You are on page 1of 436

ia t

THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
SCHOOL OF LAW
GIFT OF
It's*

Richard Hocker
In Memory of

Mr. Frank J. lYikoff

vnvKiv

v\L 1^0^^

A DIGEST

LAW OF EVIDENCE
SIR JAMES FITZTAMES STEPHEN,

K.C.S.I.

Ill

A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, yUEEN


BENCH DIVISION

FOURTH ENGLISH EDITION

AMERICAN EDITION
WITH ANNOTATIONS AND REFERENCES TO AMERICAN CASES
BY

GEORGE CHASE,

LL.B.

PROFESSOR OF CRIMINAI- LAW, TORTS, AND PROCEDURE IN THE LAW


SCHOOL OF COLUMBIA COLLEGE

NEW YORK
PRINTED FOR THE EDITOR
1887

Copyright,

1885,

by

GEORGE CHASR

T
$t4'5U

EDITOR'S NOTE.
The
need

merits of " Stephen's Digest "are too well

repetition.

It

as in England, as a starudard treatise

dence.

The

known

to

has been accepted in this country, as well

upon the subject of

evi-

editor has sought in this edition to increase

its

usefulness for

American lawyers and students of law by

annotating

so as to exhibit the general principles of the

it,

American law of evidence


best decisions.

in

fully

accordance with the

The contents of

the original

latest and
work are pre-

served without change, except that, in a few instances, articles


stating special provisions of English statutes have been transferred to the foot-notes or to the Appendix.

are always clearly indicated wherever made.

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

made clearly manifest.


The American cases

cited by the editor are considerably


more numerous than the English citations of Mr. Stephen
this has seemed necessary in order that the book might satisfactorily exhibit the law of evidence for the different States and
Territories, and thus be serviceable in all parts of the country.
A new and more complete index will be found in this edition.
;

G. C.

New

York, October,

1885.

686436

PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION.


I

HAVE

referred in this Edition to the cases

statutes passed since the pubhcation of

its

decided and

predecessor and

end of March, 1881. The law has hardly been


since the book was first published.
Short as it
is, I believe it will be found to contain practically the whole of
the law on the subject.
Many editions of it have been published in America.

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

India since Sept. 1872.

understood, and has required

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

founded upon this Bill, though it differs


Lord Coleridge's Bill proposed a
variety of amendments of the existing law.
These are omitted
in the present work, which is intended to represent the existing law exactly as it stands.
The Bill, of course, was in the
ordinary form of. an Act of Parliament.
In the book I have
allowed myself more freedom of expression, though I have
spared no pains to make my statements precise and complete.
from

it

is

in various respects.

INTRODUCTION.
December

1875, at the request of the Council of Legal


undertook the duties of Professor of Common
Law, at the Inns of Court, and I chose the Law of Evidence
for the subject of my first course of lectures.
It appeared to
me that the draft Bill which I had prepared for Lord Coleridge
supplied the materials for such a statement of the law as would
enable students to obtain a precise and systematic acquaintance with it in a moderate space of time, and without a degree of labor disproportionate to its importance in relation to
other branches of the law.
No such work, so far as I know,
for all the existing books on the Law of Evidence are
exists
written on the usual model of English law-books, which, as a
general rule, aim at being collections more or less complete of
all the authorities upon a given subject, to which a judge would
listen in an argument in court.
Such works often become, under the hands of successive editors, the repositories of an extraordinary amount of research, but they seem to me to have
the effect of making the attainment by direct study of a real
knowledge of the law, or of any branch of it as a whole, almost
impossible.
The enormous mass of detail and illustration which
they contain, and the habit into which their writers naturally

In

Education,

of introducing into

fall,

them everything which has any

sort of

make these
may increase

connection, however remote, with the main subject,

books useless

purposes of study, though they


works of reference. The fifth edition of Mr.
Taylor's work on Evidence contains 1797 royal 8vo pages.
To
judge from the table of cases, it must refer to about gooo judicial decisions, and it cites nearly 750 Acts of Parliament.
The
' Roscoe's
Digest of the Law of Evidence on the Trial of Acfor

their utility as

tions at Nisi Prius,' contains 1556 closely-printed pages.

table of cases cited consists of

names

the

Law
the

The

pages, one of which contains

of 152 cases, which would give a total of 11,704

cases referred to.


statutes

']']

which

fills

There

is,

besides, a

21 pages more.

list

of references to

'Best's Principles of the

of Evidence,' which disclaims the intention of adding to

number

of practical works on the subject,

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.

The circumstances already mentioned

led

me

to put into a

systematic form such knowledge of the subject as

This work

quired.
it

has,

My

may

say,

is

been

the result.
in

The

an inverse

had ac-

labor bestowed upon

ratio to its size.

has been to separate the subject of evidence


from other branches of the law with which it has commonly
object in

it

been mixed up;

to

reduce

it

into a

compact systematic form,

distributed according to the natural division of the subject-

matter

and

to

compress

into precise definite rules, illustrated,

when necessary, by examples, such cases and


erly relate to the subject-matter so limited

statutes as prop-

and arranged.

have attempted, in short, to make a digest of the law, which,

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

of a code, and which, at

on every kind of investigation into questions of fact,


branch of litigation.
The Law of Evidence is composed of two elements, namely,
first, an enormous number of cases, almost all of which have
been decided in the course of the last loo or 150 years, and
which have already been collected and classified in various
ways by a succession of text writers, the most recent of whom
secondly, a comparatively small numI have already named
ber of Acts of Parliament which have been passed in the course
of the last thirty or forty years, and have effected a highly beneficial revolution in the law as it was when it attracted the denunciations of Bentham. Writers on the Law of Evidence
usually refer to statutes by the hundred, but the Acts of Parliament which really relate to the subject are but few. A
detailed account of this matter will be found at the end of the
volume, in Note XLVIII,
The arrangement of the book is the same as that of the Indian Evidence Act, and is based upon the distinction between
relevancy and proof, that is, between the question What facts
may be proved ? and the question How must a fact be proved
assuming that proof of it may be given ? The neglect of this
distinction, which is concealed by the ambiguity of the word
evidence (a word which sometimes means testimony and at
other times relevancy) has thrown the whole subject into confusion, and has made what is really plain enough appear aldirectly

as well as on every

most incomprehensible.
In
1872,
I

my

Introduction to the Indian Evidence Act published in


in speeches made in the Indian Legislative Council,

and

entered fully upon this matter.

It will

be

sufficient here to

notice shortly the principle on which the arrangement of the

subject

is

arranged

based, and the manner in which the book has been


in

consequence.

INTRODUCTION.
The

Law

great bulk of the

xi

of Evidence consists of negative

rules declaring what, as the expression runs,

The

doctrine that

all facts in

is

not evidence.

and relevant

issue

to the issue,

and no others, may be proved, is the unexpressed principle


which forms the centre of and gives unity to all these express
To me these rules always appeared to form a
negative rules.
hopeless mass of confusion, which might be remembered by a
great effort, but could not be understood as a whole, or reduced to system, until it occurred to me to ask the question,
What is this evidence which you tell me hearsay is not ? The
expression " hearsay is not evidence" seemed to assume that I
knew by the light of nature what evidence was, but I perceived
I found that I
at last that that was just what I did not know.
was
is

in

the position of a person who, having never seen a cat,

them

instructed about

in this fashion

" Lions are not

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

once understand both what

saying that a lion

is

not a cat, and

begin with, and

him one.

Tell

me what

understand why you say


evidence.

why

it

is

is

meant by

possible to call

is, and I shall be able to


and that class of facts are not

evidence
this

The question " What

is

closed the ambiguity of the word.

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

a necessary or probable inference

words, that the one fact

When

is

or

is

in other

not relevant to the 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-

mate answer. The logical theory was cleared up by Mr. Mill.


Bentham and some other' writers had more or less discussed
But

the connection of logic with the rules of evidence.

not aware that


'

it

occurred to any one before

Introduction to the Indian Evidence Act

resemblance which

'

published

am
my

to point out in de-

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

rules are reducible to the principle that facts in issue

or relevant to the issue, and no others,

may be

proved.

The following outline of the contents of this work


how I have applied this principle in arranging it.

will

show

may be

All law

divided into Substantive Law, by which


and liabilities are defined, and the Law of Procedure by which the Substantive Law is applied to particular
rights, duties,

cases.

The Law

of Evidence

is

that part of the

Law

of Procedure

which, with a view to ascertain individual rights and


in particular cases, decides
I.

cases
II.

What

facts

liabilities

may, and what may not be proved

in

such

What

be proved

sort of evidence

must be given of a

fact

which

may

III. By whom and in what manner the evidence must be


produced by which any fact is to be proved.

" 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

are facts in issue, or facts

relevant to the issue.

upon the existence of which the


be ascertained in the proceeding depends.
Facts relevant to the issue are facts from the existence of
which inferences as to the existence of the facts in issue may
be drawn.
Facts

in issue are those facts

right or hability to

A fact is relevant to another fact when the existence of the


one can be shown to be the cause or one of the causes, or the
effect or one of the effects, of the existence of the other, or
when the existence of the one,

either alone or together with

other facts, renders the existence of the other highly probable,


or improbable, according to the

Four classes of

facts,

which

regarded as falling within


cluded from
1.

{Res

The

common course of events.


common life would usually be

this definition of relevancy, are ex-

by the Law of Evidence except

Facts similar

other.
2.

it

in

to,

in certain cases:

but not specifically connected with, each

ititer alios actce.~)

fact that a

person not called as a witness has asserted


[Hearsay.)

the existence of any fact.


3.

The

fact that

any person

is

of opinion that a fact exists.

[Opinion.)
4. The fact that a person's character is such as to render
conduct imputed to him probable or improbable. {Character.)
To each of those four exclusive rules there are, however,
important exceptions, which are defined by the Law of Evi-

dence.

As to the manner in which a fact in issue or relevant


must be proved.
Some facts need not be proved at all, because the Court will
II.

fact

take judicial notice of them,

if

they are relevant to the issue.

Every fact which requires proof must be proved either by


oral or by documentary evidence.
Every fact, except (speaking generally) the contents of a
document, must be proved by oral evidence. Oral evidence
IPWSt in every case be direct, that is to say, it must consist of

INTR OD UCTION.
an assertion by the person who gives

it

that he directly per-

ceived the fact to the existence of which he

testifies.

Documentary evidence is either primary or secondary. Primary evidence is the document itself produced in court for
inspection.

Secondary evidence varies according to the nature of the


document. In the case of private documents a copy of the
document, or an oral account of its contents, is secondary evidence.
In the case of some public documents, exam.ined or
certified copies, or exemplifications, must or may be produced
in the absence of the documents themselves.
Whenever any public or private transaction has been reduced to a documentary foi-m, the document in which it is
recorded becomes exclusive evidence of that transaction, and
its

contents cannot, except in certain cases expressly defined,

be varied by oral evidence, though secondary evidence may be


given of the contents of the document.
III. As to the person by whom, and the manner in which the
proof of a particular fact must be made.
When a fact is to be proved, evidence must be given of it by
the person upon whom the burden of proving it is imposed,
either by the nature of the issue or by any legal presumption,
unless the fact is one which the party is estopped from proving
by his own representations, or by his conduct, or by his relation to the opposite party.

The

whom

be proved must be comis now a competent witness in all cases.


Competent witnesses, however, are
not in all cases compelled or even permitted to testify.
The evidence must be given upon oath, or in certain excepted cases without oath. The witnesses must be first examined in chief, then cross-examined, and then re-examined.
Their credit may be tested in certain ways, and the answers
which they give to questions affecting their credit may be contradicted in certain cases and not in others.
This brief statement will show what I regard as constituting
petent.

witnesses by

With very few

a fact

is to

exceptions, every one


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

dence) as belonging partly to the subject of pleading, and


partly to each of the different branches into
stantive

is

Law may be
indicted

for

which the Sub-

divided.

murder, and pleads Not Guilty.

This

plea puts in issue, amongst other things, the presence of any


state of

mind describable

as malice aforethought,

and

all

mat-

ters of justification or extenuation.

Starkie

and Roscoe

treat these subjects at full length, as

What can be proved under


an issue of Not Guilty on an indictment for murder ?
Mr.
Taylor does not go so far as this but a great part of his book
is based upon a similar principle of classification.
Thus
chapters i. and ii. of Part II. are rather a treatise on pleading
than a treatise on evidence.
Again, I have dealt very shortly with the whole subject of
presumptions. My reason is that they also appear to me to
belong to different branches of the Substantive Law, and to be
unintelligible, except in connection with them.
Take for instance the presumption that every one knows the law. The
real meaning of this is that, speaking generally, ignorance of
the law is not taken as an excuse for breaking it.
This rule
cannot be properly appreciated if it is treated as a part of the
Law of Evidence. It belongs to the Criminal Law. In the
same way numerous presumptions as to rights of property (in
particular easements and incorporeal hereditaments) belong
not to the Law of Evidence but to the Law of Real Property.
The only presumptions which, in my opinion, ought to find a
place in the Law of Evidence, are those which relate to facts
merely as facts, and apart from the particular rights which
they constitute. Thus the rule, that a man not heard of for
seven years is presumed to be dead, might be equally applicable
supplying answers to the question.

INTRODUCTION.
to a dispute as to the validity of a marriage,

ment by a

an action of

eject-

reversioner against a tenant /?/r auter vie, the ad-

missibility of a declaration against interest,

and many other

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

kind from the

rules which point out the

manner

in

which the attendance of witnesses is to be procured, evidence


is to be taken on commission, depositions are to be authenticated and forwarded to the proper officers, interrogatories are
to be administered, &c., have little to do with the general
principles which regulate the relevancy and proof of matters
of fact. Their proper place would be found in codes of civil
and criminal procedure. I have however noticed a few of the
most important of these matters.
A similar remark applies to a great mass of provisions as to
Under the head of" Public
the proof of certain particulars.
Documents," Mr. Taylor gives amongst other things a list of
all, or most, of the statutory provisions which render certificates or certified copies admissible in particular cases.

To take an illustration at random, section 1458 begins thus:


The registration of medical practitioners under the Medical
Act of 1858, may be proved by a copy of the Medical Regis"

'

ter,' for

moment

the time being, purporting," &c.


to

undervalue the practical

utility of

do not wish

for a

such information,

but such a provision


it
belong not to the Law of Evidence,
but to the law relating to medical men. It is matter rather
for an index or schedule than for a legal treatise, intended to
be studied, understood, and borne in mind in practice.
On several other points the distinction between the Law of
or the industry displayed in collecting
as this appears to

me

to

Evidence and other branches of the law is more difficult to


trace.
For instance, the law of estoppel, and the law relating
interpretation
the
to
of written instruments, both run into the

INTRODUCTION.
Law

of Evidence.

have tried

draw the

to

line

by deahng

in

the case of estoppels with estoppels in pais only, to the exclu-

by deed and by matter of record, which must


and in regard to the law of written instruments by stating those rules only which seemed to me to bear
directly on the question whether a document can be supplemented or explained by oral evidence.
sion of estoppels

be pleaded as such

The result
much shorter
judges

will

no doubt

is

to

make

the statement of the law

hope, however, that competent


find that, as far as it goes, the statement is both
than

usual.

