, 82
People, 63
570)
111.
that a person
A DIGEST OF
102
[Part
[An action
{b)
tract.
by the
The
is
in
his
tort or
I.
lifetime, are
breach of con-
damage sustained
deemed to be irrelevant.
The
plaintiff
question.]
'
[The question is, upon a trial for murder, whether certain hairs are
human hairs and like the hair of the deceased.
{e)
Witnesses,
point,
who knew
Wri^-ht
Ins. Co. V.
V.
Doe
d.
may
the deceased,
Tatfiam, 7 A.
Lathrop, iii U.
S.
on
this
&
E. 313
612, 622
People
v.
Montgomery, 13 Abb.
[Morehouse
Cleveland,
etc.
v.
R.
Mathews,
2 N. Y.
etc.
der, 88
[^Bennett
[McKee
[Comm.
v.
Cletnence,
6 Allen, 10.]
THE
Chap, v.]
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
Article
103
49.
When
there
is
is
necessary
to the for-
When
experts
there
who
is
[Gr.
Ev.
i.
440
Spring
Co.
v.
tine,
^
624
44
la.
672.]
Baron de Bodc's
;
Castrii^ue
v.
Case, 8
Q. B. 250-267
Imrie, L.
R. 4 E.
&
I.
Di Sora
Phillipps, 10 H. L.
v.
App. 434
see,
too,
Picton's
A DIGEST OF
I04
[Part
I.
may be proved by
country {Mowry
this
T. 510-511.
Case^ 30 S.
States or countries
v.
and
8 Pai. 446),
is
which also generally provide that in proving the common law of another
State or Territory in the U. S., the books of reports of cases may be
given in evidence. See e.g., N. Y. Code Civ. Pr. % 942 Maine Rev. St.,
c. 82, %^ 108, 109
Mass. Pub. St., c. 169, 72, 73. Sometimes the latter
provision is also e.xtended to the law of foreign countries.
Id.
see The
;
is deemed admissible
some States, either with or without a copy of such law (Barrows v.
Downs, 9 R. I. 446 Hall v. Costello, 48 N. H. 176) 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,
in
post).
This
is
mode
Pacific
Gas
Co.
Whcclock, 80 N. Y. 278
v.
Hynes
v.
McDermott,
may be
Thellusson, 8 C. B. 812
Co.
V.
deemed a question
ally
The
first
introduced
of fact, unless
it
is is
usu-
when
it
is
a question of law.
In the
135 Mass. 349 Daincse v. Hall, 91 U. S. 13.
absence of proof of the foreign law or that of another State, the law of
Hackett
V. Potter,
v.
'
THE
Chap, v.]
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
105
entitle
Illustrations,
The
(a)
'
question
Rristow
V.
Co.
71
Perkins
v.
Rowley
opinion of an expert
knowledge of the
v.
L. &^
I P.
v. yohnson, 58 N. Y. 613.
admissible though he has no personal
Roberts
The
caused by poison.
N. W. Railway, L.
D. 69. \Nelson v. Ins.
Stickiiey, 132 Mass. 217
Z). tS^ C. TowThe witness need not be still in the
36.
N. Y. 453
V.
A was
R. G Ex. 221.
boat Co.
is,
is
But
in the question
exist,
127)
but
in
bear
in
mour
State
V.
V.
Klinger, 46
full
Fellows, 77 N. Y.
178;
Mo. 224
Hunt
State
And where
v.
facts.
Sey-
upon his
knowledge of the facts, a hypothetical case need not be stated. Mercer
V. Vose, 67 N. Y. 56
Bcllefontaine, etc. R. Co. v. Bailey, 11 O. St. 333.]
2 I Ph. 507; T. E. s.
{Carpenter v. Eastern Trans. Co., 71 N.
1278.
Y. 574; Kempsey v. McGintiis, 21 Mich. 123; so his opinion is not reGere, 100 Pa. St. 127.
Hunt
v.
530.
Nor
Lowell Gas
obligation.
is
in establishing
controverted
facts.
103 Mass.
i.
j 441.]
A DIGEST OF
io6
The
{Part
I.
is
supposed
to
law.
nature of the acts which they do, or of knowing that what they do
either wrong or contrary to law, are deemed to be relevant ^
(r)
The question
is,
Another document
been written by A.
is
is
'
I?, v.
[Stephens
^ J?.
V.
Palmer
v.
(^passim).
Dove {passim).
28 Vict.
See
my
'
Lake, 12 N. Y. 358
risk.
c.
State
18, s. 8
[See People
v.
v.
may
and
note.]
86,
[Greenfield
it
THE
Chap, v.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
are
107
The opinion
vant.]
of an expert
upon
question
this
is
deemed
to
be
irrele-
{k) [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 irrelevant.]'
Article
50.
deemed
to
be relevant
if
deemed
are
to
be relevant.*
Illiistrations.
'
{^Cornish v. Farm, etc. Ins, Co., 74 N. Y. 295
Dafiiels v. Hudson
River Ins. Co. 12 Cush. 416 Hartmaii v. Keystone Ins. Co. 21 Pa. St.
466 but the cases are not all agreed on this point see Lyman v. State,
etc. Ins. Co., 14 Allen, 329
yoyce v. Maine Ins. Co., 45 Me. 168 Kent's
;
Comm.,
285.]
iii.
'^[/Ccllcr V. /V. Y. C.
R.
Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469.]
5 \Manke v. People, 17
*
[Lincoln
v.
Taunton
Co., 2
Hun, 410
v.
78 N. Y. 611.J
Mf'g
Co.,
Tilton v.
74 N. Y. 15
Olmsted v. Gere, 100 Pa. St. 127.]
Infirmary, 80 N. Y. 631
* R. V. Palmer, printed trial, p.
In this case (tried in 1856)
124, etc.
evidence was given of the symptoms attending the deaths of Agnes
Co.,
Senet, poisoned
poisoned
by strychnine
quently to
in 1845,
and Mrs. Dove, murdered by tlie same poison subsethe death of Cook, for whose murder Pahner was tried,
in 1848,
A DIGEST OF
io8
{b)
The
question
An
certain bank.
The
is,
whether an obstruction
to a
harbors similarly
[Part
harbor
it is
is
caused by a
not.
Article
I.
at
about the
51.
When
there
is
is
of another person
self or
under
Foulkes
and addressed
his authority,
V.
[cf.
Hawks
v.
to that person,^ or
Charle7noiit,
no
Mass.
no.]
2 [For a valuable article on this subject, see Am. Law Rev., xvi. 569.]
= [Having seen him write once is enough
this affects the weight, not
Ha?nmond v. Varian, 54 N. Y. 398
the competency, of the testimony.
Comm. V. Nefus, 135 Mass. 533 MciVair v. Cornjn. 26 Pa. St. 388. So a
person's mark may be proved in this way. St>-on^'s Excrs., 17 Ala. 706
Fo-^ V. Dennis, 3 Humpk. 47 Jackson v. Van Diisen, 5 Johns. 144
But a person who sees another
contra, Shinkle v. Crock, 17 Pa. St. 159.
write, or examines his handwriting, expressly for the purpose of being
Reese v. Reese, 90
fible to testify, is, in general, an incompetent witness.
;
Pa. St. 89
Board of Trustees
{Chaffee
v.
v.
JVusenheimer, 78
witness
Foye
may
v.
111.
22
Hynes
v.
McDer-
testify as to
Clark
v.
Freeman, 25 Pa.
St. 133
Cunningham
v.
THE
Chap. V.]
when,
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
109
in the
by
ing to be written
to him.'
Illustration.
The question
whether a given
is,
write.*
The opinion
of E,
who saw
is
also rele-
vant. 3
Article
52.
comparison of handwritings.
Comparison of a disputed handwriting with any writing
to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine is per-
proved
Johns. 134
seen letters
who has afterwards, by words or acts, acgenuineness (Gr. Ev. i. 577 yohnsoti v. Daverne, ig
Snyder v. McKecvcr, lo Bradw. i88) but not if he has only
to strangers, purporting to be those of the person in question.
Pkila.
R. Co.
knowledged
;
etc.
Mass. 275
'See
6 S.
&
ments
their
v.
Hickman, 28 Pa.
St.
318;
Ntines
v.
Perry, 113
Illustration
\Titfordv.
Thus
A'nott,
Comm.
v.
Smith,
R. 568.
public officers
official
testify as to
Amherst Bk. v. Root, 2 Met. 522 Sill v. Reese, 47 Cal. 294. 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. iii.]
" Doe V. Snckcrmore,
5 A. & E. 705 (Coleridge, J.)
730 (Patteson, J.)
739-40 (Denman, C. J.).
' R. V. Home Tooke,
25 S. T. 71-2 [see Brachmann v. Hall, i Disney,
539]
;
A DIGEST OF
[Part
I.
Court and jury as evidence of the genuineness or otherThis paragraph applies to all
to the
by law, or by consent of
examine evidence.'
'
17
&
18 Vict.
on
rules
125,
c.
27
s.
civil,
28 Vict.
18,
c.
and
to all
persons having
8.
s.
A rule
and
in
Woodman v. Dana, 52
Hastings, 53 X. H. 452, but here the jury judge whether
the writing used as a standard is genuine; State \. Ward, 39 Vt. 225;
Costello V. Crowcll, 133 Mass. 352
Pub. St. R. I., c. 214, $ 42
Tyler v.
sey, Mississippi, Texas, Ohio, Iowa,
Me. 9
State
and Kansas.
v.
36; N.
Peck
Rev., p. 381
J.
Co. v. AfcFarland,
many
v.
53
la.
540
Macomber
and irrelevant
v. Scott,
10 Kan. 335.
But
in
^\Titings
;
Md. 439
Hawkins
Su'omley, 56
v.
number
(Id.)
of
mitted to be genuine.
See
Gr. Ev.
this
i.
^ij
by
experts.
Berryhill
v.
Kirchner, 96
576-582.
person's signature or other writing made in court at the trial will not
generally be allowed to be used for comparison.
Comm. v. Allen, 128
Mass. 46
But
this is
writing
is
Hun, 341
Chandler
parison.
;
Bronner
v.
Loomis, 14
Cohen
v.
Tdkr,
THE
Chap, v.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
Article
53.
When
there
is
iii
when relevant.
man and
deemed
by
and to
raise a presumption that they were lawfully married, and that
any act necessary to the validity 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
others as
wife are
to
be relevant
facts,
damages
against an adulterer,'
may
be,
when
Comm.
v.
Eastman,
Cush.
189.
N. Y. 41 Marcy v.
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,
Withce v. Rowe, 45 Me. 571.]
etc.
Travis v. Brown, 43 Pa. St. 9
Morris v. Miller, 4 Burr. 2057 Birt v. Barlow^ I Doug. 170 and see
Catherwood v. Caslon, 13 M. & W. 261. Compare R. v. Maitnuariiig,
Dear. & B. 132. See, too, De Thoreti v. A. G., L. R. i 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 expressed strongly
enough in the former editions. [Ifynes v. McDermott, 91 N. Y. 451
Greenaiualt v. McEnellcy.^ 85 Pa. St. 352 Maryland v. Baldwin, 112 U. S.
490 Proctor v. Bigelow, 38 Mich. 282 Barman v. Barmtm, 42 Md. 251
Mass. Pub. St., c. 145, s. 31. Such evidence of repute, etc., has been
deemed sufficient in bastardy proceedings {State v. Worthingham, 23
Minn. 528), but not in prosecutions for bigamy, incest, adultery, loose
and lascivious cohabitation, nor in actions for criminal conversation.
Hayes v. People, 25 N. Y. 390 State v. Roswell, 6 Ct. 446 State v. Hodgskins, 19 Me. 155
Dann v. Kingdom, i T. & C. 492 Comm. v. l.ittlejohn,
Hutchins v. Kimmcl, 31 Mich. 126. But in some States it
IS Mass. 163
is deemed sufficient in divorce suits.
Bishop, M. & D. ii. ^ 268, 274, 6th
Ed. see Collins v. Collins, 80 N. Y. 10.
A marriage may generally be proved by admissions. Miles v. State,
mott, 82
kersbnrgh,
'
103 U. S. 304
Womuck
v.
A DIGEST OF
Article
[Part
1.
54.
deemed
is
deemed to be
based are also
is
be relevant.^
to
Illustration.
An
expert
may
by him
for
'
{^Hawkins
Linsday
v.
v.
People
v.
v.
Morgan, 29 Mich.
.]
THE
Chap. VI.]
LAW
OF"
EVIDENCE.
CHAPTER
CHARACTER,
113
VI.*
55.
The
to
in
Article
56.
deemed to be
is deemed
is
bad character
relevant
'
irrelevant, unless
to
'
\Stover
V.
People, 56 N. Y. 315
is
Rloom, 68 Ind. 54
555 see Cancemi
;
dence
is
now
People
Griffin v. State, 14
'
State v.
Rodman, 62
[People
v.
People
V.
Art. 134,
la.
White, 14
456
People
Wend, in
Art. 7, note
Id.;
v.
Remsen
2,
ante.l
v.
Mead, 50 Mich.
People, 43 N. Y.
228.]
^tate v. Lapage, 57 N.
St.
Such evi-^
v. People, 16 N. Y. 501
Gr. Ev. iii. % 25.
generally received, whether the evidence to show the pris-
v.
O.
It
to
H. 245
A DIGEST OF
14
'
[Part
may be
I.
as
given only
vv^hich
repu-
shown.*
Article
57,
action
is
ought to receive,
is
generally
deemed
to
be irrelevant.^
Stephen
Being on
who
'
means not
when
&
Geo.
28 was passed (21 June 1827), this narrows the effect of the article
considerably 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 116 c. 99, s. 37.)"]
IV.
c.
v.
Comm.
Lapage, 57 N. H. 245
of a person must be that in his own community.
Conkey
V.
State
v.
the reputation
v. People, i
Abb.
Dec. 418.]
' In I Ph. Ev. 504, etc., and T. E. s.
333, all the cases are referred to.
v. Moor, i M. & S. 284, which treats the
The most important are
it
Chap.
THE
proposition that
so
it is
LAW
OF E VIDENCE.
and yones
v. Stez'etts, ii
is
The
[The
not.
question
latest case
is
is
Scott
v-
[Evidence of a party's character is generally incompetent in civil acWh. Ev. i. ^ 47). Thus in an action for assault
i. $ 55
plaintiff's
w.
nor the plaintiff's bad repute in an action for the seduction of his
daughter [Dain v. IVyckoff, 18 N. Y. 45) nor that of a party to a note
nor the
in an action thereon {Battles v. Latideiislager, 84 Pa. St. 446)
defendant's character for care and prudence in an action for negligence.
526)
Tenney v. Tuttle, I Allen, 185 Hays v. Millar, 77 Pa. St. 238. 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 Boardmaii v. Woodman, 47 N. H. 120; Simpson v. Westenberger, 28 Kan. 756)
nor generally can the good character of any party
or person interested in the action be shown, e.xcept in answer to impeaching evidence from the other side. Pratt v. Andrews, 4 N. Y. 493
Chubb
V. Gsell, 34 Pa. St. 114
see Mosley v. Ins. Co., 55 Vt. 142.
But in some cases the question of character is involved in the nature
of the action, and evidence of general reputation is received. Thus in
actions for libel or slander, evidence may be given of the plaintiff's gen;
bad reputation,
eral
Den. 509
Drown
50 Mich. 629
proved, Scott
in mitigation
v. .4llen,
Gr. Ev.
ii.
of
damages (Hamcr
;
Bathrick
in
England
424
and now
v.
v.
McP'arlin, 4
this doctrine is
ap-
shown
to
gibbon
V.
reduce the damages (Gregory v. Chambers, 78 Mo. 294 FitzBrown, 43 Me. 169) and sometimes such evidence is received as
;
ii.
^ 458).
In actions
A DIGEST OF
ii6
[Part
I,
in
As
ii.
to
$ 56 and 579 as to
proving the charac;
" Character
St. 604,
612
Chap.
1 1
THE
LAW
OF E VIDENCE.
PART
II.
ON PROOF.
CHAPTER
VII.
of
It
the duty of
is
lowing facts
(i)
58.*
all
judges
unwritten laws,
All
judicial notice.
[It is
following facts
'
(i)
\^Shaw
V.
Tobias, 3
N. Y. 188
Unity
v.
Wilson, 41 N.
own
State,'
so of
of the charter of a
v.
Oskaloosa, 41
la.
353 Winooski v. Gokey, 49 Vt. 282 in some States all acts of incorporation
are public laws, Mass. Pub. St., c. 169, $ 68
State v. McAllister, 24 Me.
;
139)
authorizes
Code
it
N. Y. 250
(Railroad Co.
Chicago,
etc.
R.
Co. v. Klauber, 9
Bradw. 613.]
'
A DIGEST
iia
[Part
OI^
II.
thority of
'
Ireland,
<
thereof.'
(2)
&
13
&
all
Acts of Parlia-
is
of 1873),
and
s.
T. E.
s.
4,
Vict.
c.
66 (Judicature Act
25.
14 Vict.
c. 21, ss. 7, 8,
and see
(for date)
caption of session of 14
15 Vict.
; '
when such
laws are properly applicable to cases heard before them,^ and, in like
The
will
be noticed
in State courts.
its
its
its
ses-
members,*
journals.*
Congress
to
be
I.
411
Co., II R.
^
[Lamar V.
[Kessel
v.
Paine
v. Ins,
Bird v. Cotnm.
21 Gratt. 800.]
[Or. Ev.
i.
$ 6
statute.
People
v.
y.
cf.
Divisio?i 0/
Gardners.
Howard
Collector,
v. Devlin, 33 N. Y. 269.]
Blackman, 39 Mich. 108 Merchants' Nat. Bank
Co., 15
GV^zW.
[Cameron
v,
v.
Hall,
.'.
THE
Chap. VII.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
119
(3) The general course of proceeding and privileges of Parliament and of each House thereof, and the date and place of
their sittings,
(4)
force of law in
'
The
(4)
court itself
'
its
courts established
own
T. E.
all
s.
5.
by law
same
in the
the other
extent of
jurisdiction
(5)
The
official
as
83 N. Y. 338.
[Wh. Ev. i. $ 324. The terms of court are noticed, Kidder v. Blais45 Me. 461 Rodders v. State, 50 Ala. 102. But not the pendency of
another action in the same or another court. Eyster v. Gaff, 91 U. S.
Lake Merced Co. v. Cowles, 31 Cal. 215.]
521
' \^FelUrs v. Lee, 2 Barb. 488
Robinson v. Brown, 82 III. 279; see Baker
'
dell,
V.
Mygatt, 14
la. 131.]
' \_Cotnin. v.
Desmond., 103 Mass. 447
Hatcher v. Rocheleaii, 18 N. Y.
86,90; Kennedy v. Comm., 78 Ky. 447; Kilpatrickv. Comm., 31 Pa. St.
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
;
[People
Hall
v.
A DIGEST OF
which have been duly
[Part
and recorded
certified to
in
II.
any such
court.'
in the
The
'
old rule was that each Court took notice of customs held
by or
certified to
it
The
(6)
to
own government
the acces-
and
State,
their signatures
officers of the
'
also of
e.g.
cabinet officers,
sheriffs
and marshals
official
documents.*
State
fiell,
7 Lans. 428
court
sits
Himmelmann
Thielmaiin
therein.
v.
v.
Bitr^, 73
taken of justices and aldermen. Fox v. Comm. 81* Pa. St. 511.]
^ [Gr. Ev. i. $ 6
Ward v. Henry, 19 Wis. 76 contra, Him?nelmann
;
v.
V.
Cpit
v.
Mi(likcn,
Den. 376.]
v,
LAW OF
THE
Chap. VII.]
EVIDENCE.
121
same
of such Courts.'
(6)
esty
'
The accession and (semdk) the sign manual of Her Majand her successors."
The law
(8)
their seals
T. E.
of nations
^ i
19.
s.
and
States,
T. E.
foreign admiralty
'
State
seals
'
own
which have
officers. *
(9) Public
made
;''
(10)
The
T/ie Scotia. 14
'
"
[T/iompson
'
[^Pierce v.
<
[t/. S. v.
Williams
v.
own
State or with-
Wall. 170.]
P. 56.J
v.
Turnbull
v.
Payson,
Code
'
[Armstrong
406, 411;
Wh.
commander {Burke
v.
i.
$ 317; but not
Miltenberger, 19 Wall.
Ev.
but see Canal Co. v. Templcton, 20 La. Ann. 141) nor executive
acts of a private nature, affecting persons not cftizens.
Dole v. Wilson^
519
16 Minn. 525.]
'
\_State V.
Miiinick, 15
la. 123.]
A DIGEST OF
The
(7)
existence and
[Part
title
II.
Sovereign
The accession
to office,
names,
functions,
titles,
and when
preme Court
of Justice.^
2 1
in the national
domain
; '
the
s.
2,
as
civil divisions of
into States, counties, cities, towns, etc. ;^ the relative positions of such
town
a certain county
in
is
eign countries and that they have a government and courts and a
[Gr. Ev.
\Comvi.
Gooding
s
V.
i.
State v. Dunnell, 3 R.
werker
v.
111.
Wend. 530
People, 5
434
I.
State
127.]
Chapman
so notice
v.
Powers, 25 Ct. 48
Vandertaken that a town is not withHinckley v. Beckwith, 23 Wis.
v.
is
328.
[Lake
Co. v.
population of counties
rivers in
V.
in
[Swinnerton
Co., 3
">
Abb. N. C.
{Lazier
v.
306.]
Westcott, 26 N. Y; 148
Morse
v.
THE
Chap. VII.J
(9)
The Great
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
123
to use
'
Supreme
High Court or
or
divisions.
its
2
Doe
V.
Edwards, 9 A. & E.
4 K.
See a
555.
3 1
list in
T. E.
&
As
common
i.
revenue districts.
- [IVood V. Ins.
Co.,
mere private or
Thorson
v.
V.
State
the mean-
R. 517
so of internal
104 U. S. 41.]
46 N. Y. 421, 426
Dixon
v.
v.
Nichols, 39
day {People
to the ordinary
Petersoti, 9 F.
U. S. v. Jackson
and of the
Ev.
flows,
;'^
[Gr.
and
districts.'
(11) Matters
course of nature
Ross
6.
J. 300.
'
s.
v.
Ckee
111.
372;
Kee.,
61
209; Mcintosh
v.
Bank
v.
Gilson, 7
Wend.
460.]
[^Lettahan v. People, 5 T.
&
C. 268
State
v.
Intoxicating Liquors, 73
'
[Gr. Ev.
i.
$ 5
Johnston
v.
'
A DIGEST OF
124
The
(lo)
II.
Her
ions of
[Part
the
commencement,
(ii)
'
2 I
^
T. E.
such
and T. E.
s.
15-16.
ss.
14.
War.
See
sec. i of the
Mutiny Act.
may
fairly
be pre-
sumed
to
tice.]
' [K'in^'V.
Gilbert \. Flint, etc. /?. Co., 51 Mich.
Galliin, 109 U. S. 99
488; as the ordinary duration of human life {yohnson v. H. R. R. Co.,
the usual length of time for a voyage across the Atlantic
6 Duer, 634)
;
A''.
that whiskey,
Y. C. R. Co., 94 N. Y. 278)
brandy, gin, and ale are intoxicating (Rau v. People, 63 N. Y. 277 Eagan
but not that all malt liquors are intoxicating. Id.
V. State, 53 Ind. 162)
"^[Howard
V.
Andrews
v.
Knox
Co.,
70
111.
65.]
THE
Chap. VII.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
Article
125
59.
No
may
him
to take
Article
60.
No
fact
need be proved
in
by
before
the
their pleadings.'^
to
i.
han
V.
People, 5 T.
&
C. 268.]
'
A DIGEST OF
126
CHAPTER
[Part
II.
VIII.
OF ORAL EVIDENCE.
Article
6i.
All
facts
may be proved by
documents contained
Chapters
in
and XII.