As

and correct.
Lord Mansfield

full

is

to brevity,

" The

may

say, in the words of

law does not consist of particular


cases, but of general principles which are illustrated and ex:

plained by those cases."

'

Every one will express somewhat differently the principles


which he draws from a number of illustrations, and this is one
source of that quality of our law which those who dislike it describe as vagueness and uncertainty, and those who like it as
I dislike the quality in question, and I used to think
elasticity.
that it would be an improvement if the law were once for all
enacted in a distinct form by the Legislature, and were definitely altered from time to time as occasion required.
For
many years I did my utmost to get others to take the same
view of the subject, but I am now convinced by experience
that the unwillingness of the Legislature to undertake such an
operation proceeds from a want of confidence in its power to
deal with such subjects, which is neither unnatural nor unfounded.
It would be as impossible to get in Parliament a
really satisfactory discussion of a Bill codifying the

Law

of Ev-

idence as to get a committee of the whole House to paint a


picture.

It

would,

cult at present to get

am

equally well satisfied, be quite as

Parliament to delegate

sons capable of exercising them properly.


the Courts can decide only

'

R.

V.

upon cases

Bcntbrid^e, 3

Doug.

its

powers

diffi-

to per-

In the meantime

as they actually oc-

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

do not think the law can be

in a less creditable condition

enormous mass of

that of an

assuming unstated principles


accessible only

cause

am

attempts

which

isolated decisions,
;

insist

to

state

the

this

beall

law simply, and of the rooted belief

minds of many lawyers that all general


must be misleading, and delusive, and that

in the

An

law books are useless except as indexes.


says " Omnis definitio injureperiailosa."

ancient

diVid

maxim

Lord Coke wrote,

ever good to rely upon the books at large

times compendia sunt dispendia,

guam

upon

well aware of the prejudice which exists against

exists

is

than

statutes

cases and statutes alike being

by elaborate indexes.

propositions of law

"It

and

Melius

for

many

est petere fontes

Mr. Smith chose this expression as the


Leading Cases,' and the sentiment which it em-

sectari rivulos."

motto of

his

'

bodies has exercised immense influence over our law.

It

has

not perhaps been sufficiently observed that when Coke wrote,

"books at large," namely the Year Books' and a very


few more modern reports, contained probably about as much
matter as two, or at most three, years of the reports published by the Council of Law Reporting
and that the compendia (such books, say, as Fitzherbert's ' Abridgment') were
merely abridgments of the cases in the Year Books clasthe

'

'

sified

in

the roughest

possible

manner, and much

'

inferior

INTR OD UCTION.
both in extent and arrangement
'Digest."

to

such a book as Fisher's

own days it appears to me that the irne/onies are not


be found in reported cases, but in the rules and principles
which such cases imply, and that the cases themselves are the
rivjtli, the following of which is a dispcndium.
My attempt
in this work has been emphatically /tY^rt'y<?/^j, to reduce an
important branch of the law to the form of a connected system of intelligible rules and principles.
Should the undertaking be favorably received by the profession and the public, I hope to apply the same process to
some other branches of the law for the more I study and
practise it, the more firmly am I convinced of the excellence
In our

to

of

its

ers,

substance and the defects of

from Coke

the excellence of

they showed

Our

form.

its

earlier writ-

to Blackstone, fell into the error of asserting

and form, which


Bentham seems to
converse error.

substance in an exaggerated strain, whilst

its

much

both of substance

insensibility to defects,
their

in

me

in

He was

time were

many

grievous and glaring.

points to have fallen into the

too keen and bitter a critic to recog-

system which he attacked


had not that mastery of the law
unattainable by mere theoretical study, even if

nise the substantial merits of the

and

it is

itself

obvious to

which

the student

is
is,

as

me

that he

Bentham

certainly was, a

man

of talent, ap-

proaching closely to genius.

During the

last twenty-five

some extent declined,


like

exploded

shells,

years Bentham's influence has to

partly because

some of

his

books are

buried under the ruins which they have

made, and partly because under the influence of some of the


Since the beginning of 1865 the Council has published eighty-six vol-

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.

not counted the exact

in 1881,

have

but the ninety-three

INTRODUCTION.
most distinguished of

living authors, great attention has

been

directed to legal history, and in particular to the study of Ro-

man Law.

It

would be

difficult to

exaggerate the value of

these studies, but their nature and use

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 no doubt

suppose either that the

Roman Law

is in

substance wiser than

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

more objectionable than

the absence

general theories, good or bad, which

Law of England.
may be, I trust the

present work will show that


England on the subject to which it refers is full of
sagacity and practical experience, and is capable of being
thrown into a form at once plain, short, and systematic.
I wish in conclusion, to direct attention to the manner in
which I have dealt with such parts of the Statute Law as are
embodied in this work. I have given, not the very words of
the enactments referred to, but what I understand to be their
effect, though in doing so I have deviated as little as possible
from the actual words employed. I have done this in order to
make it easier to study the subject as a whole. Every Act of
Parliament which relates to the Law of Evidence assumes the
It cannot, therefore, be fully
existence of the unwritten law.
understood, nor can its relation to other parts of the law be
appreciated, till the unwritten law has been written down so
this

the law of

that the provisions of particular statutes

as parts of
of,

it.

When

this is

may

done, the Statute

take their places

Law

and even requires, very great abridgment.

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.

parts of six different Acts of Parliament

which

is

given in

five short articles

the

net

result of

(106-1 10).

So, too, the doctrine of incompetency for peculiar or defective

been removed by many different enactments


is shown in one article (123).
The various enactments relating to documentary evidence
(see chap x.) appear to me to become easy to follow and to

religious belief has

the effect of which

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

their effect instead of their actual

words,

may have

some particulars a mistaken view of their meaning.


Such are the means by which I have endeavored
statement of the

Law

to

given in

make

of Evidence which will enable not only

I hope any intelligent person who cares


enough about the subject to study attentively what I have
written, to obtain from it a knowledge of that subject at once
comprehensive and exact a knowledge which would enable

students of law, but

'

Twenty

Acts

oi

articles of this work represent all that is material in the ten


Parliament, containing sixty-six sections, which have been passed

on the subject
Note XL VIII.

to

which

it

refers.

For the detailed proof of

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,

and which would enable him

all are little more than matters of curihowever, that any one who makes himself
thoroughly acquainted with the contents of this book, will know

reference to what after


osity.

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

think that even those

who

are already well acquainted with

the subject will find that they understand the relations of

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.

TABLE OF CASES CITED.

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.

Pittsburg Ins. Co.

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

Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Keeler

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

74, 76. 104. 136. i43

American Nat. Bk. v. Bushey.. 119


Amer. Underwriters' Ass'n v.
George
130
160
Ames V. Colburn
Amherst Bk. v. Root
109
Amidon v. Hosley
233

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

TABLE OF CASES CITED.


PAGE

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

Kalamazoo Pub'g Co.

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

Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Fitzpatrick. 219

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.

R. Co. v. Stanford. .27, 222


V.

Miller

V.

Atwood

V.

'

V.

'

Thul. 128

Audubon

Dearborn
Impson

v.

Excelsior Ins. Co.

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,

Baron de Bode's Case

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.

Berkeley Peerage Case

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

Baulec v. N. Y., etc. R. Co.


Baxendale v. Bennett
Baxter v. Abbott

Co.

"

234
86

Battles

v.

46
R.

Benson

141

Detroit Post

176

88

Farmers' Nat. Bk.. 226


Bailey

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

Albion Life Assurance


Soc
35,37
People
127

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

Amer. Tract Soc.

Bogardus v. Trinity Church.


Boggs V. Taylor
Bogle's Excrs.

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

Brunsden z'. Humphrey


Bryan f. Forsyth
Bryce v. Lorillard Ins. Co.
Buffum V. Ramsdell
Bull V. Loveland
Bullard
"

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

"

i6, 25, 60, 77,

93
164

61

Burnham

"

234
202

Burger f. Farmers' Ins. Co


Burgess v. Langley
Burgwin v. Bishop
Burke v. Miltenberger

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

137, 138, 142

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

M. & R. R. Corp.... 188


"
V. Peake
128
46
26
V. Sprague
203
132 Carson's Appeal
131
32

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

TABLE OF CASES CITED.


PAGE

Cassady
Castner

Trustees

v.

77

Sliker

v.

7,

loi

Castriquez'. Imrie 90, 95, 99, 103, 262


iii
Catherwood I'. Caslon

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

Springvale Mills Co.

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

Central Bridge Corp.

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

.14, 2|, 33, 179

TABLE OF CASES CITED.


PAGE

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

Conn. Life Ins. Co. v. Schaefer 202


188
Connelly v. McKean
Connolly v. Pardon
172

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

rop.ioo, 102, 221

"

''

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

TABLE OF CASES CITED.


PAGE

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.

Smith's Adm'r. 96, 125


Silloway
46

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

Cummer f. Kent Judge

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

p. & C. Towboat Co.

I2i

193
v. Starrs.

^95

TABLE OF CASES CITED.

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

Co. Ins. Co.

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

Dover z/. Child


158, 159 Dowdell V. Wilcox
Donner v. Rowell
,42, 44
190 Downey z-. Andrus

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.

139, T41, 265

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

East Pa. R. Co.

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

TABLE OF CASES CITED.


PAGE

PAGE

Ely

Ely

V.

158, 159

Emerson

f.

"

V.

Bleakley

78

Lowell Gas Co.


Fowler

24, 103

Empire Mf g Co. v. Stuart


Enders v. Van Steenbergh.

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

Evening Journal Ass'n


Dermott

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.

86, 87, 92, 108

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

Fosdick V. Van Horn


Foster v. Newbrough
"
V, People
"
v. Persch
Foster's

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

Greenfields. Camden... 72, 74, 187


V. People.. 6, 16, 22, 106

192

Greenfield Bk.

166, 267

v.

Crafts

Greenfield Sav. Bk.

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

Guaranty Co. v. Gleason


Guernsey v. Rexford
Guetig V. State
Guiterman v. Liverpool,
St.

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.

"

Hanover R. Co. v. Coyle


Hanson z". Eustace's Lessee.

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

Hatcher z/. Rocheleau


Hatfield v. Lasher
Hatton V. Robinson

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

People's Ins. Co... 224

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

129, 199, 237

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

Johnson's Will, In. re


Johnston v. Hedden
"

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

Keran v. Trice's Excrs


Kerr v. Kerr
"
7/. McGuire

Kidder

Bethlehem
Farnsworth
Flynn
v.

Brigham
163 Kirkstall Brewery
119

PAGB
Case. 91, 95,

Kip, In re

Kip

63,

Garvin
Lincoln

V.

of),

99, 205, 261, 262

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

" z/. Worthington


Kingman v. Cowles

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

TABLE OF CASES CITED.

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

Lathrop z'. Bramhall


Lavin v. Emigrant Sav. Bk
Lawler t'. McPheeters

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.

/.

l,ee V. P^ji^ ....,.,.,..,.......

40

30
107
166
64

16, 22, 106, 112,

120, 122, 144

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

TABLE OF CASES CITED.

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.

Central R. Co. 181


Purrier

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

Lowney I'. Perham


Loyd V. Hannibal, etc.
Luby V. Hudson R. Co
Lucas
"

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.

.36, 47, 99,

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.

Mansfield Coal Co.

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

Marine Investment Co.


side

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.

Bliss... 71, 80, 81, 123

"

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

McMurray's Heirs v. Erie


187
McNair v. Comm
108
204 McPherson t'. Rathbone
140
86 McReynolds v. Longenberger. 156
209

Mayor of Doncaster v. Day


Mayor of Swansea v. Quirk
McCarthy v. Marsh
McCarty v. Terry
McCausland v. Fleming

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

McFarlan v. Triton Ins. Co... 81


McGoldrick v. Traphagen
.64, 65

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

Pa. Cent. R. Co. 239

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

Michigan Cent. R. Co.


Miles
"

'

82

Jacobs

V.

'

184

Kentucky

v.

Bohlfing

Michels

205

State

z^.

Merchants' Nat. Bk. v. Hall... 118


Merk v. Gelzhaeuser
176
Merkel's Appeal
17

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.

Exp. Co.v. Nichols

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

!.

Ocean Bk. v. Carll


Ocean Beach Ass'n

40,

Gas Co. v. Wheelock


Packard v. Reynolds
Packer v. Steward
Packet Co. v. Clough

224

"

Johnston. 185
64

v.

Brinley

13

38

47

109

v.

97
207

re

Otterson
"

Ottawa,

93
6

191

The Rfo Grande

V.

Pacific

Oakland Ice Co.

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.

Odiorne v. Marine Ins. Co


O'Gara v. Eisenlohr

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

Ochsenbein z'. Papelier


O'Connell v. People

i8i

"

V.

v.

Forester

"

?/.

Salisbury

199
164

6
201

Sickles

Paddock

104

52
,,,,

n6

'

TABLE OF CASES CITED.


Page

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

Passmore's Estate 205

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.

'

Empire, etc. Co..


Neff
.91,
Pennsylvania Co. v. Conlan
Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Fortney

164

238

77
222

97
237
ig6
55
227

6,9,10,60,62
99
82,93
20

'

TABLE OF CASES CITED.

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.

Oyer & Term. Court.

"
'
'

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

22^, 233, 234

"

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

Howard. 79 Plaxton V. Dare


Lehman. 123 Player v. Burlington,
162

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.

Pidcock t'. Potter


Pier V. Duff

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

Peoples v. Evening News


Pepin V. Lachenmeyer
Perkins v. Augusta Ins. Co
"
z'. Stickney
Perrine v. Cooley's Excrs

Phelin

183

233

I/.

"

Phillips V. Allen

Tyler
Velarde

V.

Co
Pleasants

73
etc.

R.

225
v.

Fant

46

TABLE OF CASES CITED.

liv

PAGE

Plumer

Briscoe

v.

Plummer
Plunkett

v.

133

Currier

52
200

Cobbett

V.

Pocock V. Billing
Poignard v. Smith

44

PAGE

Providence Tool Co. v. U.


Mfg. Co
Prudential Assurance Co.

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.

Queen's Proctor v. Fry


Quick V. Quick
62 Quidort's Adm'r. v. Pergeaux.
181 Quigley v. De Haas
194 Quin V. Lloyd
199 Quincey v. White
120 Quinlan v. Utica
235 Quinley v. Atkins

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

Railway Co. v. Cronin


Randall v. Lynch

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

Reeder z/. Holcomb


Reese v. Reese
Reeve v. Wood

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.

O' Dougherty 153

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

Hartington Middle Quar-

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

76, 77, 241

Scott

58,

Sparkes
Stephenson

210
275
241

'

Riley

v.

Ripley

Ripon

Suydam

v.
V.

Burgess
Bittell

131

30

49
119
83

Risley v. Phenix Bank... 90, 98, 166


186

Roady

v. Finegan
Roath V. Driscoll
Robards v. Marley
Robb V. Hackley
Robb's Appeal
Robbins v. Chicago

209
104

235
197

94

TABLE OF CASES CITED.

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

Romertze v. East River Bk


Roosa V. Boston Loan Co

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

Louis Ins. Co. v. Cravens..


Luke's Home v. Assn. for

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

N. Y., etc. R. Co.. 176

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

Second Nat. Bk.

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.

Shelburne Falls Bk.

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

TABLE OF CASES CITED.


Shields

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

Shrewsbury Peerage Case


Shriedly

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

Slade 1'. Leonard


Slane Peerage Case

Co
Co

'

"
'

'

V.
V.

V.

114

McKeever

109

Winsor
McCulloh

Somerville,

188

204

'

77
128

230

236
102

'

Sohns

31

153
86, 172

'

143

227, 229, 233, 234

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

Singer Mf'g Co.


Sisson

'

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

Shoemaker t'. Benedict

Short

Co

Railroad

v.

V.

etc.

Doughty

68

47
R.

Co.

v.

223

Soper 1'. Buffalo, etc. R. Co... 45


Souder v. Schechterly
43
South V. People
S3
226, 236
Hardy
South Bend
c^.

TABLE OF CASES CITED.


PAGE
S.

W.

School Dist.

v.

Williams.

Southwark Bank v. Comm


Southwick V. Stevens
Soutier v. Kellerman
Spalding
Spangler

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

Spring Co. v. Edgar


Spring Garden Ins.

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

"

202, 224, 227

"

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

Spring Run Co. v. Tosier


Squire v. State
Stacy V. Graham
Stalker

'

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

54, 229, 233, 235

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.

Patterson. 53, 54,55,62, 178

"

'

83

'

77

5, 14, 23, 82,

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

83, 123, 125

"

V.

Turner

56

"

V.

Wagner

96

"

f.

Walker

155

221, 236
81, 125

TABLE OF CASES CITED.

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.

Merchants' Bk.. 230, 231

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.

Sussex Peerage Case


Sutton V. Bowker

219

"

V. British, etc.

"

z/.

V.

Swartz

Sweet

Comm
Middlesex
Chickering

V.

V.

Sherman

z'.

Tuttle

'

Swift V, Life Ins.

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,

Sturm V. Atlantic Ins. Co


Sugden z'. St. Leonards

85

179

Moore

V.

136

v.

"

16, 113,

Lord
Bennett

Stephens

Stewart
"

77

z/.

Sturla

Steinbach

Stevens

190

208

v.
V.

.130, 135, 136

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

20, 58, 209,

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

Swinnerton v. Ins. Co.


Swisher v. Comm
Switzer

122, 123, 125

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

Thornton's Excrs.z'. Thornton's

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

Thorpe r'. Keokuk Coal Co... 132


28 Thorson 1'. Peterson
123
211 Thurber r'. Anderson
36

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>.

Amer. Bible Soc

43
169
107

South Creek Tp. 184


Knott
109

V.

Titford V.

Titus

69

Co. 158

W.Miller

Tioga Co.

195

176

Tilson

"

146

Clinton, etc. Ins.

T'.

"

Cameron
Beaumont

Ash

V.

233

Taylor Will Case


Teachout t*. People

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

Tracy t'. McManus


Trambly v. Ricard
Trasker

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.

Seamen's Aid Soc.

&

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

Van Storch v. Griffin


O'Brien
Vaughan

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

43, 44, 50, 138

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.

"

Village of Port Jervis v. First

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

Snyder.. 40, 42,


v. Frantz
176 Whittuck V. Walters
233 Whitwell z'. Winslow
98, 99 Whyman v. Garth
159 Widdifield v. Widdifield
163

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

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.


ENGLISH.
PAGE
7 James

2oCh.
7

&

12

c.

I.

II. c.

279
186

8 Will. III. c. 3, ss. 2, 4

"

&

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

17, ...217, 241,

s.

279

s.

13

14

&
&

14 Vict.

c.

15 Vict. c. 99, ss. 1-20. .280, 281

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.

270. .217, 243

18 Vict.

125,

S.

234

s.

20

214

c.

105

215

ss.

c.

26

ss. 22, 27.

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

7 Will. IV. c. Ill


7 Will. IV. & I Vict. 0. 26
I

"
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

TABLE OF STA TUTES CITED.

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.

"
"

"
"

116... 114, 279


114. 279

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.

4. 214, 273, 283

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

&
&
&
&
&

1-6. .281, 283

s.

"

1-8
3

ss.

c. 49, s. I

282

Vict. c. 18, ss.

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

TABLE OF STATUTES CITED.


New

Hampshire.

General Laws.
(Edition of 1878.)

PAGE
c.

228, 14.

207

PAGE
c.
I

228, $ 15.

230

PAGE
c.
I

228, % 27.. 228

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.

of Civil Procedure (Continued).

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

Code of Criminal Procedure.


(Edition of 1885.)

188-221
198

PAGE

PAGE
216

PAGE

PAGE

201

265

196

393

58

266

202

211

399
I

55

395

620-657

PAGE

PAGE

Penal Code, 715


Revised Statutes,* 63, 38

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

Revised Statutes (Edition


"

"

"

PAGE

no

p. 381

of 1883),

"

c.

PAGE
I

p. 595,

$51

V>iD\KYiK. Revised Statutes (Edition of 1881), 507


"
"
"
''
508

Nebraska.

Code of Civil Procedure (Edition of 1881),

Wisconsin. A'^j/j.f^^ Statutes

(Edition of 1878), 4073

48

228

51, i

p. 543.

10

134
231

229
338

228

228

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.

(ENGLISH AND IRISH REPORTS, BTC.)


A.

& E

Adolphus & Ellis's Reports.


Appeal Cases.

App. Cas
Atk

B.

&A
& Ad

rj

a.

B.

'

B.

Atkyn's Reports.

Barnewall & Alderson's Reports.


Barnewall & Adolphus's Reports.

r>

''

& C

C.

Bell's

& S

Bing. N.

Bligh, N.

B.

Bligh's

& P
N. P

Brown's Parliamentary Cases.

Buller's Nisi Prius.

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.

Buller's Nisi Prius.

BuUer, N.

C.

Cases.

House of Lords' Reports, New

Bosanquet &

Br. P.

Crown

Bingham's Reports.
Bingham's New Cases.

Bing

B.

Reports.

Best on Evidence, 6th ed.


Best & Smith's Reports.

Best,
B.

& Bingham's

Barnewall & Cresswell's Reports.


Beavan's Reports.

Beav
Bell,

Broderip

A
Ca

Cox's

Crown Cases.

Crown Cases Reserved.

New

Series.

Series.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.

Ixxiv

&F

C.

Clark & Finnelly's Reports.


Crompton, Meeson, & Roscoe's Reports.
Carrington & Marshman's Reports.

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 & Bell's Crown Cases.

Dearsly
'

_,
^
Crown Cases.

De Gex & Jones's Reports.


De Gex, Macnaghten, & Gordon's
De Gex & Smale's Reports.

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.

East's Pleas of the

& B
E. & E
Esp
Ex
E.

Ellis
Ellis

Crown.

& Blackburn's Reports.


& Ellis's Reports.

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.

Hale's Pleas of the Crown.

Hare,

Hare's Reports.

H. Bl
H. & C
H. & N
H. L. C

H. Blackstone's Reports.

Ir,

Cir.

Ir.

Eq.

Rep
Rep

Hurlstone & Coltman's Reports.


Hurlstone & Norman's Reports.
House of Lords Cases.
Irish Circuit Reports.

Irish

Equity Reports

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
& Wal
C

Jac.

Jacob & Walker's Reports.

Jebb, C.

Jebb's Criminal Cases (Ireland).

Keen

Keen's Reports, Chancery.

L.

& C

Leigh & Cave's Crown Cases.

Leach
L.

L.
L.
L.
[^.

L.
L.
L.

L.
L.
L.

L.
L,
L.
L.

L.

L.
L.

L.

Leach's

Crown

Cases.

Law Journal, Chancery.


Law Journal, Equity.
J.
Law Journal, Magistrates' Cases.
J. M. C
N. S
Law Journal, New Series.
J.
Law Journal, Queen's Bench.
J. Q. B
R. App. Cas
Law Reports, Appeal Cases.
R. Ch. Ap
Law Reports, Chancery Appeals.
R. Ch. D
Law Reports, Chancery Division.
R. C. C. R
Law Reports, Crown Cases Reserved.
R. C. P
Law Reports, Common Pleas.
R. C. P. D
Law Reports, Common Pleas Division.
R. E. & I. App... Law Reports, English & Irish Appeals.
R. Ex
Law Reports, Exchequer.
R. Ex. D
Law Reports, Exchequer Division.
R. P. & D
Law Reports, Probate & Divorce.
R. P. D
Law Reports, Probate Division.
R. Q. B
Law Reports, Queen's Bench.
R. Q. B. D
Law Reports, Queen's Bench Division.
R. Sc. Ap
Law Reports, Scotch Appeals.
Ch
Eq

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

Manning & Ryland's Reports.


McNally's Rules of Evidence.

Manning &- Granger's Reports.


Mylne & Keen's Reports.

Moody & Malkin's


Maule & Selwyn's

Reports.
Reports.

Meeson & Welsby 's Reports.


Moody's Crown Cases.
Moody & Robinson's Reports.
Moore's Privy Council Reports.
Peake's Reports.
Phillips

on Evidence, loth

Phillips' Reports.

ed.

Ixxv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.

Ixxvi

Price
P.

Q.

Price's Reports.

Probate Division.

Queen's Bench Reports.


Queen's Bench Division.

Q. B.

Rep

Coke's Reports.

R. N.
R.

Roscoe's Nisi Prius, 13th ed.


& Ryan's Crown Cases.

& R

Russell

Russ. Cri

Ryan & Moody's

Simon

Reports.
^

Sim. (N. S.)


.

/XT
Simon (N.

c-

S.)

Simon

Simon &

Reports,
^

New

Series.

Stuart's Reports.

'

^.

& Stu

S
L_
'

Nisi Prius Reports.

Selwyn's Nisi Prius.

Sim
.
Simon

Sim.

Russell on Crimes, 4th ed.

Selw. N.

Mo

&

Ry.

/-,

Russ. on Crimes

'

Smith, L.

U
C

Smith's Leading Cases, 7th ed.

Star

Starkie's Reports.

Starkie

Starkie on Evidence, 4th ed.

'!,

,.'

Swa. & Tr
S. T.

or St. Tri

T.

T.

Story on Equity Jurisprudence.

Ad

Swabey 's Admiralty Reports.


Taylor on Evidence, 6th ed.

Term

Tau

Vesey's Reports.

Abr

Wigram,
yj^.

Reports.

Taunton's Reports.

Ve
Vin.

Reports.
'^

State Trials.

Story's Eq. Jur

Swab.

Swabey
^ & Tristram's

p-

.f

Viner's Abridgment.
or

Wills' Circ.

Ev

Wigram on

Extrinsic Evidence.

Wills on Circumstantial Evidence.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.

Ixxvii

[AMERICAN REPORTS, ETC.]


(The abbreviations of the names of the several States, being well understood, are omitted.)

Abb. Dec
Abb. N. C
Abb. Pr
Abb. Pr. (N.

Abbott's Decisions, Court of Appeals, N. Y.


Abbott's

New

Cases, N. Y.

Abbott's Practice Reports, N. Y.


S.)

"

"

"

Alb. L. J

Albany Law Journal, N. Y.

Allen

Allen's Reports, Mass.

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,

Barr's Reports, Pa.

Baxt

Baxter's Reports, Tenn.

Beas

Beasley 's Chancery Reports, N.

Ben

Benedict's Reports, U. S. District Court.

Binn
Bishop, Cr.

Binney's Reports, Pa.

Bishop, Cr. Pro

Bishop, M.

J.

&

Black

Bishop on Criminal Law, 7th ed.


Bishop on Criminal Procedure, 3d ed.
Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, 6th ed.
Black's Reports, U. S. Supreme Court.

Blackf

Blackford's Reports, Ind.

Blatch

Blatchford's Reports, U. S. Circuit Court,

B.

Mon

Ben Monroe's Reports, Ky.

Bos

Bosworth's Reports, Superior Court, N. Y.

Bradw

Bradwell's Appellate Reports,

Brews
Bump's Fed. Pro
Bush

Brewster's Reports, Pa.

Cai

Caine's Reports, N. Y.

C. E. Gr

Cf

C. E. Greene's Equity Reports, N. J.


Confer, compare.

Cine

Cincinnati Reports, Ohio.

Cow

Cowen's Reports, N. Y.
Cranch's Reports, U. S. Supreme Court.

Cr

Bump

111.

on Federal Procedure.

Bush's Reports, Ky.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.

Ixxviii

Cr. C.

Cranch's U. S. Circuit Court Reports.


Court of Claims Reports, U. S.
Cushing's Reports, Mass.

Ct. of CI

Cush

Daly's Reports, Court of Common Pleas, N. Y.


Daniel on Negotiable Instruments, 3d ed.

Daly,
Daniel, Neg. Inst

Ch

Del.

Delaware Chancery Reports.

Dem
Den

Demarest's Reports, Surrogate Courts, N. Y.


Denio's Reports, N. Y.

Dill

Dillon's Reports, U. S. Circuit Court.

Disney

Disney's Reports, Superior Court, Ohio.

Duer
Dutch

Dutcher's Reports, N.

Duer's Reports, Superior Court, N. Y.

Sm

E. D.

J.

E. D. Smith's Reports, Court of

Common

Pleas,

N. Y.

Edmond's Select Cases, N. Y.

Edm. Sel. Cas


Edw. Ch

Edward's Chancery Reports, N. Y.

F.

Federal Reporter, U. S. Circuit and District Courts.


Foster's Reports, N. H.

Fost

&

G.

Gill

Gr.
Gr.

& Johnson's

Gill's

Gill

Reports, Md.

Reports, Md.

Green's (H. W.) Chancery Reports, N.


Greenleaf on Evidence.

Ch
Ev

Gratt

Grattan's Reports, Va.

Gray

Gray's Reports, Mass.

N. Y.

Hill,

Hill's Reports,

Hilt

Hilton's Reports, Court of

Houst. C.

How. Pr
How. (U.

S.)

Humphrey's Reports, Tenn.


Hun's Reports, Supreme Court, N.

& Sp

Johns. Cas

Ch .,,,....,

Pleas,

N. Y.

Y.

Jones & Spencer's Reports, Superior Court, N. Y,


Johnson's Reports, N. Y.
Johnson's Cases, N. Y.

Johns
Johns.

Common

Houston's Criminal Cases, Del.


Howard's Practice Reports, N. Y.
Howard's Reports, U. S. Supreme Court.

Humph
Hun
J.

J.

. .

Johnson'^ Chancery Reports, N. Y,

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.
Comm

Kent's

Kent's Commentaries on American Law.

Keyes' Reports, Court of Appeals, N. Y.

Keyes

Ann

La.

Louisiana Annual Reports.


Lansing's Reports, Supreme Court, N. Y.

Lans

Lea

Lea's Reports, Tenn.

Low

Lowell's Reports, U. S. District Court.

McCrary

McCrary's Reports, U. S. Circuit Court.


McLean's Reports, U. S. Circuit Court.
Mackey's Reports, District of Columbia.

McL
Mackey
Mass. Pub. St

Massachusetts Public Statutes.

Md. Ch

Maryland Chancery Reports.

Met

Metcalf's Reports, Mass.

Mo. App

Missouri Appeals Reports.

N. J. Eq
N. J. L
N. J. Rev
N. S

Code
Code

N. Y.

Civ.

New Jersey Equity Reports.