Article
62.*
all
that
is
to say
If
it
it
it
it
says he heard
it
must be
it
must be
it
manner
it
by
it
opinion
is
held,
it
*
'
*<2r^,
2
55N.
his. Co., 43
N. Y. 279
Fassin
v.
Hub'
Y. 465.]
[A witness may
if
this is
Chap. IX.]
CHAPTER
12;
IX.
63.
The
or
Article
64.
PRIMARY evidence.
Primary evidence means the document itself produced for
accompanied by the production
of an attesting witness in cases in which an attesting witness
the inspection of the Court,
i.
$ 440 Blake v. People, 73 N. Y. 586 Higbie v. Guardian, etc. Ins. Co.,
Rounds V. McCormick, 11 Bradw. 220; Crowell v. West53 N. Y. 603
ern, etc. Bk., 3 O. St. 406; State v. Donovan, 61 la. 278
Duvall's Excr.
V Darby, 38 Pa. St. 56
Khigsbury v. Moses, 45 N. H. 222 cf. Mather
;
i.
$^ 507, 509; Nicolay v. Unger, 80 N. Y. 54; Ward v. KilpatN. Y. 413; Providetue Tool Co. v. U. S. Alf'g Co., 120 Mass.
35 yackson v. Benton, 54 la. 654.
Objects which have a material bearing on the case may be shown to the
Wh.
Ev.
rick, 85
;
jury,
i.
A DIGEST OF
128
[Part
II.
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.'
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 execut;
"^
ing
it.^
And photographs
of persons or places
Comm.
Emmom:, 98 Mass.
v.
may be
introduced
6.
proper
Udderzook's Case, 76 Pa. St. 340 Blair v. Pclham, 118 Mass. 420
cases.
Cowley V. People, 83 N. Y. 464. 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
in
etc.
R.
Kan. 466
Co. v. Tlnd, 29
of a document
several States.
Loomis
'
Slatterie
Pooley^ 6
v.
admissions
\.
is
accepted
v.
Richardson,
in
374
Taylor
Mandeville
stroyed.
14
v.
Peck, 21 Gratt. 11
Blackingtoti v. Rockland, 66
Wend.
619
v.
Where
LAW OF
THE
Chap. IX.]
number
of
EVIDENCE.
documents are
129
made by
all
printing,
is
'
Article
65.
of
in the cases
'
R.
Watson, 2 Star.
V.
(EUenborough, C.
J.,
129.
invention of photography
menand
[Wh. Ev. i. ^^ 70, 92 see Huff v. Ben4 Sandf. 120 Southwick v. Stevens,, 10 Johns. 443.
When a telegram is to be proved, the primary evidence, in contro-
versies
U.
IV.
Tel.
is
message
the original
made by
is
the
7 Allen, 548.]
" Noden v. Afiirray,
[Letter-press copies of documents
3 Camp. 224.
are secondary evidence (Fool v. Bentley, 44 N. Y. 166; Marsh v. Hand,
Md.
35
111.
123
161)
Leathers
v.
Salvor
Co.
Woods, 680
Maclean
214.]
=
[Gr. Ev.
i.
% 82-88
Wh.
Ev.
i.
^ 60-160.]
v.
Scripps, 52 Mich.
A DIGEST OF
130
in the cases
mentioned
article
in
[Part
II.
66 by calling an attesting
witness.'
Article
66.*
alive, sane,
and subject
proving
one
purpose of
been called
for the
execution.'
its
it
document
is in
the handwriting
of that person.^
* See Note
XXVIIL
[As to the question, who is an attesting witness, see Gr. Ev. i. 569 a
Sherwood V. Pratt, 63 Barb. 137 Huston v. Ticknor, 99 Pa. St. 231.]
2 [See Art. 69, note.]
'
3 [Gr. Ev.
i.
Wh. Ev. i. ^ 723-725 Henry v. Bishop. 2 Wend.
569
575 Barry v. Ryan, 4 Gray, 523. Only one witness need testify, though
there be two or more.
White v. Wood, 8 Cush. 413 Atrter. Underwriters'
;
Ass'n
V.
St. 441
Chap.
The
the
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
THE
IX.]
which
131
lain, 8
Wend. 620
Scrvis
v.
Ah-lson, 14
N.
Eq. 94.
J.
if
In
New
York, the
N.
probate.
to
Y.
Code
Carson's Appeal,
cf.
59 Pa.
St. 493.
V.
'
Breton
''
v.
Morris, 5 J. & Sp. 18 K'elsey v. Haunncr, 18 Ct. 311 PorWilson, 13 Pa. St. 641 cf. Dan v. Brown, 4 Cow. 4S3 Moore v.
Livingston, 28 Barb. 543 Kimball v. Morrill, 4 Me. 368 contra, Simmons
3
[Hewitt
V.
ter V.
V.
ascertained
sible.
who were
Jackson
V.
if,
loss,
it
cannot be
is admis-
Vail, 7
Wend.
125
Davis
v.
'
A DIGEST OF
132
whom
blind
is
Part
the
own execution
of
II.
it
prepared
is
*
;
cuted it, even if he is a party to the cause, ^ unless such admission be made for the purpose of, or has reference to the
cause.''
Article
67.*
88, but in
of a
call for
(Jackson
so
if
Kingwood \. Bethlehem,
is
insufficient.
Frost
v.
13 N. J. L. 221)
Deering, 21 Me.
156.]
*
[Gr. Ev.
sions
i.
569, 572
may be made
Thorpe
v.
Keokuk Coal
by witness.
Forsjthe
Co.
v.
Blake
the
in
v.
pleadings (Robert
v.
such admis-
Good, 36 N. Y. 408
Chap.
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
THE
IX.]
133
to
When
(i)
he
is
When
(2)
his
opponent produces
'
()
when
it
and
called upon,
it
the suit
to
executed.'
'
Cooke
[Rawley
Tanswell, 8 Tau.
V.
450
v.
by
direct evidence, or
Poole
143
8 A. & E. 588
Young, 15 Ala. 112,
Warren,
v.
but Bright
\.
if this
fact.
Sec Jacksoti
v.
IVoolsey, 11 Johns.
446.]
2
Ev.
Pearce
i.
v.
$ 571
Gray, 72 see Ballictt v. Fink, 28 Pa. St. 266 Adams v. O' Connor, 100
Mass. 515.] As to the sort of interest necessary to bring a case within
;
this exception,
^
Pliimer
Gr. Ev.
tify
i.
v.
see Collins
Bayntun,
v.
Briscoe, 11 Q.
$ 571.]
Bailey
v.
Q. B. 118.
B. 46; [Scott v.
& W.
Bidwell, 13 M.
(rt)
It is
required
a rule in
when
some
the instrument
is
Kitchen
v.
452
St.
is
Gr. Ev.
Aycrs
v.
i.
573, b
Wh.
Ev.
i.
not
inci-
% 724
Curtis
;
Belknap, 21 Vt. 433 see Comm. v. Castles, 9 Gray, 121 contra, yones
Underwood, 28 Barb. 481 yackson v. Christman, 4 Wend. 277 but
see Smith v. N. V. C. R. Co. 4 Abb. Dec. 262.
v.
V.
(1^)
!n
many
A DIGEST OF
134
Article
[Part
II.
68.
its
execution
may be proved by
other
evidence.'
Article
69.
An attested document
may in all cases whatever,
civil or
if it
was unattested.*
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 N. Y. Code Civ. Pr.
;
$ 935-937
1
'
Maine Rev.
Where an
St., c. 82.
no Wh.
;
all
Ev.
% 740.]
i.
'i
&
17
18 Vict. c. 125,
195
Pub.
St. R.
s.
some
I., c.
26
28
&
29 Vict.
c. 18, ss.
214,
s.
41;
cf.
111.
Rev.
Laws
St., p.
[Similar
i, 7.
of 1883, N. Y.
543,
s.
51 {ed.
wise prescribed
As
to the
Mass. 23
St.
25 Me. 249.]
in Art. 66.
v.
Pullen
v.
v.
Allen, 112
Hutchinson,
Chap.
THE
IX.J
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
Article
135
70.
secondary evidence.
Secondary evidence means
Examined
(i)
certified copies
copies,
exemplifications, office
(2)
correct
and
copies,
to
be
'
:
(3)
them
^
:
(4)
it/
Article
71.
ment
When
session or
not produce
it
'
See chapter
[See
ron
2
x.
p. 129, n. 2
a copy of a copy
is
sometimes admissible.
[Lor tug
v.
Edwards
V.
Came-
V.
v.
Noyes,6e, N. Y. 125
Duncan, 108 U.
Clark
v.
all
the contents.
Houghton, 12 Gray, 38
Stebbins
S. 32.]
R.
cited
V.
Watson^ 2 T. R. 201.
by Mr.
Phillips as
A DIGEST OF
136
When
{b)
the original
is
[Part
II.
to produce it after being served with a subpcena duces tecum, or after having been sworn as a witness
and asked for the document and having admitted that it is in
;
court
'
When
(r)
{d)
been destroyed or
made
When
for
the original
is
and proper
lost,
'
it
Cahcn
against himself.
v.
&
[As
produce a document of his client (Brandt
Hubbell v. Jiidd, etc. Oil Co., 19 Alb. L. J. 97
v. Klein, 17 Johns. 335
see Bird v. Bird, 40 Me. 392, and Arts. 115, 118, 119, i>ost) or a witness
refuses, because the document will criminate him {State v. Giirnee, 14
Kan. Ill) or the document is a public one on file in a public office and
Corbett v. Gibson., 16 Blatch. 334 see
so not required to be produced.
'
Mills
v.
Oddy, 6 C.
P.
to
p. 140, n.
I, post.'X
Ph. Ev.
* I
452
s.
may be proved by an
Haworth, 4 C. & P. 254.
loss
T. E. (from Greenleaf)
s.
399.
The
R.
v.
v.
Neason, 66 Pa.
party
St. 253.
ary evidence of
its
innocent intent.
Cal. 430
169.]
yones
been with
Steele
v.
Chap.
movable,' or
is
be removed
(/")
the original
[When
When
is
a public
document
cannot be procured.]
it
the original
special provision
is
not permitted to
'
;
is
When
originals
the
by
it is
fraud, so that
(.")
in
137
When
(c)
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
THE
IX.]
of Parliament, or any
or
^
;
consist
of
numerous documents
written
i.
place
^Ativan
Furnival,
v.
13 Johns. 58
so
if
)]
C.
M. & R.
the original
277, 291-2.
\Mauri
in the possession of a
v.
Heffernan,
person
in another
production cannot be secured. Elwell v.
Tucker v. IV'oolsey, 6 Lans. 482 Beattie v. HilFosdick v. Van Horn, 40 O. St. 459 Burton v.
is
its
Ware
y.
Rhodes
Sei-
v.
bert, 2
i.
633-
It will
A DIGEST OF
138
is
[Part
II.
'
Roberts
books,
etc.
v.
Fosdick
^
V.
Van Horn, 40 O.
St. 459.]
that
nor proof of
its
contents necessary.
is
re-
as e.g.,
ceivable of the transaction which forms the subject of action
where a contract is made by parol, but a written memorandum of its
;
terms is made at the same time. In proper cases the writing is compeLathrop v. Bramhall,
tent evidence to corroborate the oral testimony.
Thomas v. Nelson, 69 N. Y. 118. So the payment of a
64 N. Y. 365
;
may be proved by
debt
parol, without
{Kingsbury
v.
may be proved by
As
to
See
parol.
p. 164, n. 3, post.
office,
graph.]
3
If
a counterpart
or account for
it.
is
known
Mun?t
to exist,
v. Godbold, 3
it
is
Bing. 297
R.
v. Castleton,
7 T. R.
236.
[It is
mony
Eslow
may
instead of a copy),
V.
same
if
doctrine.
Goodrich
Carpenter
v.
v.
be had.
e.g.,
parol
testi-
Some American
Dame,
TO Ind. 125.
But
generally in this country a party must produce the best form of secondComett v
ary evidence that is or appears to be procurable by him.
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
Chap. IX.]
THE
In case
evidence
(//)
may be
139
of the
who
is
documents.
judge would in
effect
Article
issue.'
72.*
v.
Niskayuna
Albany, 2 Cow. 537 Stevenson v. Hoy, 43 Pa. St. 191 Land Co. v. Bonner, 75 III. 315 Harvey v. Thorpe, 28 Ala. 250
Higgitis v. Reed, 8 la. 298
Nason v. Jordan, 62 Me. 480 but see as to New York, Van Dyne v.
Thayre, 19 Wend. 166.
V.
As
loe,
to counterparts, see
Wheat. 483
shown
be
to
lost,
Dyer
ceived.
v.
Poignard
v.
Of
Me.
Fredericks, 63
173, 592;
McMakin
v.
Westoti, 64
Ind. 270.]
'
[Mason
v.
'^
Dwyer
v. Collitis,
Draper
LtMey, 90 N. Y. 683
7 Ex. 648
Elwell
[Foster
v.
v.
original
is in
Roberts
Wend.
454
Den v.
McAllister, 7 N.
J.
L. 46.
v.
v.
Spencer, 123
Giddings, 22
Brown
Ct
282.
v. Littlefield,
A DIGEST OF
I40
if
the original
is
II.
[Part
tcctati
requiring
produc-
its
'
document.''
time beforehand {Bourne
sufficient
Duff, 6 F. R. 45
V.
Dc Witt
v.
v. Prescott,
51 Mich. 298
U. S.
McPkcrsott
v.
i.
may
also
Rev.
St.
utes in
before
many
trial.
Lowenstein
v.
N. Y. Code Civ.
in actions at law.
and
Carey, 12 F. R. 811,
U. S.
note.
Stat-
Pr. 803-809;
Mass. Pub.
St.,
c.
167,
$49-60.]
Erie R.
federal practice.
U. S.
v.
Tilden,
proper
IVertheim
officer.
\.
Ex parte
is
privileged.
16 Blatch. 334
Arts. 118-120,
Bonesteel
\.
Johnson
v.
/(J-f/.
R.
V.
Llanfaethly, 2 E.
for
&
B. 940.
Chap.
THE
IX.]
LAW
'
OF EVIDENCE.
141
When
(2)
the action
document
the
When
in the
is
its
is
production
it
appears or
is
'
court.''
Edwards v. Bonneau,
v. Atkins, 9 Gray, 370
Walker, 59 Cal. 502 Morrow v. Comnt., 48 Pa.
[Quinley
'
Gethin
v.
tral Bk.
Sandf. 610
Cen-
St. 308
V.
How
V.
is
required.
s.
The
48 N. Y. 479.
berry, 48
Me.
State v.
May-
218.]
trary
Pa.
Watkins
St. 23.
Boynton
ment.
rison, 13
'
Or
v.
Pintard,
the court
v.
J. L.
\b)
v.
Mor-
duplicate original
may be
Milliken v. Barr, 7
(Co.ve) 378
the witness to produce the docu-
(a)
446
N.
may compel
Gr. Ev.
is
no ex-
A DIGEST OF
i42
CHAPTER
[Part
II.
X.
y^.
When
a statement
made
in
kept therewith
in issue, or is relevant to
is
in
is
contained in that
in this
chapter.'
Article
74.
production of document
itself.
134
Aliter,
he can be found.
Carland
v.
Cun7iingham,
if
'
See
[Gr. Ev.
ante,
articles 34
and
Ct. 194.
of a
if
and
90.
judgment.
Donellan
v.
THE
Chap. X.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
Article
examined
143
75.*
copies.
cases be proved
'),
both."
Article
76.t
ment, authenticated under the seals of such departments, respectively, are admitted in evidence equally with the originals
true of copies of
is
documents
in various
under
[Gr. Ev.
i.
$$ 48s. 508.]
Hillw. Packard, 5
106.
[Gr. Ev.
i.
% 508
'
A DIGEST OF
144
ments
in State offices
commonly
is
[Part
established
by
II.
statutes of
Article tj*
exemplifications.
An
exemplification
is
copy made by an
make
it, is
bound by law to
it is some-
An
exemplification
is
exemplified.^
Article
78.*
make
to
*See NoteXXXL
[See N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. 933, 957, 958
So statutes may provide that documents
70.
'
Mass. Pub.
in
U. S.
St., c. 169,
offices
may be
943, 944.]
1$
2 [Gr. Ev. i.
Wh. Ev. i. 95. The term is applied both to
$$ 488, 501
domestic and to foreign records, laws, and documents. Lincoln v. BatLazier v. Westcott, 26 N. Y. 146 Watson v. Walker,
telle, 6 Wend. 475
;
3 Fost. 471
3
all
same
jurisdiction.
Gr. Ev.
Mass. 167;
Elwell
declared admissible
v.
Cuningham, 74 Me.
in
many
127.
They
are
ialso
called
Sanuiels
v.
The
officer
may be
he has one.]
[This is spoken of domestic records,
office, if
additional authentication.
Gr. Ev.
i.
ij
etc.;
501
foreign records
Art.
84,/t'j-/..l
may need
Chap. X.]
make
is
it
is
it,
the
14$
it
in
in
can be proved as
arv
examined
copy.'
Article
79,
certified copies.
provided by many statutes that various certificates,
and public documents, documents and proceedings of
corporations, and of joint stock and other companies, and
certified copies of documents, bye-laws, entries in registers
and other books, shall be receivable in evidence of certain
It
is
official
'
[Gr. Ev.
i.
507
Wh.
Ev.
i.
$ 104, 105
Kellogg
v.
Kellogg, 6 Barb.
ing admissible in
*
E.
U.
8
s.
&
9 Vict.
all
domestic courts.]
c. 113,
preamble.
Many
S.
Rev.
St.
943-947, 957-962
in T.
[See, e.g.,
common
statutory methods.
Code
may be
A DIGEST OF
146
[Part
11.
required for
its
to
have signed
or other
it.'
document
is
of such a public
its
mere production
exists
which renders
its
extract therefrom
vided
by the
extract
trusted.'
Ibid.,
'
admissible in proof of
is
contents,' pro-
its
it
officer
to
is
in-
s.
I.
Some words at the end of the secregarded as unmeaning by several text writers. See, e.g., R. N.
T. E. s. 7, note i. Mr. Taylor says that the con2 Ph. Ev. 241
P. 116
cluding 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 i & 2 Vict. c. 94, s. 13 (see Art. 76) " by some honorable
member who did not know distinctly what he was about." They cer[S. P. Tktirman v. Cameron, 24 Wend.
tainly add nothing to the sense.
the language
is
greatly condensed.
tion are
John
87
St.
Harris
v.
see N. Y.
''
tract or,"
or ex-
occur in the Act, but are here omitted because their effect
is
14
&
15 Vict.
c.
99,
s.
14.
common
Warner
[Some American
law principle.
Gr. Ev.
i.
485
U. S.
v.
v.
practical importance]
<
[At this point Mr. Stephen adds the English statutory rule that " every
officer must furnish such certified copy or extract to any person ap-
such
14
&
15 Vict.
c.
99,
s.
14."
So
in
this
country
it
is
a general
THE
Chap. X.J
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
Article
147
80.*
[documents and records of the several states admissible THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.]'
[The records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any
State or Territory or of any country subject to the jurisdiction
with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, that the said attestation is in
[*
rule that
proper
same.
when
officer
U.
S.
article,
due form.^
the said
see Note L. ]
is
And
4195
N. Y. Code
i.
504-506;
The authorities are fully collected in Bump's Fed.
^ 96-103.
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. Patchhi, 24 N.
VVh. Ev.
i.
Y. 394)
if the court has no seal, this fact should be stated
the certificate must be added by the chief or presiding' judge of the court, not by
;
by the clerk of the court under its seal, are admissible in State courts
and Federal courts alike.
Turvhtill v. Payson, 95 U. S. 418.
Nor does
tified
it
The modu
A DIGEST OF
[Part
II'.
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.'
may be
any State or Territory, or of any
country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, not
appertaining to a court, shall be proved or admitted in any
court or office in any other State or Territory, or in any such
All
country,
by
office of
office
annexed,
if
there be a seal,
may be
of the
proper
officers.
State or Territory, or
is
in
it
shall
said
court,
who
shall
certify,
hand and the seal of his office, that the said presiding justice is duly commissioned and qualified or, if given by
under
his
in
the courts or
common
is
law.
47, note.]
Bump's Fed.
Pro., p. 618.]
Chap. X.]
modes
establishing other
149
own
of proving in their
courts the
'
Article
81.*
as
aforesaid at the
be
legal evidence of
the laws
It is
and
common
may be
read in evidence in
its
courts from
under
official
Note L.]
Brainardv. Fowler, 119
[KiTtynan
v. Coivles^
id.
262
Lothrop V. Blake, 3 Barr (Pa.), 483 Gr. Ev. i. 489, 505. Some States
have adopted special statutes of this kind (Mass. Pub. St. c. 169, % 67)
but usually the modes prescribed by the acts of Congress are followed.]
;
supplement
to the
(ed.
1878), Appendi.x,
Revised Statutes
pp.
1090- 1092
see
so as to the
Wright v.
by
U. S.,
Little
and Brown, of Boston, and it is provided also that their edition shall be evi
dence of the laws and treaties therein contained. U. S. Rev. St. ^ 908.]
942,
^
to
A DIGEST OF
so
Article
[Part
II.
82.*
Article
83.*
[The contents of State papers, public documents, and legisby the official printer under the authority of Congress or a State legislature respectively (or of the
proper branch thereof),' may be proved by the production of
such a printed copy, as well as by the production of the orig-
i.
(i),
Grant
v.
Coal Co.,
[Gr. Ev. i. 489 as to the other modes of proof allowed, see prealso Art. 49, note 2
this last article also
ceding article and note 3
shows the mode of proving the common-law of other States.]
^[IVAiio/i V. Albany, etc. Ins. Co., 109 Mass. 24.]
"^
THE
Chap. X.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
151
is
re-
Article
84.*
may be proved by an
[Gr. Ev.
i.
479
Watkins
v.
Hclman, 16
Pet. 25
How.
Bryan
Root
v.
Forsyth,
v.
King, 7 Cow.
^ [Gr. Ev. i.
Lvrton v. Gilliam^ 2 111. (i Scam.) 577 but
%^ 479, 492
proclamations are, in general, judicially noticed see ante. Art. 58.
There is a statute in New York as to the proof of executive decrees
;
and proclamations of other States and countries see ante^ Art. 81, n. 3.]
5 [U. S. Rev. St.
For alike rule in State courts, see Post v. Su$ 895.
pervisors, 105 U. S. 667
cf Sotithwark Bk. v. Comm., 26 Pa. St. 446.]
< [These are the recognized common-law methods.
Gr. Ev.
$ 488,
Lincoln v. BattelU, 6 Wend. 475 Watson
514 Yeaton v. Fry^ 5 Cr. 345
;
i.
V.
A DIGEST OF
152
by
the
[This
is
provided
Maine Rev.
in
some
St., c. 82,
109
is
States
II.
'
mon-law doctrine
[Part
v.
How. (U.
St.
c.
169, 73
comSome-
S.) 401, as a
McDcr^nott, 82 N. Y.
41, 56.
see Art. 49, note 2, ante, which also states the mode of proving a foreign
unwritten law. As to proof of the statutes of sister States, see Art. 81,
note,
and
not generally
made
exclusive of
1$
modes
952-956.
common-law methods.
of proving
But these are
Id. 962.]
THE
Chap. XI.]
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
CHAPTER
153
XI.
PRESUMPTIONS AS TO DOCUMENTS.
Article
85.
When
An
instrument admitting a debt, and dated before the act of bankruptcy, is produced by a bankrupt's assignees, to prove the petitioning
(a)
'
[Gr. Ev.
507, 519
281
as to all instruments
may be
St. 52
Germania Bank v. Distler., 67
Barb. 333, 64 N. Y. 642 Smith v. Shoetnaker, 17 Wall. 63.]
2 [yones V. Phelps, 2 Barb. Ch. 400
see Oilman v. Moody, 43 N. II.
tion.