New Jersey Law Reports.
New Jersey Revision of Statutes.
New Series.
Pro. New York Code of Civil Procedure.

.New York Code of Criminal Procedure.


N. Y. Daily Reg.. ..New York Daily Register (N. Y. City).
N. Y. Pen. Code
New York Penal Code.
N. Y.

Ohio State Reports.

O. St
P.

&

Pai

Cr

Park.

Cr. Pro.

Pet

Pet. C.

Pick

Penrose & Watts' Reports, Pa.


Paige's Chancery Reports, N. Y.
Parker's Criminal Reports, N. Y.
Peters' Reports, U. S. Supreme Court.
Peters' U. S. Circuit Court Reports.
Pickering's Reports, Mass.

R. S

Revised

Redf

Redfield's Reports, Surrogate Courts, N. Y.

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

Sergeant & Rawle's Reports, Pa.


Sandford's Reports, Superior Court, N. Y.

Sandf.
Sandf.

Sandford's Chancery Reports, N. Y.

Ch

Scammon's Reports,

Scam
Sneed,
Story,

Sumn
T.

& C

111.

Sneed's Reports, Tenn.


Story's Reports, U. S. Circuit Court.
Sumner's Reports, U. S. Circuit Court.

Thompson & Cook's

Reports,

Supreme Court,

N. Y.

Tucker

Tucker's Reports, Surrogate Courts, N. Y.

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

Wallace's Reports, U. S. Supreme Court.

Wend
Wh. Cr. Ev
Wh. Ev
Whart
Wheat

J.

S. Circuit Court.

Washington's U. S. Circuit Court Reports.

Washburn on Real

Property, 4th ed.

Watts' Reports, Pa.


Wendell's Reports. N. Y.
Wharton on Criminal Evidence, 9th ed.

Wharton on Evidence.

Woods

Wharton's Reports, Pa.


Wheaton's Reports, U. S. Supreme Court.
Woods" Reports, U. S. Circuit Court.

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

and relevant to the

Facts in issue and Facts relevant to the issue

3-4

issue.

may be proved

Relevancy of Facts forming part of the same transaction as the

Facts in issue
7.

I.

Terms

4.

Acts of Conspirators

subsequent

Motive, preparation,

5.

Title

6.

Customs

explanatory

conduct,

state-

8. Statements accompanying acts, complaints, statements in


presence of a person 9. Facts necessary to explain or introduce
relevant Facts
Pages 5-23

ments

Chapter III. Occurrences similar to but unconnected with


THE Facts in issue irrelevant except in certain cases.
Art. 10. Similar but unconnected Facts 11. Acts showing intention,
good faith, etc. 12. Facts showing system 13. Existence of course
of business, when deemed to be relevant
Pages 24-37

Chapter
Art.

14.

Art.

15.

IV.

Hearsay irrelevant except

Hearsay and the contents of documents

Section

I.

certain cases.

Hearsay, when relevant.

when

Admissions defined

in

irrelevant.. Pages 38-39

Who may make

admissions on beAdmissions by agents and persons


jointly interested with parties
18. Admissions by strangers
19.
half of others,

and

16.

17.

CONTENTS.

Ixxxii

20. Admissions made


Confession caused

Admission by person referred


without prejudice

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

Statements by deceased perDying declaration as to cause


course of business or profes-

31.

29. Declarations by
Declarations as to public and
Declarations as to pedigree 32. Evidence given

Declarations against interest

testators as to contents of will

in

22.

when irrelevant in Criminal ProConfessions made upon oath, etc. 24. Confession

by inducement,

30.

former proceeding, when relevant

Section

Pages 39-79

Statemen/s in Books, DocumeiUs, and Records, when

II.

relevant.

Art. 33. Recitals of public facts in statutes and proclamations 34.


Relevancy of entry in public record made in performance of duty
35. Relevancy of statements in works of history, maps, charts, and
plans 36. Entries in bankers' books 21- Bankers not compellable
to produce their books 38. Judge's powers as to bankers' books
40. All judgments conclusive proof of their legal
39. "Judgment"
effect
41. Judgments conclusive as between parties and privies of
Facts forming ground of judgment 42. Statements in judgments
irrelevant as between strangers, except in Admiralty Cases 43. Effect of judgment not pleaded as an estoppel
44. Judgments generally deemed to be irrelevant as between strangers
45. Judgments
conclusive in favor of Judge 46. Fraud, collusion, or want of jurisPages 79-99
diction may be proved 47. Foreign judgments

Chapter
Art.

48.

V.

Opinions,

when relevant and when

Opinion generally irrelevant

49.

of science or art 50. Facts bearing

Opinion as

to handwriting,

parison of handwritings

when

relevant

54.

Opinions of experts on points

upon opinions of experts

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

Chapter VI. Character, when deemed to be relevant


and when not.
Art.

55.

Character generally irrelevant 56. Evidence of character in


Cases57. Character as affecting damages. .Pages 113-116

Criminal

CONTENTS.

PART

Ixxxiii

II.

ON PROOF.
Chapter VII. Facts proved otherwise than by Evidence.
Judicial Notice.
Art.

Of what Facts

58.

proof of such Facts


mitted

Chapter
Art.

Court takes judicial notice 59. As to


Evidence need not be given of Facts adPages 117-125

the

60.

VIII.

Of Oral Evidence.

Proof of Facts by oral evidence

61.

62.

Oral evidence must be

Page 126

direct

Chapter IX. Of Documentary Evidence Primary and


Secondary, and Attested Documents.

63. Proof of contents of Documents


64. Primary evidence
65.
Proof of documents by primary evidence 66. Proof of execution of
document required by law to be attested 67. Cases in which at-

Art.

testing witness

need not be called

denies the execution

69.

68.

Proof when attesting witness

Proof of document not required by law to

be attested 70. Secondary evidence 71. Cases in which secondary


evidence relating to documents may be given 72. Rules as to notice to produce
Pages 127-141

Chapter X. Proof of Public Documents.


Art.

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-

United States] 81. [Officially


[Proof of the statutes of any State or Territory]

eral .States admissible throughout the

printed copies]

to exemplifica-

[Documents and records of the

[Proclamations, acts of state, Legislative Journals,

[Foreign written laws, acts of

state, records, etc.]

etc.]

84.

....Pages 142-152

CONTENTS.

Ixxxiv

Chapter

XI.

Presumptions as to Documents.

Art. 85. Presumption as to date of a document 86. Presumption as to


stamp of a document 87. Presumption as to sealing and delivery of
deeds 88. Presumption as to documents thirty years old 89. Presumption as to alterations
Pages 153-160

XII.
Of the Exclusion of Oral by Documentary
Evidence, and of the Modification and Interpretation of Documentary by Oral Evidence.

Chapter

Art.

90.

Evidence of terms of contracts, grants, and other dispositions

91. What evidence


given for the interpretation of documents
92. Cases to
Pages 161-174
which articles 90 and 91 do not apply

of property reduced to a documentary form

may be

CONTENTS.

PART

Ixxxv

III.

PRODUCTION AND EFFECT OF EVIDENCE.


Chapter XIII. Burden of Proof.
Art.

He who affirms must prove 94. Presumption of innocence


On whom the general burden of proof lies 96. Burden of proof

93.

95.

as to particular Fact

97.

Burden of proving Fact

be proved to
Pages 175-182

to

make evidence admissible

Chapter XIV. On Presumptions and Estoppels.


Art.

Presumption of legitimacy

98.

99.

Presumption of death from

loi. Preseven years' absence 100. Presumption of lost grant


sumption of regularity and of deeds to complete title 102. Estoppel
104. Estoppel
by conduct
103. Estoppel of tenant and licensee
of acceptor of bill of exchange 105. Estoppel of bailee, agent, and

Pages 183-192

licensee

Chapter XV.
Art.

106.

Who may

Competency

Of the Competency of Witnesses.


testify

107.

What

witnesses are incompetent

Criminal Cases 109. [Husband and wife in


cases of adultery] no. Communications during marcivil cases,
riage
III. Judges and advocates privileged as to certain questions
112. Evidence as to affairs of state
113. Information as to commis108.

in

114. Competency of jurors 115. Professional


communications 116. Confidential communications with legal advisers 117. Clergymen and medical men 118. Production of
sion of

offences

title-

deeds of witness not a party 119. Production of documents which


another person, having possession, could refuse to produce 120.
Witness not to be compelled to criminate himself 121. Corroboration, when required
122. Number of witnesses
Pages 193-213

Chapter XVI. Of taking Oral Evidence, and of the Examination of Witnesses.

Evidence to be upon oath, except in certain cases 124. Form


of oaths by whom they may be administered 125. How oral evi-

Art.

123.

CONTENTS.

Ixxxvi

dence may be taken 126. Examination in chie'l, cross-examination,


and re-examination 127. To what matters cross-examination and
128. Leading questions
re-examination must be directed
129.

Questions lawful in cross-examination 130. Exclusion of evidence


131. Statements
to contradict answers to questions testing veracity
inconsistent with present testimony may be proved 132. Cross-

examination as to previous statements in writing 133. Impeaching


credit of witness
134. Offences against women 135. What matters
may be proved in reference to declarations relevant under Articles
25-32 136. Refreshing memory 137. Right of adverse party as to

writing used to refresh

memory 138.

Giving, as evidence, docu-

ment called for and produced on notice 139. Using, as evidence, a


document production of which was refused on notice Pages 214-240
.

Chapter XVII.
Art.

140.

Pages 241-244

1854

XVIII.

Of

Art. 143

Appendix of Notes
Index

Of Depositions.

Depositions before magistrates 141. Depositions under 30 &


c. 35, s. 6
142. Depositions under Merchant Shipping Act,

31 Vict.

Chapter

Improper Admission and Rejection of


Evidence.
Page 245
Pages 246-290

Page 291

A DIGEST
OF

THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.

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

showing inlenlion in good f


showing system.
showing course o( business

Admissions and confessions.


Statements of deceased.

Opinion.

Admittii

Declaratio
Declaratio
Declaratio

Evidence

NOTES ON EVIDENCE GREENLEAFSTEPHEN.


By Prof. Chase.

G,

18.

Under such circumstances

courts infer not an intent to murder,


but only an intent to kill, and whether it

some

be deemed murder or manslaughter


is to be determined bythejury from all the
circumstances of the case (67 N. Y., 218.)
When a wife commits a
G, 28.
felony in presence of her husband, the
shall

Bacon

115.

S, Art.

394, is a leading case

rs. Fristie, 80N.Y..


on privileged com-

munications between lawyer and client


First case cited still good
G, 291.
law ; next three are unsound, as to admitting parol evidence of oral statements

by

of intention

the testator.

An

G, I 310.

expert will meet the re-

presumption of compulsion is a disputable


A child under 14 years is presumed
one.
incapable of rape, but this presumption is

quirements of a subpoena if he appears


and gives impron^ptu answers to such
questions as may be put to him, but it

New York and Ohio.


When a person is in the
G, 34possession of the fruits of crinie, the presumption of his guilt is, in New York,

could not re(iuire him to examine the


case, nor to attend, hear and consider the
evidence given, so as to qualify him to
form an opinion. 13 Abb. Pr., N. S., 207.
Biitin Indiana it is held that an expert is
entitled to compensation for his professional opinion and may refuse to testify
without it, 59 Ind., i & 15.
Ttre ecm naTy' -hr hghJ-Trr- Al ab tt na, it

disputable in

a presumption of /ac/

for

the jury

to

decide on all the circumstances of the


case (Stover vs. People, 56 N. Y., 315.
Corroboration of an accomG, 45.
plice's testimoiiy '15 aBsoluttily iiecessaiy
to sustain a conviction in New York,
.(Code Crim. Pro., 399.)
Now that parties are comG, 102.

the

petent witnesses,

party injured,

declarations of

made some time

injury that he

is

competent as

evidence, at

not

made

after the

suffering pain, are no/

to a physician in

least

when

professional

But evidence may still be


given if groans, screams or exclamations
indicative of present pain and suffering.
attendance.

105 N. Y., 294


99 N. Y., 136.
1.
As to offers of comS, 52, N.
promise, See 102 N. Y. 66a 95 N.Y., 428
;

Art

erally,

under

23, III. (G).

but not

if

at

Still

the

good law gentime, he was

arrest for the crime, 103 N.Y., 211.

L. Rev., 589.

If it appears
to the trial
G> 367.
judge that the child does not sufficiently

understand the nature and obligation of


an oath, it is within his discretion to
])ermit

vided

it

it

to

is

be properly

instructed, pro-

of sufficient age

receive the instruction,

and

142

intellect to

Mass., 577.

Unless subscribing witnesses


are necessary lo the validity of the instrument, a writing may be proved without
calling the subscribing witness to it, in
the same way as it might be proved if it
had no such witness. (N. Y. Laws of
G, 569.

1883,

108 N. Y.. 428.


S,

Am.

c.

195.)

G, 579.

writing

may

Comparison of a disputed
made by witnesses with

be

any writing proved

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

THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.


PART

I.

RELEVANCY.
CHAPTER

I.

PRELIMINARY.
Article

i.*

definition of terms.
In

this

book the following words and expressions are used

in

the following senses, unless a different intention appears from


the context.

" Judge " includes all persons authorized to take evidence,


by law or by the consent of the parties.
" Fact " includes the fact that any mental condition of which
any person is conscious exists.
"Document" means any substance having any matter expressed or described upon it by marks capable of being read.

either

" Evidence "


(i)

means

Statements

made by

witnesses in court under a legal

sanction, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry

such statements are called oral evidence:


(2)

judge

Documents produced

for the inspection of the

such documents are called documentary evidence.


* See Note

I.

Court or


A DIGEST OF

[Part

" Conclusive Proof" means evidence upon

the production of

which, or a fact upon the proof of which, the judge

law

to

I.

is

bound by-

regard some fact as proved, and to exclude evidence in-

tended to disprove

it.^

"A

presumption" means a rule of law that Courts and


judges shall draw a particular inference from a particular fact,
or from particular evidence, unless and until the truth of such
inference

is

disproved.'

The expression "

facts in issue "

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)

All facts which,

the form of the pleadings in

action, are affirmed

with other facts proves or renders probable the past, present,


or future existence or non-existence of the other.^

here called " conclusive proof" is termed by Mr. Greenleaf


writers, a "conclusive presumption of law," while what is
here called a " presumption " is termed by them a "disputable presumpGr. Ev. i. 14-46. For illustrations of "conclusive
tion of law."
proof," seeJ>osi, Articles 40-44 of " presumptions," see Articles 85-89, 94,
1

[What

is

and some other

95, 98-101.]

Weide, 11 Wall. 438, 440; Comm. v. Abbott, 130


-v.
Comm. v. Jeffries, 7 Allen, 548, 563 Rodgers v. Stophel, 32
Pa. St. Ill Darling y. Westmoreland, 52 N. H. 401. It is to be observed
that the author uses the expression, " deemed to be relevant,'' in many
"^

[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.

OF FACTS IN ISSUE AND RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE.


Article

2.*

may

facts in issue and facts relevant to the issue


be proved.

Evidence may be given

in

any proceeding of any

fact in

issue,

and of any

any fact in issue unless it is herebe deemed to be irrelevant,


and of any fact hereinafter declared to be deemed to be relevant to the issue whether it is or is not relevant thereto.
Provided that the judge may exclude evidence of facts which,
though relevant or deemed to be relevant to the issue, appear
to him too remote to be material under all the circumstances
fact relevant to

inafter declared to

of the case.'
Illustration.
(<t)

The

is

indicted for the

following facts

murder of

may be

fact that at the

time when

knowing

from wrong

right

The

guilty.

fact that

killed

B he was prevented by

killed
2

and pleads not

B,

in issue

the fact that

A had

the

disease from

received from

B such

provocation as would reduca his offense to manslaughter.'

\Nicholson

v.

* See Note II.


Kennedy

IVa/ul, 70 N. Y. 604

White v. Graves^ 107 Mass. 325


People
254
Mansfield Coal Co. v. McEnery, 91 Pa. St. 185
;

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

State v. Hoyt, 47 Ct. 518

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

good character would be

the fact that

the fact

his

'

murdered B would be deemed not

Article

1.

time of the murder would

at a distant place at the

to the issue

[Part

deathbed declared that


be relevant.^

to

3.

relevancy of facts forming part of the same transaction as the facts in issue.

A transaction is a group of facts so connected together as to


be referred to by a single legal name, as a crime, a contract, a
wrong or any other subject of inquiry which may be in issue.
Every fact which is part of the same transaction as the facts
in issue is deemed to be relevant to the facts in issue, although
it may not be actually in issue, and although if it were not part
of the same transaction it might be excluded as hearsay.*
[Stover V. People, 56 N. Y. 315 Remsen v. People, 43 N. Y. 6 Comm.
Webster^ 5 Cush. 295 Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 195.]
^ [So a letter of C stating that he committed the murder would be
'

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.

Lander v. People, 104 111. 248 Norwich Co. v. Flint, 13


Comm. v. Densmore^ 12 Allen, 535 Elkins v. McKean, 79 Pa.
These acts or declarations so connected with the res gestcB are
St. 493.
deemed relevant, because they serve to show its nature, purpose, occa-

95 N. Y. 274

Wall. 3

sion, or object, to explain its origin or significance, to

exhibit the rela-

concerned therein, etc. Id. ; People v. Davis, 56 N.


Y. 95, 102 Eighmy v. People, 79 N. Y. 546.
But declarations which
are prior or subsequent to the transaction, so as to form no constituent
Wood v. State, 92 Ind. 269 Waterpart of it, are not admissible.
ntan v. Whitney, 11 N. Y. 157 Packet Co. v. Clough, 20 Wall. 528 Bigley
But declarations may form part of the
V. Williams, 80 Pa. St. 107.
res gestce, though made, not by parties to the action, but by bystanders.
tions of the parties
;

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

transaction as the facts in issue

is

is

not part of the

a question of law

judges have given different decisions.'

When

a question as to the ownership of land depends on the

application to

it

of a particular presumption capable of being

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.

8, and is usually deemed to embrace the cases considered


under Article 4 (" Acts of Conspirators "), Article 17 (so far as the declarations of agents and partners are concerned), Article 27 (" Declara-

of .\rticle

tions

made

course of business,"

in

etc.),

and also certain cases included

under Article 9 (see Illustration r) and Article 11 (see Illustrations,^,/,


and m). Sometimes also other cases are included under this general principle.
Gr. Ev. i. ^^ 108-123
see post, Note V. Appendix.]
[The author has added this paragraph to the text since the decision in
England in Bedingfield's case (see Illustration b). In some American decisions an attempt has been made to express adefinite rule upon the subject,
but it is stated in so vague and general a form as to be difficult of applica;

'

The general rule is that declarations, to become a


must accompany the act which they are supposed to
characterize and must so harmonize as to be obviously one transaction."
Moore v. Meachani, 10 N. Y. 207, 210 Enos v. Tuttle, 3 Ct. 250. It is
often stated that acts or declarations, to form part of the res gesta, must
be " contemporaneous" or " concomitant" with it (Gr. Ev. $ no), and
Bedingfield's case shows that this rule is applied in England very strictly.
In this country also numerous decisions are found applying the rule
strictly {Luhy v. Hudson R. Co. 17 N. Y. 131
People v. Ah Lee, 60 Cal. 85
Clexieland, etc. K. Co. v. Mara, 26 O. St. 185 Adams v. H. .V St.
J. R. Co.
74 Mo. 553 Rockiuell v. Taylor, 41 Ct. 55), while, on the other hand, many
cases hold it to be sufficient if the acts or declarations occur at or near
the time of the main transaction, if they are so closely near as to be directly occasioned or evoked by such transaction, and not by any supervening cause or motive. Insurance Co. v. Mosley, 8 Wall. 397 Hunter v.
State, 40 N.
O'Connor
J. L. 495 Hanover R. Co. v. Coyle, 55 Pa. St. 396
V. Chicago., etc., R. Co., 27 Minn. 166
Cleveland \. A'ewsom, 45 Mich. 62
McLeodv. Ginther, 80 Ky. 399 and see Lund\. Tyngsborough, 9 Gush.
36 Alabama, etc., R. Co. v. Hawk, 72 Ala. 112. The subject is fully discussed in Waldele v. A''. Y. C. R. Co., 95 N. Y. 274?]
tion.

Thus

it is

said, "

part of the res jester,

i.


A DIGEST OF
rebutted, the fact that

[Part

I.

does not apply to other neighboring

it

pieces of land similarly situated

is

deemed

to

be

relevant.'

Illustrations.

The question was, whether A murdered B by shooting him.


The fact that a witness in the room with B when he was shot, saw a
man with a gun in his hand pass a window opening into the room in
which B was shot, and thereupon exclaimed, "There's butcher !" (a
name by which A was known), was allowed to be proved by Lord Camp(a)

bell,

L. C. J.2

'

[Gr. Ev.

R.

V.

i.

^ 53 a.^

Fowkes, Leicester Spring Assizes, 1856.

Ex

relatione O'Brien,

Serjt.

Since the

last edition of this

work was published

report of this case in the Titnes for


the witnesses

on

this point

" William Fowkes

My

is

March

thus given

8,

1856,

I have referred to the


where the evidence of

the window, and opened it and


shoved the shutter back. He waited there about three minutes. It was
moonlight, the moon about the full. He closed the window but not the
shutter.
My father was returning to the sofa when I heard a crash at the
I saw his face
window. I turned to look and hooted There's butcher.
He was standing still outside.
at the window, but did not see him plain.
I could not tell his size.
I aren't able to tell who it was not certainly.
While I was hooting the gun went off. I hooted very loud. He was
It was only open about eight inches.
close to the shutter or thereabouts.
Lord Campbell : Did you see the face of the man ? Wit/icss : Yes, it was
moonlight at the time. I have a belief that it was the butcher. I believe
I heard the gun go off
I now believe it from what I then saw.
it was.
when he went away. We heard him run by the window through the
:

father got

up

'

'

garden towards the park."

Upon

cross-examination the witness said that he saw the face when he


The report adds
at the same moment.

hooted and heard the report

" 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 B's throat, or whether

cut

it

herself.

made by B when running out of the room in which her


was cut immediately after it had been cut was not allowed to be
proved by Cockburn, L. C. J.'
(c) The question was, whether A committed manslaughter on B by

statement

throat

carelessly driving over him.

A statement made by B as to the cause of his accident as soon as he


was picked up was allowed to be proved by Park, J., Gurney, B. and
I'attcson, J., though it was not a dying declaration within article 26.
{ca) [The question was whether A, a physician, committed the crime of
killing B (a woman) by the use of means to procure an abortion upon B's
,

person.

A statement made by B after returning home from A's office of what A


had done and said to her there was not allowed to be proved.] '
((7^) [The question was whether A was negligent in jumping from the
vehicle of B (a carrier of passengers) when the vehicle was apparently in
a position of imminent danger.
The acts of other passengers in jumping from the vehicle at the same
time were allowed to be proved.]
(d) The question is, whether A, the owner of one side of a river, owns
The fact
the entire bed of it or only half the bed at a particular spot.

R.

'

V.

The

Bedingficld, Suffolk Assizes, 1879 [14 C. C. C. 341].

pro-

was the subject of two pamphlets, one, by W.


Taylor, who denied, the other, by the Lord Chief Justice, who main-

priety of this decision


Pitt

tained,

it.

Massachusetts it has been held that where a person was stabbed


and said to a person who reached him within about twenty seconds after
the injury, " I'm stabbed
I'm gone
Dan Hackett stabbed me," these
words were admissible in the trial of his assailant for murder, as part of
[In

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

trine of res gestcB,

The

Law

see American

Review,

writer thinks the evidence should have

.\iv.

817, xv.

been admitted

Id. XV. 89.]


"

R.

v.

Foster, 6 C.

&

P. 325.

Davis, 56 N. Y. 95 Maine v. People, 9 Hun, 113.]


^[Twomley v, C. P. M, R, Co., 69 N. Y. 158.]

'

[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

whether a piece of land by the roadside belongs

is,

to

manor or to the owner of the adjacent land. The fact


the lord of the manor owned other parts of the slip of land by the
of the same road is deemed to be relevant.'

the lord of the


that
side

Article

4.*

acts of conspirators.

When

two or more persons conspire together

to

commit any

offence or actionable wrong, everything said, done, or written

by any one of them

common

purpose

every one, and

is

in

the execution or furtherance of their

deemed to be so said, done, or written by


deemed to be a relevant fact as against each
is

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

or in whose presence such statements are

made.^ Evidence of acts or statements deemed to be relevant


under this article may not be given until the judge is satisfied
that, apart from them, there are prima facie grounds for be-

* See Note

youes

V.

Williams, 2 M.

&

III. [also

W.

Art. 3, note],

326.

Doe V. Kemp, 7 Bing. 332 2 Bing. N.


[Dewey v. Moyer, 72 N. Y. 70 Comm.
;

C. 102.

123 Mass. 222 Nuddv.


Burrows, 91 U. S. 426 Hartmati v. Diller, 62 Pa. St. 37 Lincoln v.
It is immaterial at what time any one entered into
Clajlin, 7 Wall. 132.
3

v. Scott,

the conspiracy.

Gr. Ev.

i.

m.]

[Thus statements made by a co-conspirator as a narrative of past


acts or measures taken are not deemed to be relevant, not forming part
Guaranty Co. v.Gleason,
of the res gestcB. People v. Davis, 56 N. Y. 95
78 N. Y. 503 Heine v. Comm., 91 Pa. St. 145 State v. Larkin., 49 N. H.
Confessions made by one after the conspiracy is ended can only be
39.
received as evidence against himself and not against his associates.
Comm. v. Ingraham, 7 Gray, 46 State v. Arnold, 48 la. 566 People v.
^

Arnold, 46 Mich. 268

People

v.

Aleck, 61 Cal. 137

see Art. 21, post.]

Chap.

THE

II. J

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

lieving in the existence of the conspiracy to

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.

The fact that A made an entry on the counterfoil of his cheque-book


showing that he had shared the proceeds of the fraud with B, is deemed
not to be a relevant fact as against B.^
[b) The question is, whether A committed high treason by imagining
the king's death
the overt act charged is that he presided over an organized political agitation calculated to produce a rebellion, and directed by a central committee through local committees.
The facts that meetings were held, speeches delivered, and papers
circulated in different parts of the country, in a manner likely to produce
rebellion by, and by the direction of, persons shown to have acted in
concert with A, are deemed to be relevant facts as against A, though
he was not present at those transactions, and took no part in them per;

sonally.

An

account given by one of the conspirators in a letter to a friend, of


in the matter, not intended to further the common
object, and not brought to A's notice, is deemed not to be relevant as

his

own proceedings

against A.^

> \^Ormsby v. People,


53 N. Y. 472 the judge may in his discretion admit evidence of the acts and declarations of one alleged conspirator,
;

upon condition

that such proof of the conspiracy be supplied during the


should only be allowed in urgent cases. Place v. Minster,
65 N. Y. 89; Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 195. The existence of the
conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence as well as by showing an actual preconcerted agreement as by proving acts and declaratrial

but

this

tions indicating that the parties

were

Kcllcy

People

S. V.
V.

V.

People, 55 N. Y. 565

McKee,

3 Dill. 546;

Comm.

v.

all
v.

acting with a

common

Arnold, 46 Mich. 268

Crowtiinsliield, 10 Pick. 497;

Monroe, 47 Mich. 193.]


R. V. Blake, 6 Q. B. 137-140.
8 Ji. V, Hardy, 24 S. T. passim, but see particularly 451-3.

design.
;

see U.

Dayton

A DIGEST OF

12

Article

[Part

I.

5.*

TITLE.

When

the existence of any right of property, or of any right

over property
title

is

in question,

every fact which constitutes the

of the person claiming the right, or which shows that he,

whom he claims, was in possession of


and every fact which constitutes an exercise of
or which shows that its exercise was disputed, or

or any person through


the property,
the right,

which

inconsistent with

is

improbable,

is

deemed

to

its

existence or renders

its

existence

be relevant.'
Illustrations.

whether A has a right of fishery in a river.


An ancient inquisitio post mortem finding the existence of a right of
fishery in A's ancestors, licenses to fish granted by his ancestors, and
the fact that the licensees fished under them, are deemed to be relevant.''
[b) The question is, whether A owns land.
The fact that A's ancestors granted leases of it is deemed to be
(a)

The question

is,

relevant.
{c)

The

question

is,

whether there

is

a public right of way over A's

land.

The facts that persons were in the habit of using the way, that they
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

See Note IV.

[Hosford\. Ballard, 39 N. Y. 147 Cagger


Miller v. L. I. R. Co., 71 N. Y. 380; Boston
'

Lansing, 64 N. Y. 417
Richardsoti, 105 Mass.
Berry v. Kaddin, 11 Allen, 577
v.

v.

Gloucester v. Gaffney., 8 Allen, 11


351
Sailor v. Hertzogg, 10 Pa. St. 296. In proving facts of ancient date to
;

establish

title,

may be received which would be inadmissible as


memory of living witnesses. Bogardus v. Trinity

evidence

to facts within the

Church, 4 Sandf. Ch. 633


Goodwin
2 Rogers v. Allen, i Camp. 309.
;

v.

Jack, 62 Me. 414.]

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.

[Sec Osgood y. Coates,

Allen, 77.^

Chap.

'

LAW

THE

II.]

OF EVIDENCE.

have been used, no one had power


deemed to be relevant.

to dedicate

Article

it

13

to the public, are all

6.

CUSTOMS.

When

the existence of any custom

is in question, every fact


be relevant which shows how, in particular instances, the custom was understood and acted upon by the

deemed

is

to

parties then interested.

[a)

The

question

prevailing in the

The

Illustration.

whether, by the custom of borough-English as

is,

manor

of C,

fact that other persons,

is

heir to B.

being tenants of the manor, inherited from

same or similar relations


deemed to be relevant.^

ancestors standing in the

which

stood to B,

is

Article

to

them as

that in

7.

motive, preparation, subsequent conduct,


explanatory statements.

When

there

is

a question whether any act was done by any

person, the following facts are

deemed

to

be relevant, that

is

to say

'

Common

practice.

Derby Summer

As

Brou^h v. Lord Scarsdalc,


was shown by a series of
more than a century no one had had a legal

to the title-deeds,

Assizes, 1865.

family settlements that for

In this case

it

right to dedicate a certain footpath to the public.