Parke
v.
A'eeley.^
90 Pa.
239
so
it is
Y. 49. 65.]
3
14 Wall. 570.]
T. E.
s.
137
Best,
s.
403
A DIGEST OF
154
[Part
creditor's debt.
is
II.
re-
quired 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
{b)
act of
In a petition for
is
Further evidence
affectionate terms.
Article
86.
When
any document
is
some time
after
it
its
for,
be shown
it is
to
execution.^
Article
87.
When
deed, appears or
W.
s
Anderson
v.
Sinclair
v.
Baggallay, 4
M. &
318.
Houlston
v.
Smith, 2 C.
&
P. 24
[Gr. Ev.
i.
$ 102,
ii.
57
see Art.
THE
Chap. XI.]
duly attested,
LAW
presumed
it is
OF EVIDENCE.
155
to
411.
make
is
State
V.
not sufficient to
it
a deed.
State
v.
286.
found
in the
its
execution upon
presumed
its
face
it is
to
A DIGEST OF
156
Article
[Part
II.
88.
old
is
handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested, by the persons
by whom
it
attestation or execution
ing witness
is
alive
and
if
and the
'
the attest-
in court.*
Hun, 293 McCurdy's Appeal, 65 Pa. St. 290. But this presumption is also rebuttable. Knolls v. Bambart, 71 N. Y. 474; see Washb.
R. P. iii. 292 (4th ed).]
' 2 Ph. Ev. 245-8
Starkie, 521-6
T. E. s. 74 and ss. 593-601
Best, s.
Farley, 24
[Wh. Ev.
i.
The age
Stari7ig
v.
is
It
custody, that
ance with
terms.
question, whether,
be necessary
its
if
the
The
better opinion
is
Whitman
73
111.
109;
v.
is
received
Heneberry,
Walker
may be
v.
Abb. Dec. 31
i.
144, n.
THE
Chap. XI.]
Documents
LAW OF
EVIDENCE.
157
if
they are in
the place in which, and under the care of the person with
naturally be
but no custody is improper
proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an
if it
is
origin probable.'
Article
89.
presumption as to alterations.
it
alteration was
made
by
it,
unless the
or his
it
representative in interest.^
tion
by a party
330; Drum v.
material altera-
Potoers, 56 N. Y. 22
99 Pa.
S.
Eckert
but then, in
St. 211),
v.
Pickel.^q
(Id.; Hunt v. Gray^ supra) aliter, if the alMeyer v. Huneke, 55 N. Y. 412. A negotiable
instrument, materially altered by a party, is void even in the hands of an
innocent purchaser for value. Benedict v. Cowden, 49 N. Y. 396 Angle
be fraudulent.
V.
supra.
conveyed by
it, though
Hcrrick v.
Malin, 22 Wend. 388. Alterations before execution should be noted in
the attestation clause.
Gr. Ev. i. $ 564. As to alterations by consent or
authority, see Penny v. Corwithc., 18 Johns. 499
Taddiker v. Cantrcll, 69
N. Y. 597.
But alterations by consent of parties may avoid the instrument as to sureties. Paine v. Jones, 76 N. Y. 274 Eckert v. Louis, 84
they
will, if
title
Gr. Ev.
i.
$ 265
Ind. 99.]
3
Davidson
v. Cooper.,
11
M. & W.
778
13
A DIGEST OF
158
[Part
II.
are, in the
to
document {Drum
Hay, 91 Pa.
V.
242
St.
Hu7it
v.
difference.
(Id.)
an alteration.
The
stranger's act
Gr. Ev.
i.
is
$ 566.]
Doe
V.
English
in
alteration
Catomore, 16 Q. B. 745.
many
States,
is
to explain
any
material alteration,
it is
Comstock v. Smith, 26
Robinson v. Myers, 67 Pa. St. 9 (deed)
Mich. 306 (deed); Ely v. Ely, 6 Gray, 439 (mortgage); Drum v. Drum, 133
Mass. 566 (note); Dodge v. Haskell, 69 Me. 429 (note); Paramore v. LindBut if the alteration be not suspicious, such exsey, 63 Mo. 63 (note).
planatory evidence is not required. Feig v. Meyers, 102 Pa. St. ifc (deed);
Munroe v. Eastman, 31 Mich. 283 (deed) Paramore v. Lii/dsey, supra
(bond)
v.
91 Pa. St. 336 (lease); Tillou v. Clinton, etc. Ins. Co., 7 Barb. 564 (written
In other
consent); but see May bee v. Sniffen, 2 E. D. Sm. i (release).
States, the document, upon proof of execution, is submitted to the jury
LAW
THE
Chap. XI.]
OF E VIDENCE.
59
absence of all evidence relating to them, prehave been made after the execution of the will.'
There is no presumption as to the time when alterations and
interlineations, appearing on the face of writings not under
seal, were made,' except that it is presumed that they were so
made that the making would not constitute an offence.'
An alteration is said to be material when, if it had been made
will are, in the
sumed
to
may determine from its inspection, when, and for what purthe alteration was made {Hoey v. yarman, 39 N. J. L. 523 (specialty);
so that they
pose,
Dodge
V. Haskell, supra
Cole v. Hills^ 44 N. H. 227 cf. Hayden v. Good39 Ct. 164); but the jury must be satisfied by a preponderance of
evidence that any material alteration was rightfully made, and in the
;
?iow,
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. 343.
Under both these theories, it is sometimes said that there is a presumption oifact that a material alteration, not sufficiently explained, was made
after execution.
It is denied, however, that there is any presumption of
la'd) 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. But in
some States, the presumption is that such an unexplained alteration was
made before or at the time of execution. Neilw Case, 25 Kan. 510 (note);
Beatnan v. Russell, 20 Vt. 205 Little v. Herttdon, 10 Wall. 26 (asserting
By some authorities there is
this as to deeds, following the English rule).
a presumption of law that suspicious alterations were made after execuCox v. Palmer, i McCrary, 431
tion, but other alterations before.
(mortgage). And there are other theories also on this vexed subject.
In general, each State applies the same rule to deeds, bills and notes,
written contracts of any kind, and other like documents.
As to wills, see
;
next note.]
Simmons
v.
Toebbe
v.
544
Rudall,
Quinn^
lott^
T.
Knight
'
&
C. 437
R.
v.
v.
Eschbach
v.
Collins, 6r
Haynes v Haynes, 33 O.
Clements^ 8 A.
&
;
E. 215
[see
Md. 478
yordan
v.
Bigclow v.
(7/7-
St. 598.]
i,
siipra.\
Stewart, 23 Pa.
St. 244,]
A DIGEST OF
i6o
An
alteration
which
no way
in
[Part
II.
is
immaterial.'
Adair
St. 215.]
LAW
THE
Chap. XII.]
OF EVIDENCE.
CHAPTER
XII.
90.*
When
official
ment
been reduced
to the
form of a docu-
may be
given of
such judgment or proceeding, or of the terms of such contract, grant, or other disposition of property,
ment
itself,
or secondary evidence of
is
document be contradicted,
contents in cases in
Nor may
hereinbefore contained.'
its
added
altered,
to, or
varied by oral
evidence.''
the
same
{b).
evidence.
'
and
Illustrations {a)
Gr. Ev.
[Gr. Ev.
glish courts
i.
is
i.
% 283
N. Y. 49; Martin
v.
Cole, 104
U. S. 30
Black
v.
Yomrg, 44 N. J. I>.
But in Pennsylvania it is applied with less stringency than in other
States.
Greenawalt v. Kohne, 85 Pa. St. 369. The rule as to wills is the
171
Naiimberg
v.
331.
same
Parol evidence
is
not received
A DIGEST OF
[Part
II.
Reffell V. Reffell^ L.
Mass. 355
Barnet
Illustration
{c)
R.
P.
&
D. 139
v.
[Skat/ghnessy
Germania Bk.
this to
v.
Lewis, 130
v. Distler,
mistakes
in
67
some
[Gr. Ev.
i.
$ 284, 285
Erwin, 66 N. Y. 649
Wh.
Ev.
j$ 930-935, 1009,
ii.
Hall
V.
but not at law, Philbrook v. Eaton, 134 Mass. 398) that the
signer of an unsealed non-negotiable instrument signed as agent, not as
this is in equity,
principal {JVicoll
to
w.
Burke, 78 N. Y. 580
Lcrnedv.
between
and vice versa, etc. [Mansfield v. Edwards, 136 Mass. 15 Paul v. Rider,
58 N. H. 119; Hubbard y. Gurney, 64 N. Y. 457; cf. Graves v. Johnson,
that a writing purporting to be a contract was not intended
48 Ct. 160)
as such (Grierson v. Mason, 60 N. Y. 394)
to show which of two con;
THE
Chap. XI I.J
{2)
The
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
163
if
is silent, and which is not inconfrom the circumstances of the case the
Court infers that the parties did not intend the document to
be a complete and final statement of the whole of the transaction between them.'
(3) The existence of any separate oral agreement, constituting a condition precedent to the attaching of any obligation
V.
are
many
Russell
v.
and there
Illustrations
'
Chaffee, 92
313
Michcls
v.
Olmstcad, 14 F. R. 219.
Some
N. Y. 478
Ins. Co.,
V.
Meech
v.
i.
Buffalo, 29
N. Y.
Sowerby, 37
Md. 410
AdmVs
A DIGEST OF
i64
[Part
II.
Any usage
mentioned
in
;
that
memorandum was
tract, or
is
memorandum
of
it
was made,
such
if
when
ship
itself,
is
was established or
it
carried on.^
is
new
consideration {Courtenay
Stewart
v.
Fuller, 65
v. Ketcltas,
Illustration
(/)
[T/iomas
64 N. Y. 365 Perrine
Thompson, 27 Kan. 643.]
hall,
v.
v.
N'elson, 69 N. Y. 118
Cooley's Excrs, 39
N.
Lathrop
L. 449
J.
v.
;
Bratn-
Irwin
v.
5 Illustration
Cutler v.
[ Widdifield v. Widdifield, 2 Binn.
245
(7 )
Thomas, 25 Vt. 73 see Supples v. Lewis, ^j Ct. 568. So various collatas, e.g., the pureral facts about an instrument may be proved by parol
pose or object for which it was given (Brick v. Brick, 98 U. S. 514;
;
Huichins
v.
Hebbard, 34 N. Y. 24)
the reason
why
it
'
THE
Chap. XII.]
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
165
A policy
London."
to
The
of insurance
The goods
is
Surinam
is lost.
cannot be proved. ^
{d)
it
An
Farm is conveyed by
first
to B.
is
given,
tells
that
he
does promise.
The
unless
it
lease
is
after-
wards granted, and reserves sporting rights to A, but does not mention
'
A DIGEST OF
66
B may prove
[Part
II.
the rabbits.'
A& B
that thereupon
not consent.
{h)
good
the
agrees
to
title
title is
be proved.'
(/)
B
B
sells
also gives
a horse,
6d."
zs.
B may prove
'
Morgan
v. Griffiths, L.
10 Q. B. T74
[cf
Carr
v.
N. Y. 409 Chapin v.
disapproved in Naumberg
;
is
Lindley
v.
\Risley
v.
'^
Pym
Miller
v.
Goss
'
L. 331.]
Me.
J.
Campbell, 6 E.
V.
Mass. 279
v. Young, 44 N.
Lacey, 17 C. B. (N. S.) 578.
Phenix Bank, 83 N. Y. 318.]
Lord Nugent,
V.
5 B.
& Ad.
58, 65
[see
v.
Wiggin
v.
Goodrich, 63
389.]
Allen
Dunham
v.
v.
[Filkins
v.
Whyland, 24 N. Y. 338
THE
Chap. XII.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
167
Article
91.*
(i)
taining the
meaning of the
means
made upon
signs or words
ascerit,
and
In order
(2)
to ascertain
the
meaning of the
the
meaning of
illegible or
not
commonly
signs
may be
and
given of
intelligible charac-
ters, of foreign,
'
so used.'
If the
(3)
ment
to facts,
'
[Illustrations {a)
71
Hull, 7 B.
&
Ins.
which
it
refers, or
C. 611.
{b) {c)
N. Y. 453; Loom
Water town
to
R.
V.
may be proved
every fact
Co.,
to say.''
(4)
[Gr. Ev.
i.
$ij
280, 292
Higgins, 105 U.
Co. v.
S.
Nelson
Sun
v.
Ins.
580; Houghton
v.
Co., 131
Hatch
v.
Kan. 482.]
5
Illustration
(</)
V.
Illustrations (^)
Odiorne
and (/)
[Colletider
v.
v.
A DIGEST OF
68
intended
in
[Part
to refer,' or
Such
it.''
which
II.
identifies
If the
See
"
Illustration
all
the illustrations.
(^)
[Gr. Ev.
i.
$ 286-290
Coleman
v.
Manhattan
Co.,
when
the instrument
was drawn.
As
U. S. 23.
strument
Such evidence
is
clear without
is
Veazie
v.
Bond's
not received
it.
Id.
to the limitations
when
the
Adie
v.
Illustration {h)
cf.
[Mowatt
DeKay
v.
v.
Crower
v.
Pinckney,
Illustration
Hammond,
45 Wis. 357
Fitzpatrick
v.
Fitzpatrick, 36
la.
674
Ktirtz
v.
Hibner, 55
THE
Chap. XII.]
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
169
may draw
may
whom
to
made by
document
and
mean-
or only
apply.
of statements
is
may be
though evidence
as to his
document
of language or
names
for particular
persons or things.'
If the
(8)
be given both of the circumstances of the case and of statements made by any party to the document as to his intentions
in reference to the
514.
111.
though
it
matter
to
relates.'
{m)
[Morse v. Stear?is, 131 Mass. 389; A^. V.
How's Excrs, 10 N. Y. 84 St. Luke's Home v. Ass'n.
for Females, 52 N. Y. 191 Griscom v. Evens, 40 N. J. L. 402, 42 id. 579
Dunham v. Aver ill, 45 Ct. 61 Button v. Amer. Tract Soc., 23 Vt. 336,
'Illustrations {k) (/)
Inst,
for Blind
y;.
In illustration of the rule Falsa demonstratio non nocet^ see Gr. Ev.
291, 301
Bryce
Gray, 467.
remains to
i.
Parks v. Loomis, 6
The false part of the description is rejected and if sufficient
identify a particular person or thing, effect can be given to
the instrument
v.
otherwise
it is
Id.
Fitzpatrick
v.
V.
tion."
206.
See Gr. Ev. i. 289; Tucker v. Seamen's Aid Soc, 7 Met. 188,
But many cases of this kind are resolved upon proof of " surround-
nam
v.
Bond., 100
A DIGEST OF
I70
[Part
II.
executed with
its
apparent intention.'
Illustrations.
(a)
in relation to
Oral
rabbits, 1200,
is
admissible.'
(/')
ble
A
to
sells to
show
"
that a
"bale" of gambier
is
weighing 2 cwt.^
A, a sculptor, leaves to
mod
on the quarter." *
{e) A leaves an estate
Eight years afterward
lar persons.
to
K, L, M,
etc.,
by a
will
Evidence of
this declaration is
meant
not admissible.
particu-
Proof that
' Illustration
[This is called evidence "to rebut an equity " [i.e.,
(/).
an equitable presumption), and oral statements of intention are provable.
Reynolds v. RobGr. Ev. i. $ 296 Van Houten v. Post, 33 N. J. Eq. 344
;
Fiedler, 12
v.
N. Y.
40.]
M.
{^Goblet V. Beechy, 3
624.
THE
Chap. XII.]
was
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
171
M would
person
missible.'
(/)
leaves a legacy to
intended to be
filled is
Evidence
to
not admissible.
at
[^
The Home
of the Friendless in
New
upon
circulars
its
been used.]
identical has
dren.*
(?)
He had no
of Limerick to A.
Limerick and
city
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.
"
A leaves
Clayton
'
Bay Us
"^
IVaUize
441
3
Lord Niigcnt,
v.
v.
Shore
v.
Crocker, 5
Wilson, 9 C.
v.
N. Y. 243, 259
[Le/evre
'
v.
Hun,
see 205-6.
V.
587.]
Brozver
18
v.
N. Y.
v.
Bullions,
11
143.]
Lefevre, 59 N. Y. 434
154, 78
^Miller
>Iet. 188
&
Hun,
16
M. & W. 200
;
Crocker
cf.
13
v.
and
19,
275.]
Dunhaniy. Averill, 45
Ct. 61.]
Aid Soc,
A DIGEST OF
172
to call
them Bowden.
[Part
Evidence of these
II.
facts
{k) A devises land to John Hiscocks, the eldest son of John Hiscocks,
John Hiscocks had two sons, Simon, his eldest, and John, his second
The cirson, who, however, was the eldest son by a second marriage.
meant
to
At the date of
had no such niece, but he had a great-great-niece named Elizabeth Jane Stringer.
The Court may infer from these circumstances
but they may not refer to inthat Elizabeth Jane Stringer was intended
structions given by the testator to his solicitor, showing that the legacy
was meant for a niece, Elizabeth Stringer, who had died before the date
of the will, and that it was put into the will by a mistake on the part of
[m]
the will he
the solicitor.*
(;/)
devises one house to George Gord, the son of George Gord, an-
other to George Gord, the son of John Gord, and the third to George
Gord, the son of Gord. Evidence both of circumstances and of the tes-
may be
statements of intention
tator's
of his executors.
tion.
(p)
'
Lee
Doe
189, 4
to B, assigning the
codicil.
same amount
same motive
V.
for
V.
Pai.
271
[Gr. Ev.
M. & W. 363
Connolly
v.
Pardon,
pray, 347.]
3 Ryall v. Hannam, 10 Beav. 536.
* Stringer v. Gardiner, 27 Beav.
35
i.
$ 291.]
I
Edw. Ch.
Thayer
v.
Boston, 15
468
[cf.
Pai. 291
De
6,
G.
&
J.
Galluf
v,
THE
Chap. XI I.J
but the legatee
may
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
173
Article
which articles
cases to
Articles 90
92.*
and
90
91
do not apply.
documents, and
and only to cases in which
dependent upon the terms of
to parties to
some
civil right
or civil liability
question.
Any person other than a party to
a document or his representative in interest may, notwithstand-
a document
is in
is
or any representative in
any such fact for any purpose other than that of varying or
altering any right or liability depending upon the terms of the
document.*
Illustrations.
The
question
is,
Per Leach, V.
yenner
in
Hinch, L. R. 5 P. D. 106.
i.
$ 279; Lowell Mfg.
v.
2[Gr.
C,
Ev.
591
Stitt
V.
R.
V.
Cheadle, 3 B.
& Ad.
833.
A DIGEST OF
174
tences.
as a
[Part
premium
for executing a
II.
deed
of
partnership, which deed stated a consideration other than the one which
B may
premium.^
'
R.
V.
Adamson, 2 Moody,
286.
for the
THE
Chap, XIII.J
LAW OF EVIDENCE,
PART
175
III.
BURDEN OF
Article
XIII.*
PROOF.
93.!
Whoever
right or liability
Article
94.!
presumption of innocence.
If the
commission of a crime is directly in issue in any procivil, it must be proved beyond reasonable
ceeding, criminal or
doubt."
* See Note
XXXV.
but
A DIGEST OF
176
[Part
III.
down
B on
sues
a policy of
fire
insurance.
B must prove
pleads that
if
A burnt
A were
to A's
S. 302.]
loaded thereon by
absence of notice.'
(c) The question
whom
THE
Chap. XIII.]
in 1819
is,
whether
is
177
must prove
tlie
man
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
to
the person
who
asserts
It is
it.''
Article
95.
lies.
first on tliat
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.
As the proceeding goes on, the burden of proof may be
shifted from the party on whom it rested at first by his proving
party against
the
facts
'
whom
Williams
v.
East India
Co., 3
in his favor.
[cf.
B. &= A.
Co.
J?.
v.
A" v.
this, in
Twyning, 2
a general
continuance of
B.
way
&
A. 386.
Bishop,
life.
M. & D.
Bradw. 57
Squire
ray, 6 Or. 17
Dixon
v.
i.
v.
$ 74-82
Mar.
i.
12,
1885
Gr. Ev.
see Harris
v.
Kelly
Hyde Park
ss.
Drew,
12 Allen, 107
35
v.
Mur-
431
cf R. v.
la.
338-9
Veiths v.
v.
i.
Harris, 8
Mich. 84
18
Q. B. D. 366
T. E.
[Gr. Ev.
v. State,
People
People,
Wills/lire, 6
3
[It is
v.
Starkie, 586-7
Roberts v. Chittenden, 88 N. Y.
33; Abbath v. Railway Co., 11 Q. B. D. 440. But when the defendant
admits all the allegations of the complaint or declaration which require
to be proved, and sets up an affirmative defence, he has the burden and
A DIGEST OF
178
[Part
III.
Illustrations.
(a)
It
is
indorsee of a
bill of ex-
and
must prove it.'
{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
The burden of
in possession of the stolen goods soon after the theft.
proof is shifted to A. She shows that she stole them in the presence of
her husband. The burden of proving that she was not coerced by him
is shifted on to the prosecutor.*
The presumption
change.
is
was
for value,
the right to
Murray
case.
v.
N.
V.
Life
hts.
Co.
85
N. Y. 236.
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.; Clajlin v. Meyer, 75 N. Y.
Heinemamt v. Heard, supra Central Bridge Corp. v. Butler,
260, 264
thus in criminal cases it remains on the government through2 Gray, 132
out the trial, Turner v. Comm., 86 Pa. St. 54 State v. IVingo, 66 Mo.
;
181; Comm.
V.
O' Connell v.
And
this
successive adduc-
46 N. Y. 271
Ogletree
v. State,
Lamb
28 Ala. 693.
v.
Camden,
is
etc.
what is
R. Co.,
ing the affirmative upon the issue can establish a sufficient prima facie
case by showing the mere occurrence of acts which raise a presumption
>
Mills
V.
Barber,
M. & W. 425
[Harder
;
v.
Estabrook
Worrall, 69 N. Y. 370
Allen, 412
v.
Boyle,
Chap. XIII.]
(c)
is
marriage,
LAW
THE
proves that
179
OF EVIDENCE.
at the
must prove malice, and the want of probable cause, though the
^
a negative.]
(cd) [A
is
guilty.
The burden
when
the act
is
He
mitted.
latter is
was com-
and if the entire evidence does not satisfy the jury of his sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, A must be acquitted.] '
(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
sane,
the solicitor.*
that
V.
it
People
Swiiiford, 57 Cal. 86
R. V. Butler, i R. & R. 61.
'
V.
Wh.
[Marks
v.
^{^IValker v. People,
his insanity
St.
573
V.
As
Boswell
v.
defence of
reasonable doubt
St.
is
alibi,
there
is
cf.
v.
Hamilton, 57
la.
596
cf Garrity
v.
People,
107
111.
162.]
<
s. 310, n. i.
Quoting Hunter \. Atkins, 3 M. &
[Whiteheads. Kennedy, 69 N. Y. 462; Dunn v. Record, 63 Me.
Dale v. Dale, 38 N. J. Eq. 274 Cuthbertson's Appeal, 97 Pa. St.
K. 113.
17
163]
A DIGEST OF
i8o
{e)
shown
It is
that a
is
it
[Part
land.
is
III.
(/)
that he
who
owner
denies
(^)
in fee simple,
would go
is
is
on the person
it.'
finds a jewel
mounted
The presumption
is
in the
socket
to
that
is
in
produce
is
it
on
it
to
it
to
look
at.
on B.^
went
sues
to sea,
Article
96.
fact.
*
;
may
in the
VVhiton
3
V.
Snyder, 88 N. Y. 299
Armoury v. Delajnirie,
Wend. 628.]
S.
\^Burt
v.
Linthicum
L. C. 357
Panjaud, 99 U. S. 180
Ray, 9 Wall. 24.]
[Gr. Ev.
Clark
% 'iT
;
v.
;
i.
cf.
v.
Miller, 4
Koster
S:
'
\Harris
v.
Dederich
v.
McAllister, 49 How.
THE
Chap. XIII.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
i8i
Illustrations.
A prosecutes B
[A sues B
for theft,
for
upon A, but
Pr. 351
see G. IV. J?. Co. v. Bacon, 30 111. 347.
Thus it is held that in
proceedings against a person who has been selling liquor 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 plaintiff to prove the want of a
;
People
license.
(Pa.) 399
'
[See
{^Indianapolis,
Brownbridge,
Brews.
p. 179, n. 3.]
P. R.
v.
Co., 58
etc.
R. Co.
y. Exp. Co.
A^.
Md. 482;
v.
v.
v.
St.
Louis Gas
Co.
73
78 N. Y. 480; xMayo v. B. &^ M. R. Co., 104 Mass. 137; Benson v. Titcomb, 72 Me. 31
Boree v. Danville, 53 Vt. 183.]
^ Elkin V. Janson, 13 M. & W.
See, especially, the judgment of
655.
;
more
[cf.
Claflin
Meyer, 75 N. Y. 260.]
v.
to
v.
is
founded
Ea. 639,
A DIGEST OF
i82
Article
[Part
III.
97.
The burden
is
to give
such evidence.
Illustrations.
(a)
A
life
when he made
fact that
he had given up
all
hope
'
[See Art.
of
the statement.'
26, ante.}
[See Art
lost
71, attte.}
Chap. XIV.]
THE
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
CHAPTER
183
XIV.
98.
presumption of legitimacy.
The
V.
Retnaine, 58
Hawes
v.
la.
46; Patterson
v.
Gaines, 6
N. Y. Rev.
How. (U.
St.
i.
642.]
A DIGEST OF
84
that subject
deemed
to
be relevant
[Part
facts
when
III.
the legitimacy
is
husband
person by
to the
Article
99.
those
(if
any)
heard of him,
who
is
of the case are such as to account for his not being heard of
when he
died,
is
to
at
> R. V. Luffe, 8
Ea. 207
Cope v. ('ape, i Mo. & Ro. 272-4 Legge v.
Edmonds, 25 L. J. Eq. 125, see p. 135; R. v. Maiisfie/d, i Q. B. 444;
Morris v. Davies, 3 C. & P. 215. 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. 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
Abingthat widowhoods are usually very short.
[Gr. Ev. i. 28, 344
Montgomery v. Montgomery 3 Barb. Ch.
ton V. Duxbury, 105 Mass. 287
Tioga Co, v. South Creek T'p., 75 Pa. St. 433 Dennison v. Page, 29
132
Chamberlain v. People, 23
Id. 420 People v. Overseers, etc. 15 Barb. 286
N. Y. 85, 88 Mink v. State, 60 Wis. 583 Dean v. State, 29 Ind. 483.]
2 McMahon v. McElroy, 5 Ir.
Rep. Eq. I Hopewell v. De Pinna, 2
Camp. 113 Nepean v. Doe, 2 S. L. C. 562, 681 Nepean v. Knight, 2 M.
& W. 894, 912 R. v. Lumley, L. R. 1 C. C. R. 196 and see the caution
of Lord Denman in R. v. Harborne, 2 A. & E. 544. All the cases are collected and considered in In re Phene's Trust, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 139. The
doctrine is also much discussed in Prudential Assurance Company v. Ed;
monds^
L,.
The
principle
is
stated to the
same
effect
LAW OF
THE
Chap. XIV.]
EVIDENCE.
185
who
Article
100.
When
has been shown that any person has, for a long pe-
it
origin
Re
as in the text in
41
Davie
v.
Briggs, 97 U. S. 628
Keller
v.
worth
v.
Cooper
V. Cooper,
Hyde Park
Wentworth, 71 Me. 72
[Gr. Ev.
i.
45 N. J. L. 219
111. 230
the last two cases maintain a rule somewhat different from the
;
English.]
'
[Gr. Ev.
i.
$ 29, 30
23 Kan. 276
Coyc
v.
Newell
in last note.
468.]
^
The
is
much considered
in
Angus
V.
see Lehigh R.
Warren, 82 N. Y. 265.]
Cas. 740
[Gr. Ev.
Co. v.
McFarlan, 43 N.
J.
L. 605
yackson
v.
v.
Fishing
'
i.
smith's Lessee
%^ 46, 47
v.
Johnston, 92 U. S. 343.
It is
Co., 77
Pa.
St.
Ward
v.
Jackson v.
310; Oak-
A DIGEST OF
86
[Part
III.
Illustrations.
is entitled to recover from A the posand 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.
(a)
The
question
is,
whether
fishing mill-dam
in 1861.
rights
it.^
builds a windmill near B's land in 1829, and enjoys a free current
of air to
lates of
government, except
running back to
colonial days, since, from the beginning of the century, a record has
been
and
air
Parker
v.
Foote, 19
Wend.
309
v.
is
Gilmore
fortiori.
See
v.
49
Y. 39]
;t
LAW OF
THE
Chap. XI V.J
Article
EVIDENCE.
187
ioi.*
When
any judicial or
manner
in a
official act is
substantially regular,
requisites for
validity
its
it
were complied
with.'
When
v.
Q. B. D. (C. C. R.
presumption.
Crcsswell, L. R.
V.
V.
Pells
V.
presumed
It is
powers,
etc.
was the
="
title.'
R.
it
$ 20
''
587
'
Id.;
As
Hilton
v.
Pr ingle
i.
to similar
Hammond V.
Doe
A.
e.g.,
a relation
between parties i^Eames v. Eames, 41 N. H. 177) life {Stevens v. McNaviara, 36 Me. 176)
residence {Greenfield v. Camden, 74 Me. 56; Nixon
Cooi
V. Palmer, 10 Barb. 175)
insanity {State v. Wilner, 40 Wis. 304
V. Cook, 53 Barb. 180)
status {Kidder v. Stevefis, 60 Cal. 414) and many
other matters. Gr. Ev.
Beckwith v. Phaleti, 65 N. Y. 322. The
$ 41
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, and cases supra.
(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) as
that letters properly mailed reach their destination (see Art. 13, ante
;
i.
A DIGEST OF
Article
[Part
III.
102.*
estoppel by conduct.
When
one person by anything which he does or says, or abfrom 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 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 representative in interest, to deny
stains
mate
is in
* See Note
ylustin v. Holland^ 69 N. Y. 571)
is
XXXVIIL
Wend.
198
Y. 126; State
>
[Andrews
Shee, 13 R.
V.
v.
ytna
I.
535
Ins. Co., 85
Co?nm.
v.
N. Y. 334
Morris, 31 N.
J.
Eq. 583
Slocumb
v.
Railroad
Co.,
57
la. 675.]
THE
Chap. XIV.]
LAW OF
EVIDENCE.
copy.
original.*
i^d)
eighty quarters of barley to B, but does not specifically apB any quarters. B sells sixty of the eighty quarters to C.
sells
propriate to
informs A,
who
nothing further to
wants money.
room
as to delivery.
A's wife
fills
B becomes
up a cheque
for ;^5o
is left
it
is.
so carelessly that
50" and
it
Ruddell
29
la. 495.]
Howard
v.
Hudson, 2 E. & B.
'
Knights
V.
Wiffen, L. R. 5
in this country.
Kent's
Campbell, 55 N. Y. 456.]
Comm.
i.
B. 660.
iii.
85,
note
A DIGEST OF
I90
[Part
III.
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
cashed.
(/")
He
stolen.
is
thief.
title
Article
103.
No
tenant,
when
deny
the
that
title to
title
to
Young V. Grote, 4 Bing. 253. [This case has been much considered of
and its authority is carefully limited to its special facts. Greenfield
'
late
Sav. Bk.
595
of.
V.
McGrath
Lehman
v.
Central R. Co.^ 12 F. R,
v.
n. 2, ante.'\
'
Per Blackburn,
See Baxendale
ject are
v.
J., in
Swan
v. A^.
B. Australasian Co., 2 H.
Bennett, 3 Q. B. D. 525.
60 N. Y. 198.]
3 Doe V. Barton, 11 A.
I
earlier cases
[Cf. People V.
Pegg,
The
T. R. 760 (note)
&
;
E. 307
&
C. 181.
on the sub-
C. 209-16, 234-5.
v.
Telegraph Co.,
Doe
v.
bell,
i.
Towns
Chap. XIV.]
THE
LAW OF
Article
EVIDENCE.
'
191
104.
No
acceptor of a
of exchange
bill
is
payable
is
to the
if
the bill
bill,
nor
if
though he
the
bill
Article
105.
No
trusted to any of
is
by
whom
entitled to those
wrongob-
-ii.
2
'
Sanderson
article,
<>
v.
[See as to
this
[Sinclair
Roberts
96.
$$ 532-541.]
i.
A DIGEST OF
192
[Part
III.
tained the goods from a third person who has claimed them
from such bailee, agent, or licensee.'
Every bill of lading in the hands of a consignee or endorsee
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 of the shipper or of the holder, or some person under
whom
1 Dixon
Crosslcy v. Dixon, 10 H. L. C.
V. Hammond, 2 B. & A. 313
Gosling v. Birnie, 7 Bing. 339 Hardman v. Wilcock, 9 Bing. 382
293
Wilson v. Anderton,
Biddle v. Bond, 34 L. J. Q. B. 137, [6 B. & S. 225]
I B. & Ad. 450.
As to carriers, see Sherida>i v. A^ew Quay, 4 C. B. (N. S.)
;
618.
The
assignee of the
bill
of lading,
when
it
upon
be within
its
his
knowledge.
(3)
When
the master
is
but
it is
manner
with him
LAW
THE
Chap. XV.]
OF EVIDENCE.
19J
CHAPTER XV.
OF THE COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES*
Article
who may
All
106.
testify.
cases except as
all
hereinafter excepted.'
Sch.
Freeman
See also
The Delaware, 14
Wall. 579, 602 Meyer v. Peck, 28 N. Y. 590 in Armour v. Mich. C. R.
Co., 65 N. Y. Ill, the last proposition seems not to be approved.]
[The common law rules disqualifying parties and persons interested
in the event of the suit from being witnesses are now almost universally
abolished.
In some courts, however, special exceptions are still in force
Guldin' s Adm'rs
See U. S. v. Clark, 96 U. S. 37
to a limited extent.
And, moreover, there is established
V. Guldin' s Adm'rs, 97 Pa. St. 411.
by statute in most States one important exception, prohibiting a party
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 event (or a predecessor of such person) shall not be
examined as a witness in his own behalf or interest (or in behalf of his
v.
;
Buckingham,
i8
How.
(U.
S.)
182;
'
a deceased person, or the committee of a lunatic (or the successor in interest of such decedent or lunatic), concerning a personal transaction or
A DIGEST OF
194
Article
[Part
III.
107.
A witness
is
incompetent
if in
is
son to recover for legal services, the plaintiff cannot be a witness and
Brague v. Lord, 67
testify as to advice given by him to the decedent.
N. Y. 495 see Holcomb v. Holcomb, 95 N. Y. 316 Pope v. Allen, 90 N. Y.
;
298.
The law
etc.,
of Congress
that in an action
is
by or against an executor,
Bank, 102 U.
98 Pa. St. 6
Mich. 65
As
S. 163.
;
Wh.
Wells
Ev.
i.
v.
by
U.
S.
Rev.
St. ^
to the
466-477. J
witness under sentence of death was said to be in-
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
THE
Chap. XV.]
195
Article
competency
in
Evi-
108.*
criminal cases.
[Gr. Ev.
i.
366
See Note
\Vh. Ev.
i.
$|J
XLL
406, 407
Quhin
v.
Halbert, 55 Vt.
224.]
^ [Persons not believing in the existence of a God who will punish false
swearing are also incompetent witnesses by common law. Blair v. Scaver, 26 Pa. St. 274 People v. Matteson, 2 Cow. 433 Free v. Buckingha7n, 59
;
less stringent.
(See
all
the cases.)
ST^-yj^
^Vh. Ev.
'<
397
i.
may be removed by
by courts
Gr. Ev.
i.
in
ity.
Wh.
169, $ 19
Ev.
i.
People
Sims
v.
disqualifies,
it
is
Ji. v.
^^
Tay-
Sims, 75 N. Y. 466.
though
it
But
may be proved
in
many
States,
to affect credibil-
i.
$ 397
v.
Gr. Ev.
v.
other States,
$ 376-378
infamy no longer
Schuylkill Co.
tion
Payne, L. R.
C. C. R. 349,
and R.
v.
Thompson,
Id. 377.
A DIGEST OF
196
[Part
compellable to
testify.'
III.
competent and
is
Article
109.
CASES OF ADULTERY.]
husband or
wife of a party, or of a
suit, is
an
Wh.
Me.
As
some cases
for,
the others.
Gr.
v.
% 363
Jones, 51
i.
to
husband and
wife, there
But
now provided by
defendant may be a
it is
that the
Gr. Ev.
i.
342, 344.
the laws of Congress
witness in his
own
and
in
many
States,
behalf,
N. Y. Code
Wh.
v.
Courtney, 94 N. Y. 490
Showaltcr v. State, 84 Ind. 562.
So
the statutes of some States, persons jointly indicted may be witnesses
People
by
Ev.
v.
for or against
Gibson
v.
Mass. Pub.
St., c. 169,
Comm., 87 Pa.
St.,
253
18, par.
People
v.
2;
Wh.
Langtree,
64Cal. 256.]
'
[At this point Mr. Stephen adds the following English statutory qual-
ifications
the
"The
meaning of
this article,
public highways, or
Trials
THE
Chap. XV.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
197
pose of trying
&
41 Vict.
c.
s.
14)
only (Id.)
civil rights
High Court
of Justice (28
&
29 Vict.
c.
34)"'
12
[Ralcliff V. Wales,
Hill,
V.
Tucker, 51
^
is
Mackey, 498
111.
Bishop,
M. & D.
ii.
A'^'a v.
no.]
[Id.
For a special rule in bastardy cases, see Art. 98, aute.^
[The original article of Mr. Stephen, stating the present English law,
as follows
"COMPETENCY
IN PROCEEDINGS
RELATING TO ADULTERY."
and
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. 6S, s. 3.
(The word such seems to have been
their
'
omitted accidentally.)
'
"
In this country also, by modern statutes, husband and wife are commonly allowed to testify, but special limitations are usually 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
and in an action for crim;
conversation plaintiff's wife cannot testify for him, but may for the
defendant, e.xcept that she cannot disclose confidential communications
inal
his consent.
Code
Civ. Pro.
A DIGEST OF
198
[Part
III.
Article no.
No husband
made
to
is
him by
and no wife is
to her by her
made
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 such judge.''
'
may
testify, but neither can disclose confidencommunications without the consent of the other, if living. Id. ^^
So in Massachusetts they may testify, except as to private con828, 831.
versations with each other. Pub. St., c. 169, 6 18 Rayncs v. Btntuit, 114
Mass. 424. As to other States, see Matthews v. Yerex, 48 Mich. 361
Grecnawalt v. McEnellcy, 85 Pa. St. 352 Howard v. Biower, 37 O. St.
$ 831.
tial
Wood
Chetwood, 27 X.
J. Eq.
But statutes removing the disability of parties to testify do not enable husband and wife
there must be special acts for this purpose. Lucas v.
to be witnesses
Brooks, 18 Wall. 436 Wh. Ev. i. 430.]
' 16 &
It is doubtful whether this would apply to
17 Vict. c. 83, s. 3.
a widower or divorced person, questioned after the dissolution of the
marriage as to what had been communicated to him whilst it lasted. [So
under modem 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. As to the nature of such communicaFay v. Guytion, 131 Mass.
tions, see Wood v. Chetwood, 27 N. J. Eq. 311
Bean v. Green, 33 O. St 444 Perry v. Randall, 83 Ind. 143
31
Schmied v. Frand, 86 Ind. 250 U. S. v. Guiteau, 1 Mackey, 498. That
a person overhearing their conversations may testify, see Comm. v.
402
311
People
Wh.
v.
Ev.
i.
$ 431
& D.
Bishop, M.
ii.
v.
H 282-285.
Griffin,
no
Chace, 12 R.
Mass. 181
I.
State
v.
Hoyt, 47
Ct
518
contra,
Campbell
v.
333.]
trial
THE
Chap. XV. 1
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
199
his
to
in the
see McMillen
AndrcvM, lo O. St.
with others, and no exception
when he sits
judgment of the court is not
These rules apply also
374.
testify
v.
People
invalidated.
But if he docs
taken thereto, the
112.
is
v.
Dohrintr, 59 N. Y.
Morss
So a
may
justice
(Heyward's Case,
Highberger
v.
testify
i
Sandf. 701),
Stiffler,
21
or
Md. 238
as
;
to
yackson
v.
Humphrey,
Johns.
498.
etc., may not give testimony to impeach their
Packard v. Reynolds, 100 Mass. 153 Ellison v. Weathers, 78 Mo. IIS
see Briggs v. Smith, 20 Barb. 409; aliter, in cases of
Pulliam v. Penseneaii, 33 111.
fraud, Withington v. Warren, 10 Met. 431
But arbitrators may testify as to matters openly occurring before
375.
them on the hearing, including admissions of a party, etc. {Calvert v.
Friebus, 48 Md. 44 Graham v. Graham, 9 Pa. St. 254) or in support or
Auditors, arbitrators,
report or award.
Wh.
Ev.
i.
599; Converse
v. Colton,
49 Pa.
St.
Gr. Ev.
ii.
78
Gray, 99.]
case
A DIGEST OF
Article
[Part
III.
112.
No
officer at the
to give
Article
113.
when in their own judgment the disclosure would on pubgrounds be inexpedient. Appeal of Hartranft, 85 Pa. St. 433 ThompTotten v. U. S., 92 U. S. 105;
son V. German, etc. R. Co., 22 N. J. Eq. iii
Nor without permission of government can other perGr. Ev. i. 2.i;i.
sons be compelled to make such disclosures. See Worthington v. Scribner, 109 Mass. 487.]
3 Chubb V. Salomons, 3 Car. & Kir.
77 Plunkett v. Cobbett, 5 Esp. 136.
3 R. V. Hardy, 24 S. T. 811
A. G. v. Bryant, 15 M. & W. 169 R. v.
judicial inquiry,
lic
Richardson, 3 F.
C. 726
&
F. 693.
State v. Soper, 16
[Gr. Ev.
Me. 293
i.
$ 250
i/.
Moses, 4 Wash. C.
Scribner, 109 Mass,
S. v.
Worthington
v.
THE
Chap. XV.]
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
Article
201
114.
competency of jurors.
may
petty juror
may^
juror
This
487.
not
and
'
it
is
last
re-
questioned.]
is
Vaise
'
is
Richard-
v.
[Gr. Ev.
v.
i.
Delaval,
252 a
T. R. ii
Woodivard
Burgess
v.
v.
&
Langley, 5 M.
G. 722.
sinners'
a full collection of cases, see 24 Am. Dec. 475; 12 Id. 142. But
testimony has been received to support or establish their verdict, or
to exculpate them from alleged misconduct {Peck v. Breiver, 48 111. 54
601
for
their
People
V.
made by them outside of the jury room, which are relied upon
show bias or prejudice Woodward v. Leavitt, supra); or to show the
declarations
to
when
Follansbee
v.
King, 40
la.
278
this is
v.
not disWalker,
74 Pa. St. 306 see Packet Co. v. Sickles, 5 Wall. 580); or to show a juror's
acts while separated from his fellows [Heffron v. Gallupe, 55 Me. 563); or
;
to
trial
(Hewett
v.
Chapma?/,
49 Mich. 4); and even in some States to impeach a verdict for grounds
not essentially inherent therein.
Curtis v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 32 la. 515
;
Perry
trial in
People
v.
juror
V.
may be a
Howser
v.
witness
upon
same
the
Comm., 51 Pa.
St.
332;
that a
i.
A DIGEST OF
men
in
may
[Part
It
also
is
III.
doubtful
Article
115.*
professional communications.
No
legal adviser
is
mentary, made
him
by or on behalf of
and for the purpose of his
employment, whether in reference 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
to
legal adviser.'
* See Note XLIIL
peachment of a witness's credibility, may disclose his testimony before
them, in order to show that it differed from that given before the petit
jury {Comm. v. Mead, 12 Gray, 167 State v. Benner, 64 Me. 267 State v.
Wood, 53 N. H. 484 Gordon v. Comm., 92 Pa. St. 216; Burdick v. Hunt,
or to show a witness's perjury,
43 Ind. 381 N. Y. Code Cr. Pro. % 266)
;
confessions, etc.
Id.
U.
S. v.
Bishop
Cr. Pr.
i.
number did not con{Low's Case, 4 Me. 439 People v. Shattuck, 6 Abb. N. C.
and so as to other grounds for quashing, see U. S. v. Farrington, 5
33
but not, it seems, in a collateral proceeding {People v. Hulbut,
F. R. 343)
the grand jurors will be received, that twelve of their
cur
m finding
it
Some
States apply a
of grand jurors.
to?t,
more
Clanton
281.
evidence
App. 139
Farririg-
v. State,
13 Te.x.
cf.
U.
S. v.
supra.]
$ 83s
V.
still
Bacon
i.
v.
Chap. XV.]
203
made
in further-
^
;
(3)
became acquainted
The expression "legal
legal adviser
McLellart
The
v.
client's
Blackburn v.
Crawfords 3 Wall. 175, 192. But his becoming himself a witness in the
case does not amount to a waiver. Montgomery v. Pickering, 116 Mass.
227; see Duttenhofer v. State, 34 O. St. 91. After the client's death
his e.xecutor or administrator cannot waive.
Gr. Ev. i. 243
IVestover
V. /^tna Life Ins. Co., 99 N. Y. 56.]
,
' Follett
V. yefferyes, i Sim. (N. S. ) 17; Charlton v. Coombes, 32 L.
J.
Ch. 284 4 Giff. 372. These cases put the rule on the principle, that the
furtherance of a criminal purpose can never be part of a legal adviser's
;
Dudley
fraud
Beck, 3
within this exception
v.
Hun,
2
cf.
Higbec
v.
v.
include cases of
Mersereau, 3 Barb.
In re Chapman,
ttj
573.]
[See Illustration
{a).\
Wh. Ev. i.
as, e.g., facts which
588, 589
he learned before he became legal adviser, or after the relation ceased
or while he was acting as friend, not as attorney {Coon v. Swan, 30 Vt.
so as to communications not relating to the professional employment.
6)
Carroll v. Sprague, 59 Cal. 655 State v. Mcwhertcr, 46 la. 88. So an
^
[Gr.
Ev.
i.
%% 244, 245
attorney
name
may be
required to testify as to
many
collateral matters
as the
v.
y.
Mi4ller,
A DIGEST OF
204
interpreters
solicitors,' their
their clients.
has elected to
make
[Part
whom
It
III.
clerks/ and
the corporation
statements.'
Illustrations.
A, being charged with embezzlement, retains B, a barrister, to defend him. In the course of the proceedings, B observes that an entryhas been made in A's account book, charging A with the sum said to
(a)
have been embezzled, which entry was not in the book at the commencement 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
Gray, 402
Crosby
v.
A communication made
the others are present
is
suit
Gulick
Gulkk, 38 N.
v.
J.
Eq.
402
Britton
v.
whether licensed conveyancers are within the rule? Parke B. in Turquand v. Knight, 7 M. & W. 100, thought not. Special pleaders would
seem to be on the same footing. [Gr. Ev. i. ^ 239 as to clerks, see Sibyacksoti v. French, 3 Wend. 337 but a lawley v. Waffle, 16 N. Y. 180
student to whom a communication is made, not being the clerk or
agent of the attorney, may be required to testify as to such communicaHolman v. Kimball, 22 Vt. 555), and
tion {Barnes v. Harris, 7 Cush. 576
Hoy
so may a person who overhears a client's statements to his lawyer.