Mu;gleton v. Barnett, I H. & N. 282.


For a late case of evidence of
a custom of trade, see Ex parte Powell, in re Matthews, L. R. i Ch. D.
501.
[.^s to proof of a usage of trade or business, see Dickinson v.
Poii,i;^hkeepsie, 75 N. Y. 65
Mills v. Hallock, 2 Edw. Ch. 652 Haskins
'^

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

which supplies a motive

constitutes preparation for

it

[Part
such an

for

I.

or which

act,'

'
;

any subsequent conduct of sucn person apparently influenced


in consequence of it

by the doing of the act, and any act done


by or by the authority of that person.^
Illustratiojis.

The

{a)

The

is,

whether

murdered B.
B murdered

facts that, at the instigation of A,

and

[Illustrations (a)

'

V.

question

Cotnm.

twenty -five years

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.

Alivtre, 55 Cal. 263

Roberts

v.

State, 68 Ala. 156

State

Campbell v. People, 16 III. 17) so a fortiori,


Alexander, 66 Mo. 148
if such threats are made known to the defendant (^/a^^ v. Woodson, i,x
but generally in other cases, evidence of threats is not admitted.
la. 425)
V.

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,

Comm., 105 Pa.

68 Ala. 156

St. I

Wharton

Upthegrove

State

v.

v.

Graham,

Cr. Ev. $ 68-84

see

Barnacle, 134 Mass. 215.]

Illustrations

40

O.

and quarrelsome character of the deceased

the circumstances indicate that the defendant was

v.

{c)

{d)

and

{e).

Ah Fook,

64 Cal. 380.]

v. Keteltas, 92 N. Y.
Whipple, 10 Allen, 27 ;

[See Harrington

French, 106 Mass. 326

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

are tried for the

crime.

with which the crime was

of D.

that at the time of the alleged

crime these persons were

a secret society, organized for the commission of

crirrtes

of

violence against person and property, and for the protection of one an-

and that on the night before the


murder they met together and planned its commission, are deemed to
be relevant.]*
other from detection and punishment,

(c)

The

is

accused of a crime.

facts that, either before or at the time of, or after the alleged

crime,

caused circumstances to exist tending to give to the

facts of

the case an appearance favorable to himself, or that he destroyed or

concealed things or papers, or prevented the presence or procured the


absence of persons who might have been witnesses, or suborned persons
to give false evidence, are

R.

v.

Clcwes, 4 C.

&

deemed

P. 221.

to

be relevant."

[See Sayres

v.

Comm.

88 Pa. St. 291

Comm., 78 id. 185 State v. Dickson, 78 Mo. 438.]


" [Comm. v. Ferrigan, 44 Pa. St. 386
see 105 Mass. 458 Pierson v.
People, 79 N. Y. 424
Reihartv. People, 82 N. Y. 607.]
3 [Comm. v.
Webster, 5 Cush. 295 see 97 Mass. 566.]
* R. V. Palmer
(passim). [Comm. v. Blair, 126 Mass. 40; Colt v.
People, I Park. Cr. 611
see La Beau v. People, 6 id. 371, 34 N. Y. 223.]
''[Hester \. Comm., 85 Pa. St. 139; AIcManus \. Comm., 91 id. 57.]
' R. v. Patch,
Wills' Circ. Ev. 230; R. v. Palmer, tib. sup. (passim).
[Thus the concealment of an accused person to avoid arrest may be
shown (Comm. v. ToUiver, 119 Mass. 312; Ryan v. People, 79 N. Y.
the act of writing letters to fasten the crime on others (Gardiner v.
593)
People, 6 Park. Cr. 157) or to keep a witness away from the trial (.4dams
v. People, 9 Hun, 89).
As to suborning witnesses, see Donohue\, People,
56 N. Y. 208 Murray v. Chase, 134 Mass. 92.]

McCtte

v.

A DIGEST OF

i6

[Part

I.

whether A committed a crime.


commission of the alleged crime, he absconded, or was in possession of property or the proceeds of property
acquired by the crime, or attempted to conceal things which were or
might have been used in committing it, and the manner in which he
conducted himself when statements on the subject were made in his
presence and hearing, are deemed to be relevant.'
I_ (e) The question is, whether A suffered damage in a railway accident.
The fact that A conspired with B, C, and D to suborn false witnesses
in support of his case is deemed to be relevant,''' as conduct subsequent
to a fact in issue tending to show that it had not happened.
(</)

The

The

question

facts that,

is,

after the

Article

8.*

statements accompanying acts, complaints, statements in presence of a person.


Whenever any act may be proved, statements accompanying
and explaining that act made by or to the person doing it may
be proved,

if

they are necessary to understand

it.^

* See Note V. [and Art. 3, note.]


[Thus an accused person's flight may be shown
Cummis v. People^ 42 Mich. 142 Fox v.
{Comnt. V. Annis, 15 Gray, 197
his attempted escape from jail {State v. A'fallon, 75 Mo.
People, 95 111. 71)
his advice to an accomplice to escape (People \. Rathbun, 21 Wend.
355)
509) his possession of property obtained by the crime (Stover v. People, 56
N. Y. 315 Linsday v. People, 63 N. Y. 143 Comm. v. Parmenter 101
Mass. 211 Brown v. Comnt., 76 Pa. St. 319) his acts in disposal of such
property (Foster v. People^ 63 N. Y. 619) his giving a false account of
himself when arrested (Comm. v. Goodwin, 14 Gray, 55) his conduct
People
after the crime was committed (Greenfield \. People, 85 N. Y. 75
and see Rtiloff's case, 11 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 245.]
V. Welsh^ 63 Cal. 167)
2 Moriarty v. London, Chatham and Dover Ry. Co., L. R. 5 Q. B. 314
compare Gery v. Redman, L. R. i Q. B. D. 161. \_E^an v. Bowker, 5
Lyons v. Lawrence, 12
Allen, 449 Heslop v. Heslop, 82 Pa. St. 537
Bradw. 531 so as to bribing a juror, Hastings v. Stetson, 130 Mass. 76;
Taylor v. Gilman, 60 N. H. 506 see Note 6, supra.'\
3 Illustrations (^7) \_(ab) {ac)^ and (/').
Other statements made by such
'

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

In criminal cases [of rape] the conduct of the person against

whom

the offence

been committed, and

said to have

is

made

the fact that [she]

ticular

offence to persons to

whom

in par-

a complaint soon after the

[she]

would naturally complain,


of the complaint it-

deemed to be relevant but the terms


self seem to be deemed to be irrelevant.'
are

K'nigsford v. Hood, 105 Mass. 495 Place v. Gould, 123 M*ss.


Merkel's Apjieal, 89 Pa. St. 340.]
Illustration (r).
[The form in which this rule is stated by Mr. Stephen
makes it applicable to all criminal cases (he omits the words " of rape "
and has " he" for " she " in the third and fourth lines), but the rule is
regarded in this country as one peculiar to cases of rape, and it is at
least questionable whether it applies to other crimes even under English
There appear to be only two English decisions extending the rule
law.
to other crimes than rape, and they are ho^h.tiis'i. prius cases and of slight
(This subject is fully discussed in the Am. Law Rev., xiv.
value.
i86, 190

347

'

829-838

and see Haynes

Comm. 28

v.

Gratt. 942.)

Still the

doctrine of

sometimes extended so far as


cases of rape a noticeable one.
See Driscoll

res gestce, as applied to other crimes, is

to

make

v.

the analogy to

People, 47 Mich. 413.


This rule, as applied to cases of rape,

Baccio

decisions.

State

V.

Ivins, 36

People, 41 N. Y. 265

v.

N.

L. 233

J.

is fully
;

supported by American

Higg-ins

v.

People, 58 Id. 377

State v. Richards, 33 la, 420


Thomson
Warner, 74 Mo. 83. In these cases evi;

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.

Kinney, 44 Ct. 153

necessary, by

some

Burt

v. State,

decisions, that the

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

Byrne, 47 Ct. 465 State


Mich. 262) so the delay
;

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

complainant (Gr. Ev.

Am. Law

iii.

Rev., xiv. 832

not received.

pears to regard

Hornbeck
it

if

213
she

is

Baccio

v.

People, 41 N. Y. 265, 268

incompetent to

testify the

evidence

is

But Mr. Stephen ap35 O. St. 277).


as within the doctrine of res gestce (see Note V. in Apv. State,

pendix).

The

particulars of the complaint

on cross-examinatioa.

State

v.

may be brought

Jones, 61

Mo.

232.]

out by the defendant

A DIGEST OF
When a person's conduct

is

in issue or is, or is

relevant to the issue, statements

hearing by which his conduct


are

deemed

to

be

[Part

made

in his

to be,

presence and

have been affected,

likely to

is

deemed

I.

relevant.'

Illustrations.

committed an act of bankruptcy, by


(tf) The question is, whether
departing the realm with intent to defraud his creditors.
Letters written during; his absence from the realm, indicating such an

deemed to be relevant facts.^


[The question is, whether a written paper which A destroyed was
his will, and what was his intent in destroying it.
Statements made by A at the time of destruction that the paper was
his will and giving his reasons for the act were deemed to be relevant.
But statements made after the destruction were deemed not to be
intention, are
{ab)

relevant. J3
(rtc)

[The question

is,

whether a person

is

domiciled in the town of B.

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.

Nor does "

silence give consent "

would not naturally

call for

if

the circumstances are such as

a reply or explanation.

Drury

v.

Hervey, 126

Mass. 519 Kelley v. People, 55 N. Y. 565, 571 see further Talcott v.


Harris, 93 N. Y. 567. If a reply is actually made in any case, it is admissible in evidence with the statement. Comm. v. Brown, 121 Mass. 69
;

see Art. 21, post.]


^
=

Rawson v. Haigh, 2 Bing. 99; Bateman v. Bailey, 5 T. R. 512.


[Eighmy v. People, 79 N. Y. 546 Waterman v. Whitney, 11 N.

157]

Y.

Chap.

LAW

THE

II.]

OF EVIDENCE.

19

made by him, after he had left B and was living elsewhere,


B was his home are deemed to be relevant.]'
{h) The question is, whether A was sane.
The fact that he acted upon a letter received by him is part of the facts
in issue.
The contents of the letter so acted upon are deemed to be
Statements

that

relevant, as statements

accompanying and explaining such conduct.

The question is, whether A was ravished.


The fact that, shortly after the alleged rape,
(c)

are

deemed

to

made

she

and the circumstances under which

relating to the crime,

be relevant, but not

(it

a complaint
it

was made,

seems) the terms of the complaint

itself.3

The

fact that, without

ravished,

though it
under article 26.
{d) [The question

The

making a complaint, she

said that she

had been

deemed to be relevant as conduct under this article,


might be deemed to be relevant {e.g.^ as a dying declaration
not

is

is,

whetlier

committed arson.

soon afterwards A's son said to him " What


afire for? " and that he made no reply, is deemed

fact that at the fire or

did you want to set this

be relevant. ]<

to

Article

9.

facts necessary to explain or introduce relevant


FACTS.
Facts necessary

to

be known

in issue or relevant or

'

Wilson

v.

deemed

Terry, 9 Allen, 214

a person on leaving

home

to explain or introduce a fact

to

be relevant

to the issue, or

Roberts' Will, 8 Pai. 519

so

where

states his reasons for so doing, such declara-

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.

Lincks, 8 Daly, 518

Gr. Ev.

i.

% loi.]

Tatham. 7 A. & E. 324-5 (per Denman, C. J.).


^ R. V.
Walker, 2 M. & R. 212. See Note V. [In a late English case
evidence was received of the particulars of the complaint. R. v. WooJ, 14
"

Wright

V.

Doe

d.

C. C. C. 46.]
*[_Comm, y, Brailey, 134 Mass. 527.]

A DIGEST OF

[Part

I.

which support or rebut an inference suggested by any such


fact, or which estabUsh the identity of any thing or person
whose identity is in issue or is, or is deemed to be, relevant to
the issue, or which fix the time or place at which any such fact
happened, or which show that any document produced is
genuine or otherwise, or which show the relation of the parties
by whom any such fact was transacted, or which afforded an
opportunity for its occurrence or transaction, or which are
necessary to be known in order to show the relevancy of other
facts, are deemed to be relevant in so far as they are necessary
purposes respectively.^

for those

I/lustrations.

The

{a)

question

is,

whether a writing published by

of

is

hbellous

or not.

The

position

and

relations of the parties at the time

may be deemed

published

when

was

the libel

be relevant facts as introductory

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

affected the relations

question

is,

[As to evidence of identity, see Udder zook

'

State

VVitham,

V.

Doll, 91 N. Y. 365

Cal. 625.

Pontius
166

v.

V.

v.

Comm., 76 Pa.

St.

340

of the relations of the parties, Metzger

Craig's Appeal, 77 Pa. St. 448

People

v.

v.

Dennis, 39

For other cases of relevant evidence under this article, see


People, 82 N. Y. 339, 350 Bronner v. Frauenthal, 37 N. Y.
;

White, 63 N. Y. 370, 380 Comm. v. Annis, 15 Gray, 197


Williams, 105 Mass. 62 iXorrisv. Spofford, 127 Id. 85 Wagen-

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.

Jacobs, 8 Allen, 141.]

Immers, 97 Pa.

seller v.

N.

V.

Y.

C.

Common

practice

[see

Fowler

v.

Chichester, 26 O. St. 9.]

Chap.
The

THE LAW OF EVIDENCE,

I I.J

fact that

liad

21

a reason, unconnected witli the letter, for being at


is deemed to be relevant, as rebutting the in-

that time at that jilace,

ference suggested by his presence.'

(r)

tried for a riot,

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

of the nature of the transaction.*

The

whether a deed was forged. It purports to be


and Mary, and enumerates King Philip's titles.
Tiie fact that at the alleged date of the deed, Acts of State and other
records were drawn with a different set of titles, is deemed to be rele(i/)

made

question

is,

in the reign of Philip

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

whether a gold watch, chain, and locket sold to a


which the husband should pay.
The fact that the husband wore diamonds and kept a fast horse, and
had paid for silk dresses worn by her, is deemed to be relevant.]^
(//)

is,

wife, are necessaries, for

R.

'

v.

Barnard, 19 St. Tri. 815, &c. [S. P. Prindle v. Glover^ 4 Ct.


V. Brady, 7 Gray, 320; Tracy v. McMantis, 58 N. Y. 257.]
Lord George Gordon, 21 St. Tri. 520. [See Stone v. Segtir^ 11

266; Comin.

R.

V.

Allen, 568.]

Lady

Ivy's Case, 10 St. Tri. 615.

R. V. Donellan, Wills' Circ. Ev. 192 and see my General View of


the Criminal Law,' p. 338, &c.
' Boyse v. Rosshorough, 6 H. L. C. 42-58.
[Horn v. Pullman, 72 N. Y.

'

269; Coit v. Patchcn, 77 N. Y. 533;


Pierce v. Pierce, 38 Mich. 412 pyew
;

V.

Diffenderffer^ 50

'

Md. 466; Kenyon

May
v.
v.

[Kennedy v. Ryall, 67 N. Y. 379.]


[Raynes v. Bennett^ 114 Mass. 424.]

v.

Bradlee,

127 Mass. 414;

Clarke, 80 Pa. St. 170

Ashbridge^ 35 Pa.

Griffith

St. 157.]

A DIGEST OF

22

[Part

I.

(/) [The question is, whether A was employed by B.


Conduct of A during the term of such employment, inconsistent with
the theory of such employment, is deemed to be a relevant fact.]'
(y) [The question is, whether A has survived his partner B.
Evidence that a person having the same name as B has died at the
place of B's residence, is deemed to be relevant.]^
{k) [The question is, whether A has been appropriating his employer's

property.

A has been living beyond his apparent


be relevant. ]3
(/) [The question is, whether A murdered B.
Evidence is relevant which tends to identify a body found six months
after B's disappearance as that of B by showing similarity in the color of
the hair, in the size of the body, in the appearance of the teeth, etc.
Evidence of the following facts is also deemed relevant that bloodstains were found on boards where an accomplice of A testified the body
of B had been placed that these stains were of human blood that A
had B's watch in his possession a few months after B's disappearance
that the accomplice was absent from home on the night when, as he
swore, he aided A in removing the body to another place that A was
seen on this night to ride in the direction of this place.]'
(m) [The question is, whether A, a physician, has been guilty of malpractice and neglect.
The fact that A has not presented any bill or asked any pay for his
services is deemed not to be relevant.]^
() [The question is, whether a credit for goods sold was given to the
The
means

fact that for several years


is

deemed

to

defendant or his son.


Evidence that the son had no property at the time of the sale and was
entirely irresponsible, is deemed not to be relevant.]"
(o) [The question is, whether an executor is liable to pay a note of
long standing, signed by his testator.
Evidence that the testator was in the habit of paying his debts

[Miller v. Irish, 63 N. Y. 652.]


[Daby v. Ericsson, 45 N. Y. 786 ]
3 [Hacked V. ICing, 8 Allen, 144.]
* [Linsdtiy v. People, 63 N. Y. 143
see Murphy v. People, 63 N. Y.
Comm. v. Dorsey, 103 Mass.
Greenfield v. People, 85 N. Y. 75
590
1

412.]
6

[Bairdv.

'

[Green

207.]

v.

Gillett, 47 N. Y. 186.]
Disbrow, 56 N. Y. 334

but see Moore

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,

mother, or other blood relation


be relevant.] <

fact that his father,


is

deemed

to

is

or has been

[Abercrombie v. Sheldon, 8 Allen, S32.]


Youn V. Makepeace, 103 Mass. 50 Jones v. yones, 45 Md. 144
EMy v. Gray, 4 Allen, 435 cf. People v. Carney, 29 Hun, 47 but see
Paulk v. State, 52 Ala. 427.]
[Gilmanton v. Ham, 38 N. H. 108 Finnegan v. Dugan, 14 Allen,
'

^ [

''

197

contra, Reitz

\_State V.

v. State,

33 Ind. 187

Hoyt, 47 Ct. 518

Walsk

v.

State

v.

Danforth, 48

People^ 88 N. Y. 458.]

la. 43.]

A DIGEST OF

24

CHAPTER

[Part

I.

III.

OCCURRENCES SIMILAR TO BUT UNCONNECTED


WITH THE FACTS IN ISSUE, IRRELEVANT EXCEPT
IN CERTAIN CASES.
Article

io.*

similar but unconnected facts.

FACT which renders

fact in issue

the existence or non-existence of

probable by reason of

its

any

general resemblance

and not by reason of its being connected therewith,


any of the ways specified in articles 3-9 both inclusive,
deemed not to be relevant to such fact except in the cases

thereto,
in
is

specially excepted in this chapter.'


Illustrations.
(a) The question is, whether A committed a crime.
The fact that he formerly committed another crime

and had a tendency

commit such crimes,

to

* See Note
'

[But where the question

is

is

same

of the

sort,

irrelevant.^

VL

as to the cause of a certain occurrence,

the fact that similar occurrences have, under like conditions, been pro-

duced by a particular cause

is

deemed

to

ited,

by showing

that

under

like conditions

So

be relevant.

of an act, as prudent or negligent, safe or dangerous,


it

etc.,

the quality

may be

exhib-

has produced similar favor-

able or injurious results, as in the case in question (see illustrations k to


}/i).

This rule

is

analogous

But

if

evidence

is

to that stated in Article 12, post.

the conditions are not substantially the

same

in all cases, the

Morse v. Minii. etc. R. Co., 30 Minn. 465 Hunt v. Loi.uell


Gas Co., 8 Allen, 169; Emerson v. Lowell Gas Co., 3 id. 410 Grijin v.
Auburn, 58 N. H. 121 Hodgkins v. Chappell, 128 Mass. 197.]
2 R. v. Cole.
I Phi. Ev. 508 (said to have been decided by all the
Judges in Mich. Term, 1810). \People y. Qibbs, 93 N. Y. 470 Coleman
not relevant.

Chap.

The

(fi)

THE

III.]

publican.
licans, is

25

whether A, a brewer, sold good beer to B, a


A sold good beer to C, D, and E, other pubirrelevant' (unless it is shown that the beer sold to all is of the
question

The

is,

fact that

same brewing).
(f) [The question
him to be an officer

The

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

is,

whether A, having killed a person

at night,

knew

of the law.

was a lighted street-lamp near by is relevant, as


could see the official uniform. But to prove the
amount of light cast by the lamp on this night, evidence showing the
amount of light cast by the same lamp on a night four months afterwards is irrelevant (the conditions not being shown to be the same).]^
((/) [The question is, whether A has a right to travel on a railroad
fact that there

tending to show that

payment of

ticket after the time limited therein for its use, without the
fare.

The

fact

used them

that

irrelevant.]

is

(e)

he has

other times purchased similar tickets and

at

after the time specified, without

being required

to

pay

fare,

[The question

is,

what

is

the value of a certain vessel.

55 N. Y. 81, 90; Jordan v. Osgood, 109 Mass. 457 Shaffner v.


Comm., 72 Pa. St. 60. But the commission of another crime may be
shown, if it supplies a motive or constitutes preparation for the commission of the one in question (Pierson v. People, 79 N. Y. 424
Comm. v,
Choate, 105 Mass. 451, 458
Hope v. People, 83 N. Y. 418 see Art. 7,
supra) or if it tends to prove any fact constituting an element of the
crime charged ( Weed v. People, 56 N. Y. 628) or if the different crimes
form parts of one general scheme or transaction and exhibit the same
general purpose (Comm. v. Campbell, 7 Allen, 541
Comm. v. Scott, 123
Mass. 222; Hope v. People, supra; Brown v. Comm., 76 Pa. St. 319;
Kramer v. Cotnm. 87 id. 299 Jackson v. State, 38 O. St. 585 People v.
Mead, 50 Mich. 228 Gassen-Lernier v. State, 52 Ala. 313) and in other
V. People,

Comm. v. Jackson, 132 Mass. 16, 19; Goersenv. Comm.,


Thus former attempts to commit the same crime may
be proved to show criminal intent, the identity of the actor, etc. Comm.
V. Bradford, 126 Mass. 42
State v. Nugent, 71 Mo. 136.
These latter
cases fall properly under Arts. 11 and 12, post.'\
Holcomhe v. He^uson, 2 Camp. 391.
^ See Illustrations to article
3.
like cases (see

99 Pa. St. 388).

'

= [

Yates

V.

People, 32 N. Y. 509

see 72 N. Y. 610

8 Abb. Dec. 121.]


*

[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.

Evidence that he was negligent on previous occasions is irrelevant


but if the question were whether the master was negligent in retaining
in his employ a careless and incompetent servant, evidence of the servant's prior acts of negligence to the master's knowledge, would be relevant. ]2
(j)

[The question

how much hay was

is,

eaten by a horse, not in

ordinary condition, in eight weeks.

Evidence as
is

to the

amount of hay eaten by an ordinary horse

in a

week

irrelevant.]'

[The question is, whether A, having been injured by slipping and


upon a sidewalk, can recover damages from the city for its neglect
to keep the walk in a safe condition.
The fact that other persons slipped and fell upon the same walk,
while its condition remained the same as when A fell, is relevant to
show that it was unsafe for use at the time of his fall.]^
(i) [The question is, whether the act or structure of A which frightened B's horse, was one which was calculated to render the use of the
highway with horses dangerous.
Evidence that other horses of ordinary steadiness were frightened by
(h)

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.

Hescox, 107 Mass. 410

Kelliker

of.

v.

Miller, 97 Mass.

71.]

Armes, 107 U. S. 519


Quintan v. Utica, 11 Hun,
Aurora v. Brown, 12 Bradw. 122 Calkins v. HartlVo(iley v. Grand St. R.
ford, 33 Ct. 57 cf. Kent v. Lincoln, 32 Vt. 591
But some cases are to the contrary. See Collins v,
Co., 83 N. Y. 121.
Dorchester, 6 Cush. 396 B^Hfr y, Indianapolis, 99 Ind. 56.]
*

[Dist. of Col. V.

217, 74

N. Y. 603

Chap.
the

THE

III.]

same

stances,

LAW OF

EVIDENCE.

27

same kind under

act or structure, or one of the

like

circum-

relevant.]'

is

{/) [The question is, whether a loom-attachment will work successfully


on a certain loom.
The fact that it works successfully on another loom of substantially the

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

she has been frequently towed in safety with as heavy or

fact that

heavier loads and at as high a rate of speed

'

[Crocker

McGregor^ 76 Me. 282;

v.

N. H. 396 House
N. H. 187.]
;

[Bricrly

v.

v.

Metcalf, 27 Ct. 631

is

deemed

to

be relevant, as

Gordon v. B. St' Af. R.


Lewis v. Eastern R.

cf.

Co.,

Co.,

58
60

Miles, 128 Mass. 291.]

Crisi v. Erie R. Co., 58


Y. C. R. Co., 32 N. Y. 339;
Pa. R. Co. v.
N. Y. 638 G. T. R. Co. v. Richardson, 91 U. S. 454
Stranahan, 79 Pa. St. 405; Boyce v. Cheshire R. Co., 43 N. H. 627;
Slossen v. Railroad Co. 60 la. 215
see Atchison etc. R. Co. v. Stanford,
12 Kan. 354; Loringw. Worcester etc. R. Co., 131 Mass. 469; Albert v.
Nor. Central R. Co., 98 Pa. St. 316. In some of these cases it is also said
that evidence of this kind may show a habit of negligence in running the
3

[Field

y. jV.

The

trains.

New York
*

last

sentence of the Illustration states a rule declared by the

cases.]

[Faucett v. Nicholls, 64 N. Y. 377


Mead v. Husted, 49 Ct. 336.]

C. 580

see Landell

v,

Hotchkiss,

T.

&

A DIGEST OF

28

tending to show that negligence

in

[PART

I.

towing must have caused the disaster.

The fact that she has repeatedly foundered while being carefully towed
is deemed to be relevant, as indicating that her own improper condition
must have occasioned the

loss.]'

Article

ii.*

ACTS SHOWING INTENTION, GOOD FAITH, ETC.

When

there

is

a question whether a person said or did some-

something of the same sort


on a different occasion may be proved, if it shows the existence
on the occasion in question of any intention, knowledge, good
or bad faith, malice, or other state of mind, or of any state of
body or bodily feeling, the existence of which is in issue or is
but such acts or words
deemed to be relevant to the issue
may not be proved merely in order to show that the person so
acting or speaking was likely on the occasion in question to act
in a similar manner.^
thing, the fact that he said or did

"^

[Baird

v.

* See Note VI.


see Weldon

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.

proceeding taken against him.


case of such proceedings as aforesaid, evidence has been
given that the stolen property has been found in the possession of the
person proceeded against, the fact that such person has within five years

ject of the
If,

in the

Chap.

THE

III.]

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

29

Illustrations.

charged with receiving two pieces of silk from B, knowing them


to have been stolen by him from C.
The facts that A received from B many other articles stolen by him from
C in the course of several months, and that A pledged all of them, are
deemed to be relevant to the fact that A knew that the two pieces of silk
were stolen by B from
{b) A is charged with uttering, on the 12th December, 1854, a counterfeit crown piece, knowing it to be counterfeit.
The facts that A uttered another counterfeit crown piece on the nth
December, 1854, and a counterfeit shilling on the 4th January, 1855, are
deemed to be relevant to show A's knowledge that the crown piece
uttered on the 12th was counterfeit.
(f) A is charged with attempting to obtain money by false pretences, by
trying to pledge to B a worthless ring as a diamond ring.
The facts that two days before, A tried, on two separate occasions, to
obtain money from C and D respectively, by a similar assertion as to the
same or a similar ring, and that on another occasion on the same day he
obtained a sum of money from E by pledging as a gold chain a chain
which was only gilt, are deemed to be relevant, as showing his knowledge
(a)

is

of the quality of the ring.^

immediately preceding been convicted of any offence involving fraud or


dishonesty, is deemed to be relevant for the purpose of proving that the
person accused knew the property which was proved to be in his possession to have been stolen, and may be proved at any stage of the proceedings provided that not less than seven days' notice in writing has been
given to the person accused that proof is intended to be given of such
;

This enactment, he says, overrules R. v. Oddy, 2


Den. C. C. 264, and practically supersedes H. v. Dunn, i Moo. C. C. 150,
and R. v. Davis, 6 C. & P. 177. In this country such cases are governed
by the general common law rule. See Illustrations and cases cited.].
Dunn's Case, I Moo. C. C. 146. [S. P. Copperman v. People, 56 N. Y.
Coleman v. People, 58 N. Y. 555 State v. Ward, 49 Ct. 429 Kilrow
591
previous conviction."

'

Cotnm. 89 Pa. St. 480

V.

Shriedly

v. State,

23 O. St. 130 see Co?nm. v.


received property on other
;

Jenkins, 10 Gray, 485 but the fact that A


occasions from other persons than B, knowing
;

it to have been stolen, is


Coleman v. People, 55 N. Y. 81.]
" R. v. Forster, Dear. 456
and see R. v. Weeks, L. & C. 18
fsee
Comm. V. Bi^elow, 8 Met. 235 Cofnm. v. Price, lo Gray, 472 Stalker v.
State, 9 Ct. 341
People v. Dibble, 3 Abb. Dec. 518.]

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.

A is charged with obtaining money from B by falsely pretending


Z had authorized him to do so.
The fact that on a different occasion A obtained money from C by a
similar false pretence is deemed to be irrelevant,' as A's knowledge that
he had no authority from Z on the second occasion had no connection
with his knowledge that he had no authority from Z on the first occasion.
(r) A sues B for damage done by a dog of B's, which B knew to be
((/)

that

ferocious.

The facts that the dog had previously bitten X, Y, and


had made complaints to B, are deemed to be relevant.
(/) The question is, whether A, the acceptor of a
knew that the name of the payee was fictitious.
The fact that A had accepted other bills drawn in

Z,

bill

the

and

that they

of exchange,

same manner

before they could have been transmitted to him by the payee,

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.

for ten years before those in respect of

deemed

be relevant

to

Q. B. D. ^C. C. R.)

stronger.

[S. P.

Mayer

19, is

v.

to

which the action

is

show malice.*

similar to R.

People, 80 N. Y. 364;

v.

Francis, and perhaps

Comm.

v.