Gary v. White, 59 N. Y. 336, 339 Goddard v.
V. Morris, 13 Gray, 519
Gardner, 28 Ct. 172. A lawyer simply employed to draft deeds or other
,
papers without giving legal advice is not generally within the rule of
Smith v. Long, 106 111. 485 Borum v. Fotits, 15 Ind. 50 Hatprivilege.
but see Linthicitm v. Remington, 5 Cr. C.
ton v. Robinson, 14 Pick. 416
;
C. 546.]
'
Mayor of Swansea
v,
Quirk, L. R. 5 C. P. D. 106,
THE
Chap. XV.]
by
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
205
in
tion.'
{J>)
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 ;if 10,000 to get
;
my
in
Article
and estate."
title
This com-
116.
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 permission, although
it may have been made before any dispute arose as to the matter referred to.'
Article
117.*
Brown
& N.
Foster, I H.
v.
Anneslcy
v.
Anglesea, 17
S.
T. 1223-4.
of Radelifft'
are
ties
er
v.
Fursman, 2
now competent
Kiihn, 38
Br. P. C. 514.
witnesses.
all
the cases,
De
G.
&
and
S. 18-31,
Hcmenway v.
Bigler
Bark-
V.
State, 34
O.
St.
la.
91
may waive
392
State
v.
Inhab. of
IVobum
v.
Mich. 626.]
Duchess of Kingston's Case, 20 S. T. 572-3.
Note XLIV.
v.
193.
That
Passmore's Estate, 50
As
to
clergymen, see
A DIGEST OF
2o6
communications made
to disclose
to
[Part
them
in professional
III.
con-
fidence.'
Article
ii8.
No
who
witness
produce
is
his title-deeds to
'
in a
is
number
tablished by statute.
New
In
be allowed
shall not
York,
e.^.,
it is
a confession
to disclose
made
Wend.
body (N.
Y.
Code
Civ. Pro.
ij
833
him
to
by
;
in his profes-
311)
Trust
Co., 112 U. S.
see Gillooley
250
v. State,
title,
but only
the
title
of his adversary
V.
and a similar
modern
statutes allowing
him
to
LAW OF
THE
Chap. XV.]
to refuse to
production
its
EVIDENCE.
may
expose him
but a witness
'
207
is
not entitled
to
civil
because
action/ or because he
it.'
the discovery
Sandf. 698;
167,
c.
56
s.
Wilson
14 (ed. 1878)
s.
v.
but see
228,
c.
Adams
A person not a party to an action may by subpcena duces tecum be required to produce his private papers in evidence that are relevant to the
issue (Wh. Ev. i. ^ 537
Burnham v. Mprrissey, 14 Gray, 226, 240 In re
Dunn, 9 Mo. App. 255; of. Davenbagh v. M' Kinnie, 5 Cow. 27 (deed)
Lane v. Cole, 12 Barb. 680 (docket book) Bonesteel v. Lynde, 8 How. Pr.
;
the court
and
his rights
Ev.
i.
$ 246
interests
is
12 Abb.
Mitchell's Case,
to
Pr.
(Gr.
In re O' Toole,
'
&
Hope
C. 858
V.
;
Liddell, 7
Brassington
De
v.
G.
M. &
G. 331
Brassington,
Sim.
Hunter
&
v. Leathley,
Stu. 455.
It
10 B.
has been
A DIGEST OF
2o8
Article
[Part
III.
119.
No
duce (except
for the
contents.'
Volant
'
V.
Soyer, 13 C. B. 231
Phelps
v.
Prerv, 3 E.
&
B. 431.
corporation.
Bank of
Utica
v.
In equity, however,
3 Met. 282.
might, in some cases, be required to
Co.
Chap. XV.]
THE
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
Article
209
120.
No one
bound
is
to
if
'
to
any
541
R.
i.
i.
witness.
When
it is held in many States that he may be crossexamined upon all facts relevant to that issue, and cannot refuse to testify.
Comm. V. Nichols, 114 Mass. 285 Roady v. Finegan, 43 Md. 490
State V. Ober, 52 N. H. 459
People v.
State v. Witham, T2 Me. 531
Casey, 72 N. Y. 393
see People v. Brown, Id. 571
State v. Clinton, 67
Mo. 380 People v. Beck, 58 Cal. 212 State v. Red, 53 la. 69 ]
2 As to husbands and wives, see i Hale, P. C. 301
R. v. Cliviger, 2
T. R. 263 Cartivright v. Green, 8 Ve. 405 R. v. Bathwick, 2 B. & Ad.
A DIGEST OF
2IO
[Part
III.
the answer
may
debt, or
is
stance of the
Crown
or of
Article
121.
When
nal offence
is
>
164,
R. 6 Ch. D. 230
[Gr. Ev.
i.
to
452
601
tard child
is
corroborated
in
some material
LAW OF
THE
Chap. XV.]
in
EVIDENCE.
it is
s.
warn
it is
Vict.
211
&
so.'
9 Vict.
c. 10, s.
35
&
2i^
4."
Generally in
this
and no corroboration
Earle, 53 N. Y. 267
IVightman v. Coates, 15 Mass. I as to bastardy,
State V. Nichols, 29 Minn. 357; State v. McGlothlen, 56 la. 544; for a
:
c.
85,
s.
16
ILnues
v.
Thus in Now
In some analogous cases corroboration is required.
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
Armstrong v.
the female seduced, uncorroborated by other evidence.
People, 70 N. Y. 38
Zabriskie v. State, 43 N. J. L. 640 Rice v. Comm.,
;
100 Pa.
St.
28; State
v.
Tulley, 18 la.
88; State
v.
State
v.
etc.
Timmens, 4 Minn.
McGlothlen, 56
hi.
544-
So in some States it is a general rule not to grant a divorce on the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant {Robbins v. Robbins, 100 Mass.
150
v. Tate, 26 N.
Eq. 55 contra, Flattery v. Flattery, 88 Pa.
J.
or the uncorroborated confessions of the defendant. Lyo// v.
Tate
St. 27)
J.
Eq. 603
Evans
T. E.
article.]
ss.
887-91
[Gr. Ev.
i.
Stape
v.
People, 85 N. Y. 390
St. 187
Upon
State v.
the
McKean, 36
maxim
la. 343
Comm. v. Graves, 97 Mass. 114.
falsus in una, falsiis in omnibus, the testimony of a
;
A DIGEST OF
212
Article
number of
[Part
III.
122.
witnesses.
to the
to
or one of
them
to
one
in
in-
fendant
is
which perjury
witness
is
who has
assigned, and
if
wilfully
falsely as to a material
Smith
v.
But
40.
it is
"no person
Id.
it.
111.
S.
Comm.
93
Fier-
Constitu-
shall
&
[Gr. Ev.
i.
Gr. Ev.
i.
^ 255.]
256.]
[At this point Mr. Stephen adds the following special rule of the En" This provision does not apply to cases of high treason in
glish law
93."]
Chap. XV.]
THE
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
213
is
entitled to
Williams v.
[Gr. Ev. i. %^ 257-259
3 Russ. on Crimes, 77-86
Comm. 91 Pa. St. 493 People v. Stone, 32 Hun, 41 State v. Heed, 57 Mo.
U. S. v. Wood, 14 Pet. 430.]
252 Comm. v. Parker, 2 Cash. 212
[It is a chancery rule that where a bill is so framed as to compel an
ans'.viir 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.
liq. 324; Vigelw Hopp, 104 U. S. 441; Campbell v. Patterson, 95 Pa.
J.
St. 447
Jones v. Abraham, 75 Va. 465 Mey v. Gulliman, 105 111. 272.
But in New York this rule no longer exists. Stihvell v. Carpenter, 62 N.
'
"^
Y. 639.
.A.fter
some doubt,
it
is
now held
that a
363
Adams
v.
St. 348.]
A DIGEST OF
214
CHAPTER
[Part
III.
XVI.
123.
All
oath, but
if
17
&
18 Vict.
c.
125,
20
s.
(civil
cases)
24
&
25 Vict.
c.
66 (criminal
cases).
2 32 & 33 Vict. c. 68, s.
4 33 & 34 Vict. c. 49. I omit special provisions
as to Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, as the enactments mentioned
;
tutes perjury.
Id.
% 851
U. S. Rev.
St. % 5392.]
LAW
THE
Chap. XVI.]
OF EVIDENCE.
215
whether
oath, or
in
is
science,
"
me
any person having made either of the said declarations wiland corruptly gives false evidence, he is liable to be
punished as for perjury.
If
fully
Article
form of oaths
by
124.
be administered.
in
empowered
to
administer an oath to
all
is
&
c. 105.
For the old law, see Omichundv. Barker, i S. L.
[By the regular common-law form, the oath is administered upon
the Gospels, the witness kissing the book, the usual formula repeated
" So help you God. " But
to him being, " You do swear that," etc.
often, nowadays, the witness, instead of kissing the book, simply raises
But the rule stated in this article is
his hand while taking the oath.
everywhere accepted. Thus a Mohammedan may be sworn on the
Koran, a Brahmin or a Chinaman by the peculiar methods used in their
countries, etc.
See People v. yacksoti, 3 Park. Cr. 590. But if such persons take the usual form of oath without objection, they are liable for
perjury, if they wilfully swear falsely.
Gr. Ev. i. ^ 371.
'
2 Vict.
C. 455.
In
some
St., c. 169,
'
14
&
more
scribed by statute.
Mass. Pub.
^ 13-18.]
15 Vict.
c.
99,
s.
16.
A DIGEST OF
2i6
Article
[Part
III.
125.
be taken.
'
to civil
'^
country.
As
to civil
in court
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.
2 [As to preliminary hearings in criminal cases, there are statutes in
force in the several States of this country, providing for an examination
may be examined,
and
The courts
of the
Chap. XVI.]
U)
'
THE
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
217
come
letter missive from a domestic to a foreign court, requesting it to procure and return the desired testimony, 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. $ 863-876 N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. $ 887-920
Mass. Pub. St., c. 169, j^ 23-64; Anonymous, 59 N. Y. 313; Stein v.
;
Bowman,
13 Pet.
209]
one
[This paragraph
is
in the original is
XXXVII,
4.
&
&
in the cases
6, and 17 &
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 Chapter XVII."]
[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 testimony and
report it for the information of the court or such persons may be appointed 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,
Howe Machine Co. v. Edwards, 15 Blatch. 402) masters in chan$ 51
cery 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,
specified in 11
18 Vict.
12 Vict.
c. 104, s. 270,
c.
42,
s.
17,
be recorded
30
31 Vict. c. 35,
s.
in the
''
% 863.]
A DIGEST OF
2i8
to the rules
contained in
[Part
III.
this
tion of witnesses.
'
the
manner
as
if it
'
by
tions shall
rules of court
868
Is
T. E. 491.
statute or
followed.]
2
T. E.
[So
1283
s.
it is
[see p. 217, n.
held in
New York
i, attte.'l
should take all that is offered, and has no power to pass upon objections,
such power belonging to the court. Scott v. IVil/iams, 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 testimony by examiners.
Rule 6-] of the Equity Rules, U. S. Courts see Roberts v. Walley, 14 F.
R. 167. And other States have similar practice. Brotherto?i v. BrotherBut referees, etc.,
ton, 14 Neb. 186; cf. yones v. Keen, 115 Mass. 170.
having power to hear and determine issues, may decide upon objections
;
to testimony.
Cincitmati
v.
Cameron,
^1,
O.
St.
336
N. Y. Code Civ.
Pro. 1018.]
Stak
v. FQ<)te^
83 N. C. 102
Mitchell
v. Pitts,
61
THE
Chap. X\IJ
LAW OF
EVIDENCE.
219
When
filing
them.'
affidavit, or
court
as
But
Ala. 219.
affidavits
many
merely stating
been held
belief, or
Ada?ns v. Merritt, 10
Bradw. 275; Hackett v. ytidge, etc., 36 Mich. 334 Murphy v. Purdy, 13
Minn. 422 G.irner v. White, 23 O. St. 192
Thompson v. Higginbotham,
18 Kan. 42.
Ex parte affidavits are evidence only when made so by some statute.
People V. Walsh, 87 N. Y. 481. As to the difference between an affidavit
and a deposition, see Stimpson v. Brooks^ 3 Blatch. 456.]
[An attorney who draws an affidavit is liable for costs if ii contains
irrelevant and scandalous matter, which is stricken out on motion. McVey v. Cantrell, 8 Hun, 522 cf. Pitcher v. Clark, 2 Wend. 631.]
* T. E. 491.
Hutchinson v. Bernard, 2 Mo. & Ro. I. [It is a general
rule in this country that, if opportunity e.xists 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 practiced, 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.
Newton v. Porter., 69 N. Y. 133
107 N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. $ 910, 911
Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Fitzpatrick, 2 Gray, 279 Palleys v. Ocean Ins. Co.^
Stowell v. Moore, 89 111. 563 Horseman v. Todhunter, 12 la.
14 Me. 141
have,
in
cases,
insufficient.
'
230 Barnum v. Barnum, 42 Md. 251. Objections to questions as leading relate to form, and should be taken before the trial.
Akers v. De;
A DIGEST OF
220
against
whom
it is
may
read
[Part
III.
jected to
its
in
open
court,
any
any question asked by his own representative on the
execution of a commission to take evidence.
answer
is
to
Article
examination
126.*
in chief, cross-examination,
and
re-examination.
Witnesses examined in open court must be first examined in
then cross-examined, and then re-examined.'
Whenever any witness has been examined in chief, or has
chief,
*
'
See Note
XLV.
in its discretion,
may
witnesses.
who might be
called,
e.g., if
is
warranted, especially
if
facts),
an unfavor-
M- Laurence, 15 F. R. 633.]
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
THE
Chap. XVI.]
221
been intentionally sworn, or has made a promise and declaration as hereinbefore mentioned for the purpose of giving evidence,' the opposite party has a right to cross-examine him
but the opposite party is not entitled to cross-examine merely
because a witness has been called to produce a document on a
sjtbpana duces tecum, or in order to be identified.' After the
"^
cross-examination
is
in all cases
examination, and
if
it
further cross-examination
ively.*
If a
[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
'
and a witness
Bcal
63 Ga. 423
iXichols, 2
v.
Kiblcr
defendant
in
is
^ 445-447
3
Wh.
Ev.
529.]
i.
Aikin v. Martin,
by a witness does not
verification of a signature
to see the
document or
offered in evidence.
[Shepard
v.
entitle the
The simple
adverse party
upon
it,
until
it
is
11 Pai. 499.
v.
Williams
Delpench, 82 Pa.
St.
v.
225
Sergeant, 46 N. Y. 481
Comm.
v.
McGorty, 114
A DIGEST OF
examined
at
before he
became incapable
any stage of
[Part
III,
good.'
course of a
trial
decision independently of
a witness
it.''
i Jebb. C. C. 123.
The judges compared the case to
dying declaration, which is admitted though there can be no
cross-examination.
[By the weight of authority in this country, if the
death of a witness in a commo?i-law action precludes his cross-examination, his testimony given on the direct examination is not admitted {People
V. Cole, 43 N. Y. 508
S. C. 2 Lans. 370 Prifigle v. Prmgle, 59 Pa. St.
281
Sperry v. Moore's Estate, 42 Mich. 353) unless the party had the
opportunity of cross-examination before death occurred and did not
choose to exercise it {Bradley v. Mirick, 91 N. Y. 293) 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.
The English rule has been chiefly applied in equity cases (Gr. Ev. i. $554
Gass v. Stimson, 3 Sumn. 98) and only a few have declared it applicable
to common-law actions {Forrest v. Kissam, 7 Hill, 463
see Sturm v.
At'atitic Ins. Co., 63 N. Y. 77, 87; the New York cases contain contradictory expressions). 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.
As to the effect of cross-examination being lost by the death oi party,
see Hay's Appeal, 91 Pa. St. 265
Co7nins v. Hefjield., 12 Hun, 375, 80 N.
R.
'
V.
Doolin,
that of a
it.
Y. 261.]
R.
5i
V.
421, 422
327
But
Shurtlcff
if
v.
made
v.
Gr. Ev. i.
393
Dantery, 48 Me.
known when he
is
then, or
i.
it
is called and
be deemed to
Quin v. IJoyd, 41 N.
will ordinarily
Vt. 633.
So incompetent or improper evidence may be stricken out or withdrawn from the jury after it has been admitted. Stokes v. Johnson, 57
N. Y. 673 Specht v. Howard, 16 Wall. 564 Selkirk v. Cobb, 13 Gray, 313 ]
;
LAW
THE
Chap. XVI.]
OF EVIDENCE.
Article
223
127.
in issue or relevant or
'
But
2.
the rule in
it is
this
new
matter, he
Wall. 702
makes
People
Westmoreland
v.
Co.,
nelly V. Slate, 26
N.
J. L.
463
&
601
Aurora
v. Cobb.,
21 Ind. 492
Cokely
99; State
Austin
v.
V.
State
v.
This rule does not limit cross-examination of the kind described in Art.
The rule there stated is commonly accepted in all States.]
2 [Gr. Ev.
Gilbert v. Sage, 5 Lans. 287, 57 N. Y. 639
Button
$ 467
V. IVuodman, 9 Cush. 255
U. S. v. 18 Barrels.^ etc., 8 Blatch. 475
SomerTi/le, etc. R. Co. v. Doughty, 2 Zab. 495
Koenig v. Bauer, 57 Pa. St. 168.
The general rule that the re-examination must relate to matters developed
on the cross-examination is applied very strictly in some States (Sehaser
129.
i.
V.
State,
court may, in
trial
Allen, 277
Mich.
89.
If
Clark
v.
Vorce, 15
Wend.
193
see
its
Kendall
Hemmens
on the
v.
discretion,
\.
Weaver,
Bentley, 32
direct or cross-
A DIGEST OF
224
Article
[Part
III.
128.
leading questions.
Questions suggesting the answer which the person putting the
question wishes or expects to receive, or suggesting disputed
facts as to
by
to
is
to testify,
must
not,
if
objected
may be asked
in cross-examination.'
examination, the other party may, on the cross or re-direct, bring out
such other parts of the same conversation as explain or qualify the por-
People
V.
is
Furbush
State
it.
v.
may
Withavi, 72
v.
434. 435. 445 Wh. Ev. i. %% 499-504. But such questions may be allowed to be put on the direct examination when the witness appears hostile to the party introducing him, or when the examina'
[Gr. Ev.
i.
numerous details, where the memory orwhen it is necessary to direct the witness's
Id.;
People
State
v.
THE
Chap. XVI.]
LAW OF
Article
EVIDENCE.
225
129.*
When
a witness
is
to,
which tend
(i)
(2)
or
Moody
'
V.
[It is
may be
and
the
trial
main
irrelevant
such questions
collateral to the
may be
allowed
is
issue
to
may
Y. 379
165
ling
People
Comm.
v.
Noelke, 94 N. Y. 137
Gutterson v. Morse, 58 N. H.
Stortnv. U. S., 94 U. S. 76 RttS'
;
Bray, 37 N. J. Eq. 174 Marx v. Hilsendegen, 46 Mich. 336 MiilSt. Louis Hospital Ass'n, 73 Mo. 242
Player v. Burlington, etc. R.
V.
ler V.
v.
,;
A DIGEST OF
526
[Part
III.
compelled
to
(a)
many
sion on which he
one of his
many
friends.'
[On
the trial of
Co.
[Upon
62
la.
723
In
subject.
that
the trial of
A for
South Bend
New York
which tend
and questions as
when not
v.
Hayward v. People,
when they become
111.
the
to his
105
by
V. State,
also limited
is
409
96
111.
People
witnesses.
;
Root
v.
People
Irving, 95 N. Y. 541
v.
These general
492.
cf.
v. Casey,
72 N. Y. 393
Chambers
Bisscll
v.
Starr,
wards the party calling him, or his bias, malice, ill-will, prejudice, etc.,
against the opposite party.
Here, also, the judge's discretion governs
the range of examination.
Wallace v. Tautiton St. Railway, 119 Mass.
Batdorff v. Farmers' Nat. Bk. 61 Pa. St. 179 Schttltz v. Third
91
Av. R. Co. 89 N. Y. 242 Howard v. Patrick, 43 Mich. 121 see next
,
article.]
'
R.
V.
Orton.
[State
v.
THE
Chap. XVI.]
'
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
227
for
The
kill.
and the witness then answered without claiming his priviThis was held a proper exercise of the court's discretion.]
lege.
(<) [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,
the question.]*
Article
130.
it
(i) If a witness
is
'
People
see note
^
Mannings 48
V.
Cal. 335
S. P.
contra, People
i, siipra.'\
[Free
v.
A. G.
V.
Buckinghatn, 59 N. H. 219.]
Ex. 247.
Hitchcock,
[Gr.
Ev.
E.x. 91,
$ 449
i.
99-105.
Conley
v.
time
may
not be taken
Mich. 267
Sloan
v.
State V. Benner, 64
up
v.
Comm., 85 Pa.
Shiirtleffw. Parker,
St.
F.dwards, 61 Md. 89
Me. 267 Furst v. Second Av. R.
and (fi).]
;
Co.
72 N. Y. 542
A DIGEST OF
J28
not admit
it,
[Part
may be
III.
given of
If a witness
is
is
he
may be
contradicted.^
Illustrations.
murder, a female witness B is asked on crossexamination whether she took things not belonging to her when she left a
It cannot be shown by another
place w-here she had been at service.
witness that her answer is untrue.] ^
{b) [The question is whether two persons were jointly interested in buying and selling cattle. One of them becomes a witness and is questioned
as to their being jointly interested in a particular purchase and sale of
horses^ and answers that they were. This answer cannot be contradicted.] *
\c) [A witness called by A in a suit between A and B, testifies that he
has never threatened revenge against B. He may be contradicted on this
{a)
[On the
trial
of
for
"^
see Illustration
(r).]
53 N. Y. 164.]
\_Stokes V. People,
[Farniim
v.
Chap. XVI.]
Article
131.*
made such
fact make it.'
if
a statement, proof
i.
Alayer v. Appel, 13
Empire, etc. Co., 19 N Y. 13. The object is to
give the witness a chance to explain the alleged inconsistency if this be
not done, the evidence offered to show the contradiction is not admissible.
See Illustration [a) and cases supra. The rule is usually applied
when the witness denies making the statement, but that it also applies
when he does not recollect making it is declared in Payne v. State, 60 Ala.
80 Ind. Rev. St., ^ 508 (ed. 1881).
But testimony as to matters ai fact
cannot be impeached by proving the expression of opinions inconsistent
therewith. Gr. Ev.
Sloan v. Edwards, 61 Md. 89 Holmes v.
$ 449
Anderson, 18 Barb. 420. As to the mode of questioning the impeaching
Bradw. 87
Pendleton
v.
i.
A DIGEST OF
230
{i.e.
the judge
if
[Part
with a witness
by
upon
of opinion that he
is
whom
III.
his exis
"ad-
A''.
R. Co., 45 N. Y. 125
Y. C.
Fanners'
Ins.
Co.
V.
In Pennsylvania,
witness
may be
it
Vermont
whether the
v.
and so
in
(State
v.
by proving
bad character or
his
former statements
v.
may incidentally
Amer. Exp.
V.
Co.,
56 N. Y. 585
Sewell
v.
to
new
&
Sp. 292
Shorey
v.
v.
Thornton's Heirs, 39
v.
.Salisbury, 15
also the
is
235.
Even
if
is surprised by testimony
cannot impeach the witness by
still
THE
Chap. XVI.]
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
231
Illustration,
[a) [In
in
civil
action a deposition of A,
witness
several
ments inconsistent with his testimony and said that what he had sworn to
was false. The court would not receive B's testimony, because A, while
being examined, had not Ijeen questioned about the alleged conversations,
and had not, therefore, had an opportunity to explain the alleged contradictions.
Had such opportunity been given, B's testimony would be
receivable.
]>
Article
132.
made by him
in writing, or
to his
it
apparent
Id.; State v.
169, 2
'
Ryerson
\Stacy v.
v.
in
v.
so he
Knight, 43 Me.
if
Pearsall^ 53 N. Y. 230
Nemhr^cav v.
yohnson v. Leggett, 28 Kan. 591 ; Stearns v. Mer-
some
may prove
the truth
by other evidence.
11, 134.
Graham, 14 N. Y. 492
S. P.
Runyan
v.
Mass. Pub.
St., c.
Price, 15 O. St.
1.]
A DIGEST OF
232
[Part
III.
use of
it
for the
purposes of the
trial as
Article
he thinks
fit.'
133.
The
party,
&
17
18 Vict.
c.
125,
s.
24
& B. 286.
ments made by him
Case, 2 B.
People, 50 N. Y. 416
De May
v. Roberts, 46 Mich.
Lord, 8 Bradw. 539 State v.
Stein, 79 Mo. 330
Norton v. Chadbourn, 31 Minn. 322 Leonard \. KingsIcy, 50 Cal. 628.
But cross-examining counsel need not put it in evidence
Ct. 380;
160
Gaffney
Glenn
v.
v.
Gleason, 61 la. 28
Strong
v.
until
577)
may
own
case {Romertze
v.
proper to ask a witness who has testified to the making of a conwhether the contract was in writing, but then, if he assents, the contract should be identified.
Gregory v. Morris, 96 U. S. 619.]
[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 reputation 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 (i) whether he knows the general reputation
in that community of the witness in question
then, if he assents, (2) what
that reputation is, and (3) whether from such knowledge he would believe
It is
tract,
'^
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
THE
Chap. XVI.]
233
may be
asked their reasons in cross-examination, and their answers
cannot be contradicted.'
nation in chief give reasons for their belief, but they
such witness on his oath. Gr. Ev. i. $ 461 Sloan v. Edwards, 6i Md. 89,
Wright v. Paige, 3 Keyes,
Bogle s Excrs v. Kreitzer, 46 Pa. St. 465
103
581 in Massachusetts it is discretionary with the trial court whether the
first question shall be asked, Wetherbee v. Norris, 103 Mass. 565.
The
inquiry must only be as to general reputation^ not as to specific wrongful
Wehrkamp v. Willet, 4 Abb. Dec. 548 Comtn. v. Lawler, 12 Allen,
acts.
585; seeA'nodev. IVilliamson, 17 Wall. sS6. The reputation asked about
must be in most States for t/itt/i and veracity {Sargent v. Wilson, 59 N.
H. 396 Shaw v. Emery, 42 Me. 59 Amidon v. Hosley, 54 Vt. 25 Quinsigamond Bk. v. Hobbs, 11 Gray, 250; State v. Randolph, 24 Ct. ^(tj, Atwood V. Impsoti, 20 N. J. Eq. 150 Warner v. Lockerhy, 31 Minn. 421
Hillis V. Wylie, 26 O. St. 574
U. S. v. Fan Sickle, 2 McL. 219 Laclede
Bk. V. Keeler, 109 111. 385 Bogle' s Excrs v. Kreitzer, supra Lenox v.
Fuller, 39 Mich. 268 see Teesev. Huntingdwi, 23 How. (U. S.) 2) but in
some States it is ior general moral character {State v. Grant, 79 Mo. 113
;
V. State,
88 Ind. 9
State
v.
Eq. 316.
J.
When
Foster
ple
V.
v.
a party
is
a witness he
The
Wright
v.
Hanna, 98
Ind. 217
Peo-
may be
as to the
may be impeached
Newbrough, 58 N. Y. 481
Dollner
Amidon
v.
v.
impeached
own
e.xamination, as
Lintz, 84 N. Y. 669
w-ell as at
Graham
v.
the time,
Chrystal,
A DIGEST OF
234
[Part
III.
No
witness
Kinley, 27
Hun, 320
v.
Bates
v.
'
I,
17
&
18 Vict.
125,
c.
s.
and 28
Vict.
c.
18, s. 3
[see
page
230, note
anteJ]
witness
(i)
general reputation
If his
People, 85
v.
nell,
24
Wend.
354.
impeached by evidence of his inconsistent statehe may in a few States be sustained by evidence
of his good general reputation for truth {Sweet v. Sherman, 20 Vt. 23
Isler v. Dewey, 71 N. C. 14
Haley v.
Clark v. Bo7id, 29 Ind. 555
State, 63 Ala. 83)
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. St. 274
Frost v. McCargar, 29 Barb. 617 Sheppard v. Yocum,
Such proof of good reputation has also
10 Or. 402, citing other cases.
been received to rebut evidence of the witness's conviction for crime
Webb v. State, 29 O. St. 351
(Gertz v. Fitchburg R. Co., 137 Mass. 77
People V. Amanacns, 50 Cal. 233), or to rebut evidence tending to charge
him with crime or other moral turpitude ( Tedens v. Schu7ners, 14 Bradw.
Afosley v. Vermont, etc. Ins. Co. 55
607 People v. Ah Fat, 48 Cal. 61
but it is not received to
Vt. 142 but see People v. Gay, 7 N. Y. 378)
sustain a witness simply because the testimony of other witnesses has
contradicted his own {Ativood w. Dearborn, I Allen, 483; State v. Ward,
49 Ct. 429 Brown v. Campbell, 86 Ind. 516 Starks v. People, 5 Den,
(2)
the witness
If
is
131),
Chap. XVI.
LAW
THE
OF EVIDENCE,
Article
235
134.
contradicted.'
106
v. State,
received, in whatever
George
(3)
v.
It
way a
is
that he has
made former
Gr. Ev.
i.
Blair, 68
111.
10 Gray, 485
see State
;
Herrick
to fabricate.
v.
Stolp
v.
v.
Holmes, L. R. i C. C. R. 334.
Martin, 6 C. & P. 562, and remarks in R. v. Holmes, p. 337, per
Kelly, C. B.
[The cases in this country are agreed that 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 pris
R.
V.
'
R.
V.
oner.
Gr. Ev.
iii.
214
People, 55 N, Y. 515
Conkey
Stai^
v.
v.
People,
Woods v.
Abb. Dec. 418
and cases infra,.
Forshner, 43 N. H. 89
A DIGEST OF
236
Article
[Part
III.
135.
what matters may be proved in reference to declarations 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,
proved in order to contradict it, or in order
all
may be
matters
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,
But they disagree as
to
men can be
to
proved.
In
New York
( Woods v. People, 55
N. Y. 515), but in a civil action for assault with intent to ravish, such
evidence has been received in mitigation of damages.
Gulerette v. Mc-
Mich.
In
i).
Kinley^ 27
Hun, 320
cf.
chastity may be
be cross-examined as to
acts of intercourse with other men than the seducer {Hoffman v. Kemerer,
44 Pa. St. 453 Doyle v. jfessup, 29 111. 460; Smith v. Yaryan, 69 Ind.
445 but see Wandell v. Edwards, 25 Hun, 498 So7ith Bend v. Hardy,
98 Ind. 577, 582), unless a child is born and its paternity is in question
(see Smith v. Yarya7i). But some cases hold that such acts may be proved
shown
by the testimony
of the
men
White
v.
themselves.
Murtland, 71
Gr. Ev.
111.
ii.
577
Ford
v.
250.
is
tity
79
111.
409
Smith
v,
in
question, the
Varyan, supra.]
men
Holcomb
v.
within
People^
LAW OR EVIDENCE.
THE
Chap. XVI.]
237
Article
136.
refreshing. memory.
memory
to
' R.
V. Drummond, i Leach, 338
R. v. Pike, 3 C. & P. 598. In these
cases dying declarations were excluded, because the persons by whom
;
made would have been incompetent as witnesses, but the prinwould obviously apply to all the cases in question. [Thus 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
they were
ciple
Mook Sow,
statements
51
Cal. 597
may be
see p.
proved.
195, n.
People
v.
2,
a7ite),
or his contradictory
cf.
Cotnm.
v.
Trice's
v,
Wylie,
V.
22 Ph. Ev.
480, etc.; T.
E.
ss.
memory
[There are
1264-70; R. N. P. 194-5.
:
(i)
Where
the witness,
by referring
to the writing,
reality
Co., 17
A DIGEST OF
238
An
may
expert
refresh his
[Part
memory by
III.
reference to profes-
sional treatises.'
Article
137.
MEMORY.
Any
75),
or a writing
must be produced
Slate
v. yeffs,
132 Mass. 5
Bigelow
v.
Hall, 91
Where
(2)
that
The
writing
Allen, 573
v.
See
Atahoney, 11
v. Zangs, 41
Rowell, 24 Vt. 343 Kelsea v. Fletcher, 48 N. H.
Crowell, 133 Mass. 352), or by another person.
v.
Green
56 Vt. 426 Chamberlain v. Sands, 27 Me. 458
Cojin v. Vincent, 12 Cush. 98. In some States
itself evidence in special cases, but not in other States.
V. Field,
Caulk, 16
the writing
Md. 556
is
An
analogous case
memory,
is
v.
Davis
Downer
536
282; see Costello
la.
it
is
where the
allowed to use a
knows and
memorandum
testifies to
facts are
numerous
and a witness
Howard\. McDonough,
Md. 398
\_People v. Wheeler^ 6q
Sussex Peerage Case, 11 C. & F. 114-17
Good, 14
Crittenden
v.
see
.'Vrt.
35,
note
2, ante.\
THE
Chap. XVI.]
and shown
party may,
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
239
to the
if
tello V.
The
cases cited).
The
Adae
writing
is
object of cross-examination
it
is
to ascertain
it,
It is in
stage of the
when
trial
this
Chute
etc.
v.
when and
may
such a writing as
is
State, 19
memory
Minn. 271
re-
is
Conun.
v.
made
e.xamination shall be
So
the witness, under Case (i), refers to the writing out of court,
it
Trustees
136;
v.
different rule
is
applied in
made
upon now
some States
when the
witness himself
the writing
but cannot,
referring to
lection
facts
testify to
Cormick
it,
in the special
its
is
itself
received
in evi-
Mc-
Mitchell, 68 N. Y. 507.
In Case (3) the writing should be
Md.
398), but
i.
is
produced
in
Moots
v.
Crittenden
v.
Rog-
Gray, 452.
657.]
v.
Chickering, 58
Maxwell
\.
Md.
290)
so of
Wilkinson, 113 U. S.
A DIGEST OF
240
Article
[Part
III.
138.
giving, as evidence,
When
a party
calls for a
production, he
for its
is
Article
139.
When
which
had notice
VVkaratn
(Gr. Ev.
67 Me. 70
Wall. 385
modified.
v.
Routledge,
% 563
i.
Ellison
v.
Esp. 235
Crtiser^
N. P. 26.]
^ Doe V. Hodgson, 12 A. & E. 135
but see remarks in 2 Ph. Ev. 270
IGage V. Campbell^ 131 Mass. 566 Kingman v. Tirrell, II Allen, 97
Tyngs, U. S. Submarine^ etc. Co.^ i Hun, 161.]
;
'
Chap.
THE
XV'll.]
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
CHAPTER
241
XVII.
OF DEPOSITIONS.
Article
140.
may be
(or, if
he
is
or, (probably, if
if
he
is
too
mad
'
and
by the justice by or
have been taken and
to testify,)^
before
whom
it
purports to
it is
ness).^
&
R.
V.
Stephenson, L.
R.
V.
Scaife, 17 Q. B. 773.
C. 165.
Analogy of R. v. Scaife.
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 i
^
* I
A DIGEST OF
242
[Part
be too
ill
to travel, the
position, but
judge
may postpone
the
for
the
&
to
trial.'
depositions under 30
deposition taken
proved
is
Article
III.
141.
&
3i vict. c. 35,
s.
6.
perpetuation of testimony in
c. 35, s. 6, may be produced and read as evidence, either for or against the accused,
upon the trial of any offender or offence ^ 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 reasonable notice of the intention to take such deposition was served
upon the person (whether prosecutor or accused) against whom
it is proposed to be read, and
that such person or his counsel or attorney had or might
have had, if he had chosen to be present, full opportunity of
31 Vict.
s.
448, etc.
They resemble
Code
Civ.
See U.
i.
S.
Rev.
St.
^^ 320-325
There
is
863-875 N. Y.
Art. 125, ante, and
;
notes.]
&
'
R.
"^
found
Tail, 2 F.
V.
some
in
States.
F. 553.
Sic.
30
&
part of
31 Vict.
it
LAW OF
THE
EVIDENCE.
Article
depositions
'
Whenever,
142.
in the course of
243
act, 1854.
insti-
or magistrate or before
is
made on oath
in relation
to
the
may have
pre-
same subject-matter
If
such proceeding
is
admissible in evidence,
United Kingdom
must be given that such witthat kingdom or possession respectinstituted in the
is
If
made
in the
United Kingdom,
it
is
Kingdom.
3.
If the
deposition was
made
in
it
is
If the
proceeding
missible unless
it
is
was made
in the
cused.
have not referred to depositions taken before a coroner (see 7 Geo. IV.
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 e.\pressed 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. St. 86.]
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.
I
c. 64,
'
^ DIGEST OF
244
[Part HI.
Every such deposition must be authenticated by the signature of the judge, magistrate, or consular officer before
it
was made.
when
the deposition
is
officer
whom
must,
(if
fact
;
dence.
is
so)
THE LAW-
Chap. XVIII.]
EVIDEXCE.
01^
CHAPTER
245
XVIII.
143.
A NEW
occasioned in the
trial
of the action.'
If in a
mitted, there
is
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.''
;
[In this country, a rule similar to that just stated in respect to civil
rases,
>tate V. Kingsbury, 58
50 Cal. 137
3ded.).]
h'eith,
Me. 238
State
v.
State
v.
Alford, 31 Ct. 40
A DIGEST OF
246
[Notes.
APPENDIX OF NOTES.
NOTE
I.
(to Article
The
i.)
in this
my
They
work.
will
which the
be found, however,
if
'
to explain the
I use the
argument.
Hence
is
simply an
have
have thought
it
necessary
to deal with.
relevancy
of a presumption of
presumption of fact
one
is,
or probably
may
be, or
probably
when
same cause ;
a cause of the same effect
or when the one shows that the other must or cannot have occurred,
an
effect of the
exist,
or not
which
in the
common
course of events would either have caused or have been caused by the
other
fall
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
THE
Notes. J
tained in chapters
iii.,
or that they do
fall
'
A's death
(a)
the poison
is
is
caused by
The
the poisoning as
'
"
247
its
administration of
A's death
cause.
is
relevant to
its effect.
and B each eat from the same dish and each exhibit symptoms
A's symptoms and B's symptoms are relevant to
each other as effects of the same cause.
"(b)
The question
(f)
is,
whether
dent.
" Facts tending to show that his death was caused by inflammation of
membranes of the brain, which probably might be caused by the ac-
the
and facts tending to show that his death was caused by typhoid
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
Comin. v. Ryan, 134 Mass. 222 Knox v. Wheelock,
cident
fever,
54 Vt. 150]
" (d) A is charged with committing a crime in
The
fact that
A DIGEST OF
248
[Notes.
called
'
dence,
by George
Clifford
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
:
The nth
section
as follows
is
in
issue or relevant
fact;
"
(2)
If
by themselves, or
make
my
In
ory of relevancy
is
show
My theory was expressed too widely in certain parts, and not widely
enough in others ; and l\Ir. 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 additions, in
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. Farb/mdas ami others,
printed in the
'
Law
Journal,'
think
it
27, 1876.
I
think
I
it
rule.
say that
said
May
not because
convenient practical
As
it,
THE
Notes.]
treated of that
LAW OF
subject.
EVIDENCE.
249
given against the German, Miiller, executed for murdering Mr. Briggs
it
can be
The
rules based
at
NOTE
11.
(TO Article
See
pt.
Best,
ss.
2.)
iii
ii.
ii.
For instances of relevant evidence held to be insufficient for the purit 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
evidence which is
that " the law excludes on puljlic grounds
The
on wagers
Greenleaf.
an
in
issue,
Da
Costa
evidence
is
[See Mclvin
NOTE
this subject see also
Ph.
to
Melvin, 58 N. H. 569.]
v.
III.
(to Article
On
ot
4.)
Ev, 157-164; T. E.
ss,
527-532;
A DIGEST OF
250
[Notes.
Best,
The
principle
(See, too.
The
same as that of principal and acand agent. When various persons conspire to
each makes the rest his agents to carry the plan
substantially the
is
cessory, or principal
commit an
offence,
into execution.
NOTE
Note XI.)
IV.
The
principle
O' Dea, 10
[See Boston
22.
See also
v.
s.
499.
in
as
and
belongs to A, what
is
meant
is,
supposed in the
in the case
When
it is
text,
entitled to it by a series of
by law the exclusive evidence
the deeds is thus the very fact which
that
is
The
existence of
be proved.
to
me
felicitous.
NOTE
V.
(TO Article
The
much
8.)
its
gestae,"
which seems
convenient obscurity.
Doe
by
The
v.
J.,
whom?"
to
Tat ham
observed,
(p.
79, &c.).
"How
In the
do you
trans-
Notes.]
"The
251
acts
ter in issue.
353.)
laid
down
an issue"
when they
(/.'.
House
"Where any
facts
to the
mat-
(7 A.
&
E.
same Judge
are proper evidence upon
of Lords, the
may be received
The question asked
(Same Case, 4
in evidence."
answer
Bing. N. C. 548.)
whole
it
its
and
to give
subject,
it
and
have
tried
importance deserves.
Though he excluded
certainly
is,
of the complaint
made by
first
"The
instance
know
the nature
complaint was
made by
her, leaving the prisoner's counsel to bring before the jury the particulars of that
complaint by cross-examination."
common
itself.
The
practice
sense.
NOTE
(TO Articles
Article 10
is
VI.
11,
10,
12.)
Law
of Evidence
is
obscure, because
it
how uncon-
The meaning
it
A DIGEST OF
252
[Notes.
it
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
is
not a party.
Il-
trated,
of very
it is
much
greater importance
It is
and
rule
which prevents a
man
appli-
Law
is
the
many
whole
cases
life
would be
fatal
in order to ex-
statement of the
Law
which did not give due prominence to the four great exclusive rules of evidence of which this is one would neither represent
the existing law fairly nor in my judgment improve it.
of Evidence
and
more frequently
to criminal than
and so
likely to
ticle
12
is
commit a
illustrated, the
crime.
in general that
he
is
a bad man,
In the case of R.
v.
Some account
me
THE
Notes.]
LAW OF
NOTE
EVIDENCE.
VII.
As
to
Best,
s.
403
T. E.
"Omnia
Best, ss.
353-365
T. E.
124, &c.
s.
s.
147.
The presumption,
763-
NOTE
VIII.
(to Article
The
14.)
ness, in
known. See Best, s. 495 ; T. E. ss. 507-510. The defi" When a witby Mr. Phillips sufficiently exemplifies it
the course of stating what has come under the cognizance of
own
say
is
well
nition given
his
which he
is
identifies as
called hear-
in dis-
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 intelligible 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
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
The important
must
point to
be regarded as
rele-
The
many
of
A DIGEST OF
254
sane,
to his sanity,
[Notes.
The
in issue.
He
treats the
as "statements
letters
of the
garded 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
made them.
Amongst
others he mentions
the
following:
who
"The
conduct of the family or relations of a testator taking the same precautions in his absence as
if
he were a
who
lunatic,
office
the conduct of
a deceased captain on a question of seaworthiness, who, after examining eveiy part of a vessel,
when
embarked
deliberately considered,
are,
mere instances
in
it
all these,
mere
state-
by whose
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 sugit in the concluding words of the passage extracted appears
That passage implies that hearsay is excluded because
to be weak.
no one "ought to be bound by the act of a stranger." That no one
gested for
reasonable, but
make
to
is
to
it is
be responsible without
not so plain
why
commit a crime
his authority
is
for
obviously
good grounds for inference as to B's conduct, though it was not authorized by B.
The importance of shortening proceedings, the importance of compelling people to procure the best evidence they can,
and the importance of excluding opportimities of fraud, are considerations which probably justify the rule excluding hearsay
but Baron
THE
Notes.]
Parke's illustrations of
LAW
its
OF EVIDENCE.
255
some cases it
would be regarded not
facts,
it,
in their existence.
NOTE
IX.
(TO Article
This definition
missions which,
made
if
15.)
is
me
to
belong
to other
is
The
treated at length in
A vast
sub-
Ph.
upon
ss.
serve that
653-788.
variety of cases
word Admissions.)
when an admission
documents, or when
it
is
is
may
full
understand-
This rule
is
NOTE
X.
(TO Article
As
to admissions
by parties,
see
16.)
Moriarty
v,
Z. C. &" D. Railway, L.
A DIGEST OF
256
J.
[Notes.
A Iner v.
George,
Camp. 392
As
to admissions
v.
Brown, 9
B.
&
C. 938.
this article i Ph. Ev. 362-3, 369, 398 ;
669-671, 685, 687, 719; Roscoe, N. P. 71.
As to admissions by privies, see i Ph. Ev. 394-7, and T. E. (from
and T. E.
Greenleaf),
ss.
712.
s.
NOTE
XI.
The
by agents
is
rendered
no
A's
special value.
gest an inference
his interest
but
own
if
they sug-
when
is
in-
The
Sir
principle as to admissions
W. Grant
by agents
is
stated
and explained by
NOTE
XII.
(to Article
18.)
See for a third exception (which could hardly occur now), Clay
La7igslow,
M.
&
M.
v.
45.
NOTE
XIII.
T. E.
See, as to irreguss.
689-90.
LAW
THE
Notes.]
OF EVIDENCE.
NOTE
257
XIV.
See more on
Ev, 326-8
T. E.
702, 720-3
ss.
R. N. P. 66.
NOTE
XV.
On
and
s.
which
is
Many
T. E.
ss.
796-
3 Russ.
te.xt
in a different form.
an inducement
them
to the
given in the
i
;
are
summed up
for the last
to
collected).
They
are,
R.
v.
NOTE
is
the authority
XVI.
a person
if
is
examined
as a
him afterwards
(see T. E.
by Greaves, 407,
etc.).
ss.
n.
also 3 Russ.
These
which were
in force before 11
Cri.,
&
12 Vict.
c.
under the
42.
on
The
il
&
12 Vict.
c.
it is
form
to a prisoner
and
his oath.
The
cases
may
therefore
be regarded as obsolete.
NOTE
XVII.
As
to
T. E.
ss.
644-652
A DIGEST OF
258
Best,
s.
505
Starkie, 32
&
R.
V.
&
Baker, 2 Mo.
[Notes.
Ro. 53,
is
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
and
presence,
Cofntii.,
73 Pa.
St.
321
State
v.
State
v.
Bohajt,
15 Kan. 407.]
NOTE
XVIII.
Article
(to
27.)
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
I
A
ticle,
T. E.
ss.
which
commutation of
tithes
and partly because I find a great difficulty in understanding the place which the rule established by them ought to occupy
They are cases which lay down
in a systematic statement of the law.
must be very
rare,
by deceased
rectors
and other
Short
v.
There
2 Jac.
Lee,
The
regarded as an exception.
&
is
difficulty is
It falls directly
Wal. 464
in the text,
in
enables a predecessor in
sor.
title
made
to
article
make evidence
but
as
it
Notes.]
predecessor in
title
of the person
not relevant
is
who
if
259
was made by a
it
seeks to prove
member
ecclesiastical corporation
ceipt of a tithe or
J.,
it
is
of an
as to the re-
v. Zee),
modus.
Some countenance
which Bayley,
unless
it,
it first
distinctly
is
in tlie
terms in
in the cir-
may be found
opposed
to
to the
endorsement of
such a view.
NOTE XX.
(to Article 30.)
Upon
169-197
T. E.
ss.
543-569
Best,
s.
497
Ev.
collection of cases).
A great
number of
cases have been decided as to tlie particular docuwhich 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 exAn award, e.g., is not within the last branch of Illustend or vary it.
tration (/'), because it "is but the opinion of the arbitrator, not upon
ments,
his
etc.,
tailed application of
v.
Rees, lo A.
is
&
E. 155)
better learnt
by experience,
numerable
The
cases.
case of Weeks
v.
Sparke
Law
is
light
it
throws
on the history
of the
of Evidence.
It
of the judges
26o
My
ern Circuits.
A DIGEST OF
[Notes.
Eldon
"when
said,
it
He
it.
dence
Le
is.
must be
in the
Blanc,
Weeks
J., in
Law
of Evi-
v.
"by
acts of
enjoyment within
memory."
living
that
NOTE XXL
(to
See
Article
T. E,
ss.
31.)
571-592
Best,
633
R. N. P.
49-50.
is
fully dis-
As
to
Boucher,
declarations
i
De
G,
&
S.
etc.,
see Shields
v.
49-58.
NOTE XXIL
(TO Article 32.)
See also
T. E.
ss.
434-447
Buller,
N.
P. 238,
and following.
In reference to this subject
applies indiscriminately to
pose a
man were
to
all
it
kinds of evidence in
all
this principle
cases.
e.g., for
Suprob-
bery after an acquittal for murder, and suppose that in the interval be-
trials
LAW OF E VIDENCE.
THE
N OTES.]
26
before the magistrates were to die, might his evidence be read on the
second
easily
trial
have occurred
seems
for forgery as
on the subject.
cannot
any authority
cite
which depositions
Chancery proceedings were admitted
principle on
NOTE
XXIII.
The law
which they
assert is
is
to
it
is
made
appear ex-
to
effect
which appear
Thus
to
the subject, as
Evidence an attempt
commonly
Law
of
to distinguish
own
to,
Roman
law,
and never
or any other system); also the question of the effect of the pleas
which
; and
to
belong to private
inter-
national law.
in
The
text is confined to as
complete a statement as
Best
(ss.
could
588-
make
of
use to be
made
of those facts
it
is
when
proved.
equally true of
all
may be
the
Thus
the
judgments
A DIGEST OF
262
[Notes.
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.
as to the extent to
and as
to the cases in
which
effect
this country,
upon them
judgments.
The
cases
in the note
NOTE XXIV.
(to
On
V.)
Best,
is
Chapter
ss.
Doe
v.
Baron Parke,
as a statement affirming
is,
NOTE XXV.
(TO
See
L.
&
C. 520.
who
to his
Chapter
T. E.
ss.
VI.)
325-336
Best,
ss.
257-263
The subject is considered at length in R. v. Ro'coOne consequence of the view of the subject taken
witness may with perfect truth swear that a man,
It is
according to R,
The
case
is
v.
seldom
is
The
question always
THE
Notes.]
LAW OF EVIDEACE.
It
is
What
is,
is
may be
as the case
263
nor
the wit-
is
to confine his
make
to
the
common
run of
NOTE XXVI.
(to Article 58.)
The
list
E.
compiled from
ss.
venient
same
It is
list
is
effect.
It
is
it
is
which
P. ss. 88-92,
is
much
con-
to the
absolutely complete
list
enumerate every-
practically impossilile to
so notorious in
not intended
could be formed, as
thing which
is
N.
also given in R.
is
itself,
lic
authority, that
it
NOTE
XXVII.
Owing
to the
"hearsay
is
by which a
fact
is
some-
is
important meaning
is
is
it is
ex-
pedient to regard the existence of the reports as irrelevant to the ocArticle 62 expresses
It
asserts that
whatever
issue, it
proved under
article
;ji
that A,
who
must,
For
died
is
may be
if
the relation of a
proved by oral
instance,
fifty
subject to no ex-
if
it
were
to
evi-
be
A DIGEST OF
264
[Notes.
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 precisely 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
so.
When a man swears that another has a good charactei", 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
not
all
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 characteristic observations by Lord Ellenborough occur in R. v. I/ai-ringivori/i,
4 M.
&
S.
"The
353
you must
scribing witness
trying whether, in
and
its
it is
first
application,
may
it
A latoyer who is well stored with these rules would be no better than
any other 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 inconvenience, 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
;
Whyman
ties are
\.
Garth, 8 Ex. 807, Pollock, C. B., said, " The parse that the deed shall not be
seem
when
its
(if
See as
execution."
a deed
to
came
in question)
would
as-
38 a ; Fortescue de
NOTEf
LAW
THE
OF EVIDENCE.
T. E.
The
ss.
1637-42
R. N. P. 147-50
to those required to
&
and 28
29 Vict.
all
Best,
18, ss.
&
220, etc.
ss.
documents was
attested
be attested by law, by 17
c.
265
&
18 Vict,
restricted
125,
c.
s.
26,
7.
NOTE XXIX.
(to Article 72.)
For these
272-289
The
T. E.
ss.
419-426
R. N. P. 8
cS:
9.
is
Divycr
in the footnotes,
more
In that case
it is
particularly in
document
in Court,
v.
and
if
...
Ex. 639.
Colliits, 7
"to en-
is
he does
to
not, to
exclude the
make
(p.
647-8).
NOTE XXX.
(TO Article 75.)
Mr. Phillipps (ii. 196) says, that upon a plea of nul ticl record, the
must be produced if it is in the same Court.
original record
Mr. Taylor (s. 1379) says, that upon prosecutions for perjury assigned upon any judicial document the original must be produced.
The
authorities given
statements.
cases
is
case of
seem
They show
to
me
Lady Dartmouth
it
v.
cited.
is
it
The
is
is
necessary.
The
matter, however,
is
of little
practical importance.
NOTE XXXI.
(TO Articles 77
The
&
78.)
Gilbert's
Law of
A DIGEST OF
266
and following
2 Ph. Ev.
196-200
Starkie,
Ti E.
is
[Notes.
256-66
(fully
1380-4 R. N. P. 1 12-15.
founded on Appleton v. Brayss.
hrook, 6
of
no Seal
it
is
remarkable
to the
divisions.
its
NOTE
XXXII.
The
distinction
between
this
article
is,
that arti-
cle
interpretation of
documents by
The two
oral evidence.
subjects are
so closely connected together, that they are not usually treated as distinct
fact.
it
and
B make
to writing.
They
the goods are not to be shipped in a particular ship, though the contract
mades no such
reservation.
They
make use of
commonly known.
meaning
of
which
is
not
It
THE
Notes.]
The
LAW
OF EVIDENCE.
267
remember
derstand, or to
trans-
332-424; T. E.
and imperfectly),
ss.
1031-1110;
ss.
226-229
Star.
R. N. P. (an
17-35-
As
paragraph
to
N'ttgettt,
it is
to
(4),
which
is
is
Lord
v.
purposely so drawn
was held
in effect in
Goss v.
Lord Nugent
that
by reason
if
it
but
It
of the
it
would
seems
the better opinion that a verbal rescission of a contract good under the
viso to paragraph
The
(4).
As
to
paragraph
(5)
mark sufficiently
v.
Dallison,
S.
the
Law
of Evidence.
NOTE XXXIIL
(to Article 91.)
Law
of Evidence, but
it
is
this article
does not
fall strictly
generally considered to do so
within
and as
l^est to
deal with
it,
i^
A DIGEST OF
268
The
[Notes.
general authorities for the propositions in the text are the same
work
of Vice-Chancellor
Wigram on
Extrinsic Evidence.
on examination,
Vice-Chancellor
Wigram
to differ
only in
its
from the
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.
When
illustration ()).
singular effect.
indicated
the line
and Doe
The vagueness
by the case
v.
N^eeds (illustration
in
8,
His-
produce a
them
is
& D. 315. In
" my son Forster
of Charter v. Charter, L. R. 2 P.
this
())
v.
in
Charles Charter.
(p.
of all the
319) that,
if it
under the rule laid down by Lord Abinger in Hiscocks v. Hiscocks, beCharter ") applied
cause part of the language employed ("my son
intention both in
under paragraph
7,
mode
in the
which
is
judgment
v.
Hiscocks.
It is
oiAllgoodv. Blake, L. R. 8 Ex. 160, where the rule is stated by Black"In construing a will, the Court is entitled to
jnirn, J., as follows:
put
itself in
all
material
LAW
THE
Notes.]
OF EVIDENCE.
269
overlooked
And
tlie
is
that he uses
make
if
him
a will for
intention, even
made by
is
if
and therefore
there
is
it is
bound
judgment
of Lords
alrove referred to
;
"prasumittir fro
to the construc-
upon the
principle
may
not, per-
negante.''''
are,
it
a natural wish to
formed
fulfil
he had recollected
if
all
evidence
to give effect
would be either
under paragraph
to
7,
and
in cases falling
the wish
to wills,
The
be varied by oral
in cases falling
under paragraph
8,
or to ex-
clude such evidence in both classes of cases, and to hold void for un-
its
application to facts.
described in his
will,
appears to
me
to
on which it is based.
Of course every document, whatever, must to some extent be interpreted by circumstances.
However accurate and detailed a description
of things and persons may be, oral evidence is always wanted to show
that persons and things answering the description exist ; and therefore
principle or rule
in
is
admitted,
if
the Court
may
but
if
more evidence
A DIGEST OF
270
that,
tion
why
is,
[Notes.
would form
this intention or
"What
why
with William
If the ques-
How
testator intended to
?
To say that "Forster" means "Charles" is like saying
"two" means "three." If the question is "What did the testator wish?" why should the Court refuse to look at his declarations
And what third question can be asked? The only one
of intention?
What would the testator have meant if
which can be suggested is,
he had deliberately used unmeaning words?" The only answer to
"Charles"
that
'
'
this
would
be,
pro tanto
void.
NOTE XXXIV.
(to Article 92.)
me
to
come
quite up to
They
it.
are
all
settlement cases.
NOTE XXXV.
(TO
Chapter
XIII.)
many
to
belong
Law.
rules as to the
averments
less
numerous and important, which can be understood only in conSuch are the presumptions
change, as to
ing over
all
many of
these, I
have embodied
in
Chapter
XIV
Pass-
those presump-
LAW OF
the
Notes.]
tions only
EVIDENCE.
271
be proved on a
facts likely to
arise
NOTE XXXVI.
(TO Article 94.)
of ordinary facts.
"What
question,
NOTE xxxvn.
(TO Article ioi.)
The
is
etc.
Best,
and
first
s.
353,
Ph.
This, like
etc.
meant
and
is
all
Ev. 480,
etc.
presumptions,
T. E.
is
ss.
124,
a very vague
subject-matters.
NOTE xxxvin.
(to Articles 102-105.)
These
articles
embody
As they may be
The
tail.
to
text
E.
be seen in 2
The
S. L. C.
latest
See, too,
T.
ss.
liy
Parke, B., in
v.
Sears, 6 A.
Freeman
of the article
is
&
E. 474, as
6 Bing.
founded on the apv.
Cooke,
A DIGEST OF
272
[Notes.
The
is
B. (N. S.)
L. C. 389
Swan
v.
British
448;
H.
&
N. 603
Guardians
v.
are referred
Young
to.
v.
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. isr' N". IV. Kaihvay, L. R. 10 C. P. 316-17.
It
in
quire
it,
than
is
NOTE XXXIX.
Chapter XV.)
(to
The law
as to the
Law
of Evi-
dence.
'
is
directed
met with a success so nearly complete that it has itself become obsolete.
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. 1210-57, and R.
As
N. P. 177-81.
NOTE
Ph. Ev.
104.
i,
XL.
The
Best,
ss.
146-165.
See,
first
too, T. E.
s.
1240.
As
at great
to
length in
paragraph
2,
see
s.
148
THE
Notes.]
LAW
c.
68,
punishment
s,
The
4.
&
bility of its
273
33 Vict.
OF EVIDENCE.
calculated
little
The
tice.
If
statute referred to
who
a person
would seem
to
God
NOTE
XLI.
At
Common Law
competent
parties in
in all cases.
civil,
&
15 Vict.
c.
to the
99,
s.
The words
s.
3,
which
is
relating to adultery
were repealed by 32
&
33 Vict.
c.
68,
convicted of certain
removed by 6
The
&
7 Vict.
c.
85.
Common Law
as varied by
By
&
6 Will. IV.
c.
50,
s.
highways, and this was extended to some other cases by 3 & 4 Vict. c.
26.
These enactments, however, have been repealed by 37 & 38 Vict,
c. 35, and c. 96 (the Statute Law Revision Acts, 1874), respectively.
Probably
this
rendered obsolete by 14
missible witnesses.
&
15 Vict.
A question
c.
99,
s.
2,
which made
parties ad-
effect of this,
is
such a proceeding.
The
result
would seem
to be, that in
cases as to the repair of highways, bridges, etc., inhabitants and overseers are incompetent,
unless,
that
A bidEST OF
^74
3 E.
&
civil
tNOTES.
Russell,
v.
B. 942.
NOTE
XLII.
The
cases on
decisions
which these
articles are
(i
Ph. Ev.
Sergeant Shepherd,
whom
Lord Thanet, 27
S.
v.
T. 836.
As
in
to the case of
which he
is
cussed in Best,
ss.
184-6.
may be made
when he proposed to
Home Tooke
tliat
those
nesses in
who conduct
T. 740.
it
is
do
of
For instance, a
so.
trial
the Attor-
call
it.
lutely necessary to
deed or
S.
that, as a rule,
to the
it
might be abso-
solicitor
engaged as an
all
will.
NOTE
XLIIL
This
article
sums up the
is
T. E.
ss.
832-9
Caskell,
It is stated at
M.
&
K. 98.
length by Lord
it
Best,
much
s.
581.
the
same
It is
so
Brougham
in
Greenough
"s
LAW
THE
Notes.;)
Oi^^
NOTE
EVIDENCE.
2^5
XLIV.
The
Roman
837-8
R. N. P. 190
some length
in Best, ss.
The
Starkie, 40.
583-4
See
in
made
England, though
question
by Mr. Baddeley
V.
in arguing
to
Dtt Ban-e
T.
it
p].
main-
Mr. Best
in 1865.
discussed at
is
them
to
in point, exv.
j'v'.
Spurkes,
Livette before
v.
modern Law
of
Evidence
is
when
two centuries.
came
It
The
An
been established
it
Moore
in
(Sir
general rule
This
is
de-
Roman
is
that
l)y
into existence
it
but there
is
is
usually so
It
was a demurrer
v.
to a rule to
A DIGEST OF
276
administer interrogatories to a
Roman
[Notes.
who has
the realm
testify
in
issue
is
Thus
to
disclose communications
made
to
receive
R.
given.
v.
NOTE XLV.
(to Articles 126, 127, 128.)
These articles relate to matters almost too familiar to require authoras no one can watch the proceedings of any Court of Justice without seeing the rules laid down in them continually enforced.
The
ity,
subject
T. E.
is
s.
questions
it is
said,
"It
is
s.
pt. 2,
631, etc.
chap.
x.
p.
456, etc.;
In respect to leading
is
R, N, P.
182.
NOTE
XLVI.
This
was more
which
is
tration.
mit that
LAW
THE
Notes.]
OF EVIDENCE.
represents
it
277
modern
is
and
believe, unless
and
until
it is
so decided
is
little
were called
to
to l)y him,
life,
however
private,
man
so.
would
compel him
to
not
sub-
I shall
inflicted,
it
many
series of ques-
and tending
most delicate and secret kind, in which
other persons might be involved ? If this
years,
the law,
should be altered.
it
Evidence Act
(i
of 1872)
of the Indian
consideration.
"
If
by
injuring his cliaracter, the Court shall decide whether or not the wit-
"
(i)
is
it,
and may,
if
it
thinks
fit,
warn
it.
if
affect the
which he
testifies.
if
on the matter
to
which he
testifies.
if
there
is
a great disproportion
A DIGEST OP
278
NOTE
[Notes.
XLVII.
The words
of the
represented by this
22.
credit
two sections of 17
article, are as
&
follows
18 Vict.
c.
I25,
meant
to
be
by general evidence
of
bad character
him by other
made
mony
at other times
testi-
must be mentioned
sufificient to
to the witness,
If
made by him
tent with his present testimony, does not distinctly admit that
may be
make
but
it ;
so
worded
right to
ill-arranged
this,
him by other
This
is
not,
bad character
is
of that
In Greenough
cles,
v.
Ecclear
by general evidence of
22
opinion.
s.
(p.
803)
"It
is
imposto im-
own
of the
22nd section
LAW
THE
Notes.]
it."
OF EVIDENCE.
drawing of
in the
"Perhaps the
279
it,
better course
is
to consider the
On
806)."
have omitted
this authority I
(p.
it.
For many years before the Common Law Procedure Act of 1854 it
was held, in accordance with Queen Caroline's Case (2 Br. & Bing.
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-
what he had said before the magistrates without putand 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 superexamined as
to
c.
18.
NOTE
The
Statute
Law relating
XLVIII.
may be
regarded
The number
Chitty's Statutes
is
The number
35.
is
may become
Of these
important.
Geo, IV.
17)
&
34)
s.
93
&
in
39.
Many
9 Geo. IV.
12 Vict.
c.
James
c.
42,
I.
s.
c.
14,
s.
&
4 Will. IV.
c.
42 (see
article 28)
11
17 (article 33)
30 & 31 Vict. c. 35, s. 6 (article
12 (article 38) ; 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 28, s. 11, amended
;
by 6
c.
c.
head "Evidence"
99,
7 Will. IV.
s.
(article 122).
Many,
in
A DIGEST OF
28o
if
[Notes.
a witness
abroad, or
is
Those which
46 Geo. III.
c.
section
(i
37
is
which
fix
6 &^ 7 Vict.
him with a
<&^
9 Vict.
is
civil liability.
"An Act to facilitate the admission in eviand other documents" (8th August, 1845 ' 7
113:
c.
dence of certain
qualifies
85.
c.
or crime (4 sections
This Act
official
sections).
S.
I,
after
are,
intei- alia
if
if
by various
authenti-
(Article 79.)
by copies purporting
S. 4.
to
etc.,
This
etc.
may
be proved
(Article 81.)
is
Criminal Law.
Ss. 5, 6, 7.
14
&
15 Vict.
c.
99
"An
Act
to
amend
the
Law
of Evidence," 7th
repeals part of 6
&
7 Vict.
c.
85,
S. 2
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
THE
Notes.]
makes
be competent.
The
S. 4.
in
&
108.)
S. 3.
to
281
(Article 108.)
first
Repealed by 32
consequence of adultery.
and of
fect of repeal,
None
S. 5.
mentioned
&
&
33 Vict.
68.
c.
(Ef-
s.
Vict.
26.
c.
Act
Law
of
Wills.)
S. 6.
documents.
Law
of Civil Procedure.)
S. 7.
Mode
S. 8.
(Article 84.)
(Omitted as part of
Documents admissible
either in
England or
in Ireland,
all.
(Ar-
ticle 80.)
S.
12.
13.
(Omitted as belonging to
Criminal Procedure.)
S.
14.
15.
(Omitted as be-
16.
Who may
S.
17.
administer oaths.
(Article 125.)
(Omitted as be-
18.
Act not
S.
19.
Meaning
to
extend to Scotland.
(Omitted.)
word " Colony." (Article 80, note
of the
Commencement
S. 20.
of
I.)
Act
5-
17
&
18 Vict.
c.
125.
How
22.
131, 133
may discredit
XLVIL)
far a party
Law
his
of 1854
of Evidence.
own
witness.
(Articles
A DIGEST OF
282
S. 23.
examination.
S. 24.
[Notes
(Article 131.)
(Ar-
ticle 132.)
S. 25.
may be
given.
attestation
S. 27,
the
who
relief to
same purpose
in 1861.
6.
24
&
S. I.
make
S.
may
(Article 123.)
(Do.)
S. 3.
Commencement
of Act.
7-
28
Vict.
S.
I.
well as
S. 3.
c.
Sections 3
civil.
THE
Notes.]
LAW OF
Certain documents
S. 2.
EVIDENCE.
may be proved
283
in particular
ways.
(Art.
83,
Criminal Law.)
Interpretation clauses
S. 5.
in article
83-
Act
S. 6.
be cumulative on
to
Common
Law.
(Implied in article
73-)
9.
32
&
S, I.
Vict.
see
c.
&
;
17
and
Note XLI.)
Parties competent in actions for breach of promise of mar-
S. 2.
riage, but
must be corroborated.
S. 3.
in
proceedings in consequence
questions.
(Article 109.)
S.
4.
witnesses.
(Articles 106
and
123)
S. 5.
Short
S. 6.
33
&
S.
I.
34
&
2.
in article
Short
3 sections)
c.
68,
only
the
in
s.
i,
and
in
s.
125.)
title,
have defined
33 Vict.
effect of this
"Judge"
S.
V^ict. c.
4 of 32
(The
title.
it.
It will
Law
of Evidence as I
These
once
in
17
&
18
^ DIGEST OF
284
Vict.
only
125,
c.
ss.
and again
[Notes.
28 Vict.
in
c.
civil
proceedings
Law upon
and put
it
is
sifted
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,
>
some
of
[NOTE XLIX.]
[The following are the original Articles 36,
transferred from the body of the work :]
Article
37,
36.
be received
2^%
transactions,
in all legal
proceedings
to a cause producing a
in
in favor of a party
copy of an entry
in the
article 71 (/).
The
expression
'
Bankers' books
all
'
restricted to
is
Savings banks certified under the Act relating to savings banks, and
Post-office savings banks.
The
fact that
of Inland
porting to contain
published by the
Com-
'
I,
49, 52, 58, 72, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 106, 108, 109, 120, 121, 123, 125, 131,
132. 133'i
Harding y. Williams
L, R. 14 Ch- D. 197,
THE LA W OF E VIDENCE.
Notes.]
The
285
any such savings bank is certified under the Act relatmay be proved by an office or examined copy of
The fact that any such bank is a post-office savings
fact that
its
certificate
of
Post Office.'
Article
37.
BOOKS.
A bank
the bank
or officer of a bank
is
is
to
own
court.)*
Article
38.
bank three
it is
to
be
[Upon
be
was
first
"In
admissible, "
also adds
it
is
is
when
the
in Art. 71
document
is
(_/")
an entry
He
at the time of
making one
of the ordinary
made
proof
may be
bank, and that the copy has been examined with the original entry and
is
correct,
'
42
&
43 Vict
c. 3.
'
42
&
43 Vict.
c.
u.
A DIGEST OF
286
&
42
43 Vict.
c.
may be
given orally or by
affidavit.
[NOTE
L.]
Article
Any
[Notes.
76.
76,
may be proved by
a copy certified as
a-
Article
80.
dominions.
by any law
is
admissi-
England
If
and Wales, or
seal, or
or
in
official
land.
>
Article
The
81.
may be
Consolidates 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, ss. 9, 10, 11, 19. Sec. 9 provides
documents admissible in England shall be admissible in Ireland
sec. 10 is the converse of 9; sec. 11 enacts that documents admissible in
'
that
The
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
THE
Notes.]
'
journals of either
House
of Parliament
287
and
Royal proclamations,
may be proved by copies thereof purporting to be printed by the printCrown or by the printers to either House of Parliament.
ers to the
Article
The copy
82.
kingdom
King George
III.
is
conclusive
Article
The
83.
time by
Her Majesty
any time by
Government or
officer as is
mentioned
in all or
any of
'
&
9 Vict.
printers
'
41 Geo.
113,
s. 3.
Is there
to the
Crown
III. c. 90, s. 9.
Column
Name
c.
Column
i.
of Department or Officer.
The Commissioners
of the Treas-
Names
2.
of Certifying Officers.
Any Commissioner,
Secretary,
or
ury.
ury.
for executing
The Commissioners
the Office of
Any Secretary
Secretaries of State.
or Under-Secretary
of State.
Committee
Trade.
of
Privy Council
for
Any Member
of the Committee of
A DIGEST OF
288
(i)
By
By
[Notes.
by the Government
in a
or
printer,
or,
leg-
regulation issued by
officers,
by the
Any copy
or extract
department or
made under
No
proof
is
officer.
this provision
and partly
may
be
in print or in
in writing.
official
position of any
may be from
Article
made by
time to time
lature of
the legis-
84.
Any Commissioner
of the Poor
Law
Secretary
of
the
said
Board.
Any
(Schedule to 31
31
&
&
32 Vict.
32 Vict.
c.
c.
2.
37,
s.
37.
See
also 34
&
35 Vict.
'
c.
3id,
70,
s. 3.
s.
^
5.)
34
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
THE
Notes.]
state, or of
289
all
that
is
to say
document sought
the
be proved be a proclamation,
to
treaty, or
must purport
to
And
if
the
document sought
to
document
deposited
in
in
any
filed or
evidence must purport either to be sealed with the seal of the for-
document belongs,
there be
seal, to
or, in
the
or, if
is
a judge has no
to
be sealed or
it is
is
in evi-
necessary, or of
such signature and statement are necessary, or of the judicial character of the person appearing to have
made such
ment.*
Colonial laws assented to by the governors of colonies, and bills reserved by the governors of such colonies for the signification of her
may
to,
or that such
has been duly and properly passed and presented to the governor,
14
&
body
certified
bill
may
15 Vict.
c.
99,
s.
7.
290
THE
LAW OF EVIDENCE.
[Notes.
prima facie
INDEX.
of,
not a bar,
when
to pages.)
87.
121.
33, 34,
40.
when
79, 80.
Administrator,
effect of
41.
85.
how proved,
in,
condemning ships
39.
125.
39, 255.
INDEX.
292
(The numbers
refer to pages.)
Admissions {continued).
implied from acts and conduct, 40.
as from silent acquiescence, 18, 19, 40.
from act of landlord in making repairs, 40.
entries in partnership books evidence against partner, 40.
no admission implied from failure to answer a letter, 40.
made
made
incidentally, 40.
in
pleading or
in
judgment as an admission,
94, 96.
when
conclusive, 40.
sheriff, 41.
41.
42.
New York
competent,
42.
42.
46.
of
member
46,
of corporation, 45.
of one tenant in
common
INDEX.
293
to pages.)
Admissions (continued).
of one devisee as against another,
of defendants in tort cases, 47.
47.
of strangers, 50.
of
sheriff, 50.
made
43-
of, 128.
of, 132.
236.
196,
197.
when admissible
belief,
218,
219.
to, when to be made, 219, 220.
when made by witness instead of taking an
objections
Affirmation,
157.
INDEX.
294
(The numbers
refer to pages.)
Alteration {continued).
if
may be had on
original consideration,
157aliter, if alteration
be fraudulent,
157.
avoid, 157.
may
of deed,
title,
157.
alterations,
159.
158.
159, 160.
filling
Ambiguity
167, 169.
competency of
as witnesses, 199.
in
of,
indecent,
of, 236.
(See Admis-
sions.)
Atheists,
competency
of,
as witnesses, 195.
status
and signature
of, judicially
156, 264.
(See Doc-
noticed, 119.
INDEX.
(The numbers
295
refer to pages.
Attorney {continued).
199.
clerks
and interpreters
privi-
attor-
ney, 205.
privi-
Auditors,
Bad
faith,
Bailee, estopped to
but
199.
may show
deny
bailor's
title,
in, 83,
28.
191.
how proved,
284.
285.
285.
competency
of,
as witness, 199.
(See Attor-
ney.)
INDEX.
296
(The numbers
refer to pages.)
Belief,
236.
testify to his, 127.
III.
Bill
of, 43.
open
to explanation, 192.
Blanks
in
documents,
of,
provable,
32.
made
in
of,
68.
40.
63-66.
65.
made by
in public
in corporation
in
bank-books,
Books, medical,
books,
81.
scientific, etc., as
price current
lists,
able, 116.
Burden of proof
rests on person asserting or denying a state of facts, 175.
general burden on party against whom, in the absence of evidence,
177.
INDEX.
(The numbers
2^7
refer to pages.)
his
177.
177.
is
sets
up
af-
party having burden has right to open and close the case, 178.
burden remains on him throughout the trial, 178.
meaning of "
shifting of the
goods, 178.
or in case of gift by client to solicitor, 179.
sumption of continuance of
in trials for crime, proof of guilt required
life, 177.
17s. 179-
some
as in libel
Civil
181.
and
defendant that of
but
in
some
plaintiff, 181.
negligence, 181.
180.
INDEX.
298
Burden of proof
to pages.)
{continued).
facts
Carefulness, habit
of,
34-
may be shown
to
prove careful-
Proof.)
Certified
145, 146.
Character, evidence
good or bad,
of,
generally irrelevant,
in criminal cases,
when
xiii.
relevant,
113.
6, 113.
for chas-
tity
means reputation
when provable,
14.
and battery,
upon a promissory note, 115.
or
115.
some
163,
INDEX.
(The numbers
Children, dying declarations
299
refer to pages.
of, 61.
competency of as witnesses,
194.
16,
11.
Clergymen, privilege of as
to confidential
communications, 205,
275.
of lawyers,
privileged
from
disclosing
professional
communica-
tions, 204.
Common
law, of
how
117.
(See Attorney.)
Competency
(See Witness.)
Complaints in cases of rape, evidence of, 17, 19, 251.
particulars of complaint not generally provable, 17,
Compromise,
206, 275.
of.)
of witnesses.
19, 251.
to, 127.
how
by
different
silent
163.
18.
52.
from admissions,
acquiescence,
52.
18, 52.
53,
INDEX.
300
to pages.)
Confessions {continued.)
who
is
person in authority,
56.
of the conse-
59.
want
of,
confessions
of,
when
relevant, 10.
(See
Interpretation
and Construction,
etc.)
Contract, written,
how
far modifiable
(See
Oral Evidence.)
Contradiction of witness,
mous
Copy
204.
(See Infa-
Persons.)
examined copies,
135, 143.
admissibility of copies to
Corporation, admissions of
45,
INDEX.
(The numbers
301
refer to pages.)
Corporation {continued).
agent
whether compellable
of,
to
in evi-
Corpus
of,
delicti,
53.
when
of witnesses,
(See Witness.)
required.
(See Attorney
whom
payable, 219.
Barrister.)
of,
similar acts to
show knowledge,
29.
declarations
made
in,
(See
63-66.
Book
of,
Entries.)
judicially noticed, iig, 120.
119.
(See Witness.)
Crime, burden of proof in trials for. (See Burden of Proof)
one crime not provable by evidence that accused committed another,
24. 25.
aliter,
trials for,
when
175.
relevant, 113.
(See Char-
acter.)
sons.)
(See Confession
Dying Declarations,
etc.)
INDEX.
302
(The numbers
refer to pages.)
195.
in actions for,
able, 116.
164.
relevant, 102.
etc., 102.
194, 195.
how
established, 185.
is
concluded, effect
of, 221.
(See Declara-
tions.)
Declarations, provable
(See Res
Gestee.)
of conspirators,
presence of
concerning domicil, 18, 19.
as to bodily and mental feelings, provable,
in
32.
by persons
(See Course of
INDEX.
(The numbers refer
303
to pages.)
Declarations {continued).
declarations against interest, 66-70.
nature of the interest required, 66, 68.
by
as to public
(See Pedigree.)
as to pedigree, 73-76.
of deceased persons,
Decree of court,
'
how impeachable,
as evidence of public
<
236.
and general
rights, 73.
proof of execution
\
.1
'.
(See Seal.)
(See Alteration.)
when provable by parol evidence to be a mortgage, 162.
production of by witness, whether compellable, 206-208.
effect of alteration of, 157-159.
Definitions, general,
\
'
3.
though made
Depositions, may be taken under a commission, 216.
methods prescribed by commission must be followed, 218.
commissioners, how enabled to obtain evidence, 217.
when taken under letters rogatory, 217.
objections to, what may be made and when, 219, 236, 237.
motion to suppress, 219.
before magistrates in England, 241.
under 30 & 31 Vict. c. 35, s. 6, 242.
under Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (England), 243, 244.
Deputy-sheriff, admissions of, when competent against sheriff,
Detectives, testimony of does not require corroboration, 211.
Devisee, admissions of do not bind another devisee, 47.
Demand, provable
orally,
in writing, 138.
,\
'
C
41.
^
\
87.
when
required, 206-
208.
86.
INDEX.
304
85.
when required,
power of court to order physical examination in suits for,
Document, definition of, 3.
evidence to show genuineness of, relevant, 20.
documentary evidence defined, xiv. 3.
corroboration of complainant's evidence,
211.
128.
proof of contents
of,
127-152.
photographed documents,
129.
examined
copies, 135.
notice,
136.
when
examinable
is
unprocurable, 130.
INDEX.
(The numbers refer
Document (^continued).
when instrument
is
30$
to pages.)
tion, 132.
execution, 132.
it
and claims
officer,
interest
bound
to
cution, 133.
Drunkenness,
upon the
how
provable, 21.
effect of
witness, 194.
may be shown by
Dying
under, 54,
55.
declarations, 60-62.
only competent
in trials for
homicide, 60.
etc.
trial
be
for
homicide
60.
solicitation, etc.
60.
INDEX.
3o6
(The numbers
Dying declarations
refer to pages.)
(coutimted).
this
effect of
etc., 6i,
62.
how
oral declarations
burden of proof
may be
declarations impeachable, as
as
proved, 62.
by proving him
to
if
be an
atheist, 237.
taken, 102.
(See Book-entries
(See Chancery.)
Entries in books.
Equity.
by conduct,
xvi., xvii.
188, 189.
188, 189.
title,
bill
title, 191.
laws
of,
defined,
190, 191.
of exchange, 191.
Evidence, definition
190.
title,
bill
title, 191.
of, 3.
xii.
oral, 3, 126.
documentary,
presumptive,
3,
127-160.
4, 246.
(See Document.)
(See Presumption.)
xiii.
5.
relevancy
of,
circumstantial, illustrations
247.
INDEX.
307
of,
new
trial,
unless
it
occa-
when
relevant, 249.
78.
trial in civil
cases, 216.
Examined copy,
power
defined, 143.
to pass
on objections to evidence,
(See Document.)
218.
of,
of.
19.
admissible in evidence,
of, xiii.
4.
5.
admissible
in
evidence,
5.
of, xiii., 4,
246, 247.
(See Relevancy.)
knowledge,
29, 30.
INDEX.
3o8
(The numbers
Pulsus in uno,falsus
itt
refer to pages.)
evidence of
fires
admissible, 27.
courts, seals
of,
when
law, provable
provable in
when
trial
judgments,
effect of as
I'es
how
is
impeachable
in written instrument,
Gazetteer, as evidence,
General
provable by parol,
good character
162.
irrelevant, 115,
83.
Governor of
85.
130.
(See Document.)
INDEX.
(The numbers refer
Hearsay evidence
309
to pages.)
exceptions to
this rule
are
admissions, 39-52
(See Admissions.)
(See Confessions.)
dying declarations, 60-62. (See Dying Declarations.)
declarations made in course of business, 63-66.
(See Course of
confessions, 52-59.
Business.
(See Declarations.)
will, 70.
(See Pedigree.)
former proceeding, 76-79. (See Evidence.)
Heir, bound by admissions of ancestor, 41.
Historical works, statements in as evidence, 81.
declarations as to pedigree, 75-76.
evidence given
in
dying declarations
Hostile witness,
Husband and
22, 247.
impeachment
6, 113.
for, 14.
of, 229.
wife
41.
presumed
to act
under
testify
by whom
child
was begot-
ten, 184.
competency of
"
"
Impeachment
of witness.
(See Witness.)
162.
INDEX.
310
to pages.)
to
128.
Impression,
when
may
witness
who
iii.
22c.
(See Witness.)
are.
ing, 200.
5, 179.
how
Intent, provable
when
how proved,
witness
may
parol evidence
of,
176.
28.
when admissible
ments, 167-170.
Interest, declarations against, 66-70.
as affecting
(See Declarations.)
competency of witnesses,
193.
competent
words used
in spe-
INDEX.
(The numbers
311
refer to pages.)
Interpretation (^continued).
to identify persons
to in
document,
168,
171.
oral evidence of intention not competent in cases of falsa detnonstratio, 168, 169, 171.
competent
it,
173.
of, 51.
proof
of, 287.
4.
admission
to, 5.
in
46, 48.
how proved.
relevancy
of,
78.
of, 97.
83.
conclusive proof of
its
of judgment of divorce,
85.
etc., 85.
INDEX.
312
Judgment
how
to pages.)
{continued).
and recoupment,
87.
87.
87.
judgment bars
statements
in,
87.
suit in court of
irrelevant as
in
admiralty
effect, 90.
effect of not
92.
irrelevant as
nor as
93, 95.
upon
him
in
a repre-
right,
"j^i
9^-
INDEX.
(The numbers
Judgment
313
refer to pages.)
{contiuned).
impeachable
collaterally,
98.
in
some
98.
262.
(See Confessions.)
taken of
common and
118.
of the legislature,
its
by
etc., 119,
120, 122.
and
etc., 121.
its civil
INDEX.
314
to pages.)
119.
judge
may
125.
Jurisdiction, of court,
to question of
ownership
of, 7, 8.
title to,
value
admissions concerning.
102.
(See Admissions.)
admissions of tenant
in
Lascivious cohabitation, in
tion
and repute,
title,
190.
common do
trials for,
iii.
Lawyers.
how proved,
(See Attorney
Barrister.)
when necessary
or
when
224.
etc., 224.
224.
new
matter,
INDEX.
(The numbers
315
refer to pages.
when
Legislative journals,
j
\
\
'
Letters rogatory,
no admission of
when issued
~!
show malice,
30.
j.
i
!
title,
190, 191.
'
'
of,
when
of, 185.
and slander,
Malicious prosecution, in
30.
bad character
Market-reports, as evidence,
relevant, 116,
179.
<
83.
;
in trials for
Masters
in
deputy,
chancery, duties
of,
when
120.
of, 217.
116.
INDEX.
3i6
(The numbers
refer to pages.)
Medical
123.
Memorandum, does
138,
164.
Memory,
refreshing.
Murder.
(See Homicide.)
of, 85.
some
States, 34.
may be shown
burden of proof
to
to
prove negli-
34, 115.
181.
New
trial,
Northampton
of).
of,
as evidence, 63.
INDEX.
(The numbers
317
refer to pages.)
when
when
document
141.
in court, 141.
is
when duly
notified,
it
in evi-
Number
of witnesses, 212.
Oath, confessions
made
(See Witness).
under, effect
form
may
of, 215.
Objects,
shown
secondary evidence,
135.
common
comprehension,
106, 107.
evidence
of,
as to
damages,
102.
effect of not
101,
INDEX.
3i8
(The numbers
refer to pages.)
Opinion (continued).
as to matters within
common knowledge,
irrelevant, 103.
104, 105.
105.
when
in-
107.
letter-press copies
108, 109.
III.
signature
made
in court,
as to existence of marriage,
when
when used
as a standard, no.
relevant, in.
may
of, 40.
must be
126.
3.
direct, 126.
relevant to
86.
and
and
and
and
and
that
deed or
bill
of sale
is
show true
to
a mortgage, 162.
is
to
show
to
and
to
164.
made,
138, 164.
though
memorandum
INDEX.
(The numbers
319
refer to pages.)
contract
is
by
writing, provable
by
parol, 164.
may be reformed
in
document,
168,
169,
to identify persons
to in
171.
171, 268.
and
to rebut
stranger to
an equity,
170, 173.
it
by
parol, 173.
216.
trial in
civil
cases, 216.
parties not
examined before
trial
suits at
in
law
in
U.
S.
courts, 216.
may be
(See Affidavit.)
right's, 73.
117.
no notice, estopped
to
deny
that
he
189.
entries in partnership
40.
is
partner,
INDEX.
320
(The numbers
refer to pages.)
64.
(See Witness
Subpoena duces
tecum.)
voluntarily
becoming witness
examined,
in criminal
case
may be
fully cross-
209.
may be
cross-examined
nesses, 226.
impeachment
of,
as witness, 233.
indorsement of on bond,
bill,
of,
216.
who may be
a declarant,
74.
when pedigree
is
in issue, 74.
Petit jurors,
competency
of,
as witnesses, 201.
"
"
Physical examination of
made
to order, 128.
82.
in, 40.
INDEX.
(The numbers
321
refer to pages.)
presumption of
Preparation, evidence
of,
relevant,
14.
of,
(See Burden of
xv., xvi.
conclusive, 4, 246.
disputable, 4, 246.
instances
when
relevant,
7, 8.
of innocence
177.
of
when persons
perish in the
same calamity,
185.
air, 186.
of deeds to complete
title,
187.
residence, 187.
insanity, 187.
INDEX.
322
(The numbers
refer to pages.)
'.
Presumption {conthneed).
'.\
as to stamp, 154.
^
as to sealing
(See Seals.)
153.
-J
(See Alteration.)
as to alterations.
burden of proof
of,
may be
rebutted by parol
"^
whom
presumption
exists, 177.
stolen
29.
list,
as evidence, 83.
-'
Principal
_^
}
J
S
'
sureties, 162.
alteration of
.'_
'
document by
principal's consent
may
avoid
it
as to
surety, 157.
Privilege of witnesses.
(See Admissions.)
(See Witness.)
'
80.
4
!
of, 4.
206.
.'
67, 68.
-;
INDEX.
(The numbers
323
refer to pages.)
Proof (contintted).
order of discretionary with court, 221.
burden of. (See Burden of Proof)
Property, value of not provable by that of similar articles, 26.
facts
Public
showing rights
affairs, privilege
of,
of,
142-152.
142,
etc., 150.
when
officers.
80.
(See Officers.)
72.
286.
Reading books
competency
to jury,
Rebuttal, evidence
in,
whether permissible,
when
82, 83.
given, 224.
may be
INDEX.
324
(The numbers
refer to pages.)
85.
of public
vant, 79.
Records, public.
facts,
in
statutes,
proclamations,
29.
when
etc.,
rele-
Public Records.)
Re-examination of witness.
(See Witness.)
appointed
to take evidence,
etc., 217.
Refreshing
memory,
237.
237, 238.
may
cross-e.xamine
writing
used, 239.
Registers, public, entries in as evidence, 80.
trial,
unless
(See Evidence.)
5.
5.
gcstce,-(i, 16.
new
title, 12.
11.
of complaints, statements
in
15.
16.
etc.
28-33.
19.
INDEX.
(The numbers
325
refer to pages.
Relevancy (continued).
of facts showing system, ^3' 34of facts showing course of business, 35-37.
(See Hearsay.)
of hearsay evidence, 38.
of admissions, 39-52.
of confessions, 52-59.
(See Admissions.
(See Confessions.)
(See Declarations.)
in
82.
of evidence of character.
of.)
of, 7.
11.
declarations
Roman
law,
xx.
by subscribing
witnesses, loi.
Science, matters
of,
Scientific treatises,
provable by opinion-evidence,
competency of as evidence, 82.
103.
officers,
12L
INDEX.
326
(The numbers
refer to pages.)
Seal {continued).
aliter, as to
116, 236.
for,
when
required,
211.
woman
to
connection with
Sheriff,
of,
may be
status
set
and signature
aliter, as to his
of,
87.
deputy,
120.
made
in court,
when used
xiii.,
24-26, 251.
but relevant when they are the effects of the same cause, acting
faith,
malice, etc.
28-33-
amount
Solicitor.
and particular
(See Attorney.)
in, 87.
Stamp
in
documents, presumption as
to, 154.
gestce.
of deceased persons,
when
relevant, 59.
18.
(See Declarations.)
INDEX.
(The numbers
327
refer to pages.)
Statements {contimtcd).
in books, documents, and records, when relevant, 79-99. (See Judgment.)
inconsistent statements of witness, when provable, 229, 230, 234.
Statute, recitals in as evidence, 79, 80.
tractor in
effect of
bill,
68.
Strangers to
suit,
admissions by,
29.
50.
whom
may now
on
served, 140.
208.
lien,
may
relieve
him of
or
that
would criminate
him, 207.
or
when
to
aliter,
agents of telegraph
140, 208.
on
subpceiia^ 221,
when merely
INDEX.
328
may
Supreme Court
testify as to his
of Justice
130.
(See Document.)
38.
loi.
noticed, 120.
Surety.
(See Witness.)
System, provable by evidence of similar acts, 33-35.
129.
37.
to
Tenant.
Terms
33.
of, 41.
declarations of as to contents of
will, 70.
of,
Threats, evidence
Time, divisions
Title,
of,
of,
when
relevant,
Title-deeds.
14.
(See Deed.)
when
proof
of, 47.
for, 212.
prior state*
INDEX.
(The numbers
329
refer to pages.)
at law,
216.
examiners
in
timony, 218.
(See Custom.)
Uttering counterfeit money, similar acts to show knowledge,
Usage.
33.
70, 71.
to.
presumption as
alterations
26.
of, 71.
subscribing witness
ancient,
29.
in,
to, 156.
when presumed
to
be made,
159.
but testator's intention may be shown by parol in cases of " equivocation," or to rebut an equity, 169, 170, 172.
may
testify to his
15, 16.
of law, 127.
when
to
be served with
suhpa:7iii
duces tecum.
tecum.')
effect of his
subscribing witness.
of children, 194.
of persons of unsound mind, 194.
of intoxicated persons, 194.
of deaf and
dumb
193.
INDEX.
530
(The numbers
refer to pages.)
Witness [continued).
of atheists, 195.
of infamous persons, 195.
infamy
how
proved, 228.
and
client,
(See Attorney.)
202-205.
(See
no privilege as
Sitl'J>a:na
duces tecum.)
to testimony
exposing witness to
civil liability,
207.
in cases of seduction
211.
complice.)
2H.
(See Ac-
INDEX.
(The numbers refer
331
to pages.)
Witness {continued).
to support the evidence of a witness yj/jz<j in uno, 211, 212.
in trials for perjury. 212, 213.
in
bill,
213.
in cases of perjury,
212,
213.
o/ii)it?iesses
13, 213.
witness
may
(See
court, 221.
is
concluded,
England and
aliter, in
in
some cases
222.
drawn,
in
some
may be
with-
222.
prejudiced, 224.
must
(See Lead-
ing Questions.)
but court
may permit
been given
in chief, 224.
INDEX.
332
(The numbers
refer to pages.)
Witness {continued).
cross-examination, 220, 221.
to
221, 223.
to
some
when
States,
the answers
deny
by cross-examination,
228.
may be
contra-
dicted, 229.
explain the
229.
in
some
States, this
is
made,
in writing,
how
231, 232.
cation,
and then
itself
extent of cross-examination of
duction,
and
in
read
in
women
evidence, 232.
re-examination 221.
,
is
whole conversation
may be brought
INDEX.
(The numbers refer
333
to pages.)
Witness {continued).
leading questions not permitted on, 224.
witness allowed to be recalled for further examination, 221.
impeachment ofivitncsses :
party cannot impeach his own witness, 230, 234.
nor opposing witness whom he makes his own by cross-examining as to new matter, 230.
but may prove facts of case by other witnesses, 230.
and may impeach witness whom law obliges him to call, 230.
party surprised by his witness
as to his
States, party
may impeach
his witness,
230, 231.
party
232.
number
of impeaching witnesses
may be
limited by
court, 234.
233in
some
233-
by showing
229.
his
peached, 233,
234.
calling :him,
234. 235.
his
tation, 234.
to rebut
INDEX.
334
to pages.)
Witness [continued).
but he cannot be so sustained because the testimony of
other witnesses
or
when he
is
is
contrary to
his, 234.
statements, 234.
aliter, in
some
States, 234.
is
made them
but in some
but evidence of inconsistent statements, 235.
(See Refreshing Memory.)
refreshing memory of witnesses.
Women, offences against, evidence competent on trials for, 235, 236.
(See Rape Seduction Adultery Bastardy.)
Words, defective or ambiguous in documents, evidence
;
169.
THE END.
to explain, 167-
(ft