Coe, 115

Mass.

Evidence of this kind is also


relevant in civil actions to prove guilty knowledge or fraudulent purpose.
Hill v. Naylor, 18 N. Y. 588
Miller v. Barber, 66 N. Y. 558
Lincoln
Hovey v. Grant, 52 N. H. 569
V. Claflin^ 7 Wall. 132
Waters' Heater
Co. v. Smith, 120 Mass. 444.]
R. V. Holt, Bell, C. C. 280 and see R. v. Francis, ub. sup. p. 130 \Comm,
but see People v. Shulman, 80 N. Y. 373
V. yackso7i, 132 Mass. 16
2 See cases collected in Roscoe's Nisi Prius, 739.
[See Godeau v.
Blood, 52 Vt. 251
Green etc. R. Co. v. Bresner, 97 Pa. St. 103; Rider v,
VVkite, 65 N. Y. 54
Midler v. McKesson, 7^ N. Y. 195.]

4S1

see People

v.

Henssler, 48 Mich. 50.

'

Hunter, 2 H Bl. 288.


* Barrett v. Long, 3 H. L. C.
[Evening yournal Ass^n. v.
395, 414.
McDermott, 44 N. J. L. 430 State v. Riggs, 39 Ct. 498. It is generally
held that the charges proved to show malice must be substantially simi3

Gibson

v.

lar to the
V.

one

in question.

Barnes, 39 Mich. 211

Sexton, 4 N. Y. 157.

In

136 Mass. 441, 448 Brown


Austin, 42 Vt. 576; Howard v.
States they may be proved though made

Comm.

v.

Cavatiaugh

some

Damon,

v.

brought {Chamberlain v. Vance, 51 Cal. 75 Knapp v. Smith,


55 Vt. 311), but not in others. Distin v. Rose, 69 N. Y. 122 Daly v.
Byrne, "ji N. Y. 182. Sometimes also they are received to enhance the
after suit

Chap.

THE

III.J

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

31

[The question is whether A committed adultery with B.


that on other occasions, not too remote, these persons had
committed adultery is deemed to be relevant, to show the existence of an
adulterous disposition but not to show the commission of the particular
(ga)

The

fact

act in question.]'

(//)

The
to A's

sued by

is

whereby

B, being

for fraudulently representing to

induced

fact that, at the

the representation in

is

sued by

who was

that

C was solvent,

insolvent, suffered loss.

A represented C to be solvent, C was


be solvent by his neighbors and by perdeemed to be relevant, as showing that A made

time when

knowledge supposed

sons dealing with him,

(/')

to trust C,

is

good

to

faith.

for the price of

a contractor, upon a house, of which

work done by B, by the order of C,

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

that B's contract

damages {Leonard

\.

Pope,

2.7

Mich. 145), but not in most States {Meyer


v. Morton, 21 O. St. 536); and so there

44 Ind. 238 see A/pin.


are other differences of doctrine.]
v.

Ilolitjini^,

'

\^Comm.

V.

A'iehols,

114 Mass. 285

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.

Sherwood \. Titman, 55 Pa. St. 77 Slate


202; State v. Alar kins, 95 Ind. 464 Conway v. Nicol,

atate V. Williams, 76 Me. 480;

&

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

seducer of A's wife.

The

fact that A's wife

wrote affectionate letters to

A before the adultery

was committed, is deemed to be relevant, as showing the terms on which


they lived and the damage which A sustained.'
(/) The question is, whether A's death was caused by poison.
Statements made by A before his illness as to his state of health, and
during his illness as to his symptoms, are deemed to be relevant facts.
(/) The question is, what was the state of A's health at the time when
an insurance on her life was effected by B.
Statements made by A as to the state of her health at or near the time

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,

Crook, 7 Gray, 418

&

B.

A. 90.

[Gr.

Ev.

i.

v.

Palmer

v.

Barb. 283 Preston v.


624; White V. Ross, 47 Mich. 172.]
^ R. V. Palmer.
See my Gen. View of Grim. Law,'
;

102

Lovejoy, 49 Mich. 529 Harter v. Crill, 33


Bowers, 13 O. St. i see Dance v. McBride, 43 la.

Perry

'

dence of Dr. Savage and Mr. Stephens).

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;

but some decisions allow wider scope to the testimony of physicians.


Roosa v. Boston Loan Co., 132 Mass. 439. Declarations of this kind have
been excluded when made post litefn motatn. Grand Rapids, etc. Co. v.
Huntley, 38 Mich. 537.
The witness cannot be asked what the outcries of the injured person inMcssner v. People, 45 N. Y. i
dicated, as this is a question for the jury.
sons

see Art.

note.]

3,

Lord Kinnaird, 6 Ea. 188. [See Swift v. Life Ins. Co., 63


Edington v. Life Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 185 Dilleber v. Life Ln.
Co., 69 N. Y. 256.
By these New York cases the statements of the
assured, if made at a time prior to, and not remote from the application,
3

Aveson

N. Y. 186

v.

are

deemed

also

Barber

show his knoiuledge of his physical condition. See


Merriam, 11 Allen, 322 Fay v. Harlan, 128 Mass. 244, and
cases cited under last Illustration.]
relevant to

v.

Chap.
The

LAW

THE

III.]

fact that the

OF EVIDENCE.

blockade was notified

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

serve to rebut charges of

deemed

not to be relevant.]-

Article

12.*

FACTS SHOWING SYSTEM.

When

there

is

a question whether an act was accidental or

formed part of a

intentional, the fact that such act

series

of

similar occurrences, in each of which the person doing the act

was concerned,

is

deemed

>

Harrat

v.

Wise, 9 B.

&

to

be relevant.^

See Note VI.

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.

Winslow, 132 Mass. 307; see Converse v. Wales, 4 Allen, 512.]


3 \State V. Lapage,
57 N. H. 245, 294 People v. Shiilman, 80 N. Y.
373 Comfn. v. Bradford, 126 Mass. 42 Goer sen v. Comm., 99 Pa. St. 388;
Hope V. People, 83 N. Y. 418 see Co7ntn. v. Choate, 105 Mass. 451 Swan
v. Comm., 104 Pa. St. 218
Dayton v. Monroe, 47 Mich. 193 and p. 24,
;

ante, notes

So a

and

2.

party's system or course of business

may be proved to show


whether he has exercised due diligence on a particular occasion [Holly v.
Boston Gas Co., 8 Gray, 123; Fuller v. Navgatuck K. Co., 21 Ct.
557)
;

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,

and the usual practice of others in the same business or employment


under like circumstances may be shown, to indicate whether ordinary
care has been used in a special instance. Maynard v. Buck, loo Mass.
L. K. Co., 14 Allen, 448 K'olstl v. M. &= St. L. R. Co.,
40 Cass V. B.
Cook v. Champlaiii, etc. Co., i Den. 91
but see G. T. R.
32 Minn. 133
Co. V. Richardson, 91 U. S. 454; Chicago.^ etc., R. Co. v. Clark, 108 111. 113.
With the cases under this article may be compared those in which a
system of conduct or action, as shown by a series of similar acts, is proved,
in order to establish the habit of a person or animal, the character of a
house, etc.
See Harwood v. People, 26 N. Y. 190
Baiilec v. N. Y. etc.
R. Co. 59 N. Y. 356. Thus the vicious habit of a horse for shying, balking,
etc. may be shown by proving cases of like misbehavior, both before and
Maggi v. Cutis, 123 Mass. 535 Chamberlain
after the act in question.
V. Enfield, 43 N. H. 356
cf Whitney v. Leominster, 136 Mass. 25. And it
is suggested that evidence of repeated acts of drunkenness may, in the
discretion of the Court, be admitted, to prove habitual drunkenness.
Comm. v. Ryan, 134 Mass. 223. In New Hampshire, evidence of prior
acts of negligence of the same kind by a person is received, as tending
to show his negligence on a particular occasion {State v. Railroad Co., 52
N. H. 528, but the doctrine is not there extended to proof of a crime or
other act involving wrongful intent by other like crimes or acts, id. 550,
State V. Lapage, supra)
but in most States this doctrine is generally
denied. (See Art. 10, Illustrations (/") and {k)\ Robinson v. F. &> W. R.
Co., 7 Gray, 92.)
So in that State, on the question at what speed an
engineer drove a railway train at a certain time and place, evidence of
the speed at which he drove the same train at the same place on other
days may be admitted. State v. B. &= M. R. Co., 58 N. H. 410; S. P.
Hallv. Brown, id. 93. But it is elsewhere held t at to prove care on a
particular occasion, the party's habit of being careful cannot be shown
{McDonalds. Savoy, no Mass. 49 but see Dorman v. Kane, 5 Allen, 38
Chicago, etc. R. Co. \. Clark, 108 111. 113); nor can the fact of gambling on
a certain occasion, when intoxicated, be proved by showing a habit so to
do {Thompson v. Bowie, 4 Wall. 463 cf McMahon v. Harrison, 6 N. Y.
443), nor the taking of usury on one occasion by showing prior acts of
taking usury, (Ross v. Ackerman, 46 N. Y. 210), nor a habit of lying by lies
told on other occasions.
Comm. v. h'ennon^ 130 Mass. 39.]

&

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

ance office, are deemed


were not accidental.'

LAW
to

employed

to pay the wages of B's laborers, and it is A's duty


book showing the amounts paid by him. He makes
an entry showing that on a particular occasion he paid more than he
[J>)

is

make

to

entries in a

really did pay.

The
The

question

is,

whether

tries in the

this false

entry was accidental or intentional.

a period of two years

fact that for

same book,

A made

other similar false en-

the false entry being in each case in favor of A,

deemed to be relevant.'-'
(<-) The question is, whether

the administration of poison to A,

by

is

Z,

September, 1848, was accidental or intentional.


The facts that B, C, and D (A's three sons), had the same poison administered to them in December, 1848, March, 1849, and April, 1849, and
that the meals of all four were prepared by Z, are deemed to be relevant,
though Z was indicted separately for murdering A, B, and C, and attempting to murder D.^
((/) A promises to lend money to B on the security of a policy of insurance which B agrees to effect in an insurance company of his choosing.
B pays the first premium to the company, but A refuses to lend the
money except upon terms which he intends B to reject, and which B rehis wife, in

jects accordingly.

The

and the insurance company have been engaged in


is deemed to be relevant to the question whether tlie
receipt of the money by the company was fraudulent.*
fact

that

similar transactions

Article

13.*

existence of course of business,


relevant.

When

there

is

when deemed to

be

a question whether a particular act was

done, the existence of any course of

office or

business accord-

* See Note VIL


^

'^

R.

v.

R.

v.

Gray^ 4 F. & F. 1102.


Richardson, 2 F. & F. 343

[see

Funk

v.

Ely, 45 Pa. St. 444

for

a case of forgery, see Rankin v. Blackwell, 2 Johns. Cas. 198.]


3 ^. v. Geering, 18 L.
M. C. 215 cf. R. v. Garner, 3 F. & F. 681
J.
[see Goersen v. Comm., 99 Pa. St. 388
Weynian v. People, 4 Hun, 511,
518, 62 N. Y. 623.]
;

Blake

V.

Albion Life Assurance Society, L. R. 4 C. P. D.

94.

A DIGEST OF

36

ing to which

[Part

naturally would have been done,

it

is

I.

a relevant

fact.'

When

there

a question whether a particular person held

is

a particular public office, the fact that he acted in that office

deemed

to

be

is

relevant.''

When the question is whether one person acted as agent for


another on a particular occasion, the fact that he so acted on
other occasions

deemed

is

to

be relevant.'

Illustrations.
(a)

The question

is,

whether a

letter

was sent on a given day.

The post-mark upon it is deemed to be a relevant fact.''


[b) The question is, whether a particular letter was despatched.
The facts that all letters put in a certain place were, in the common
course of business, carried to the post, and that that particular letter was

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

in that place, are

(r)

relevant.'

[Gr. Ev.

V.

Oyer and

Mandeville v. Reynolds, 68 N. Y. 528 People


i.
38, 40
Ter?ni?ier Court^ 83 N. Y. 436 Pier son v. Atlantic Bk. 77 N.
;

Y. 304 Bk. of U. S. v. Dandrid^e, 12 Wheat. 64


108 Mass. 473
Hall v. Brown, 58 N. H. 93.]
;

Comm.

v.

Kimball,

Ph. Ev. 449

2 I

R. N. P. 46

T. E.

s.

139

[see Art. 90, post, last para-

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.]
;

Canning, 19 S. T. 370. [C/. S. v. Williatns, 3 F. R. 484; U.


Noelke, 17 Blatch. 554. But there is no presumption that the
date of the postmark was the day of depositing the letter. Shelburtie
'^R. V.

S.

v.

Falls Bk. v. Townsley, 102 Mass. 177; see Price

N. C. 69.]
6 Hetherington
846,

and Trotter

v.

Kemp, 4Camp. 193

v.

Daly, 61 N. Y. 362

v.

McGoldrick, 2 Abb.

and see Skilbeck

Maclea?i, L. R. 13 Ch. Div. 574


Hall v. Brorvn, 58 N. H. 93, 97.]

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)

THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.

III.j

The

2,7

facts stated in illustration {d) to the last article are

be relevant

to the question

Prius, pp. 734-5.

[^Hcdden

whether

v.

A was

deemed

to

agent to the company.

Roberts, 134 Mass. 38

Rosenthal

v.

Walker,

Eq. 258. This is only


prima facie evidence that the letter was received, not a conclusive preIII U. S. 185

cf.

Ellison

v.

sumption of law.
Huntley
Ins. Co. V. Toy Co., 97 Pa.

The same
'

Blake

Liudsley, 33

v.

IVhittier, 105

St. 424

rule applies to telegrams.

v.

N.

Albion Life Assurance

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.

HEARSA V IRRELEVANT EXCEPT IN CERTAIN CASES.


Article

14.*

hearsay and the contents of documents irrelevant,


{a)

The

was made by a person not called

fact that a statement

as a witness,

and

(b) the fact that a statement is contained or recorded in any


book, document, or record whatever, proof of which is not admissible on other grounds,

are respectively

deemed

be irrelevant

to

matter stated, except (as regards


the

in the

to the

truth of the

cases contained

in

'

section of this chapter

first

(a)

and except (as regards {U))


second section of this chapter.

the cases contained in the

in

Illustrations,
{a)

forged

declaration by a deceased attesting witness to a deed that he had


is

it,

deemed

be irrelevant

to

to the question of its validity.^

* See Note

VOL

important to observe the distinction between the principles which


regulate the admissibility of the statements contained in a document and
those which regulate the manner in which they must be proved. On this
'

It is

subject see the whole of Part

evidence

is

Beach, 87 N. Y. 508
132
2

id. 22.

[As to the general rule that hearsay

II.

excluded, see Stephens


;

Comm.

v.

v.

Vrooman, i6 N. Y. 381

Picker, 131 Mass. 581

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,

fact that a public

body

born at that time and place

was born

for a public

is

deemed

39

at a certain time and place.


purpose stated that he was

be irrelevant, the circumstances

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

a statement, oral or written, suggesting any

deemed

inference as to any fact in issue or relevant or


relevant to any such fact,

made by

to

be

or on behalf of any party

Every admission is (subject to the rules


to be a relevant fact as against the
person by or on whose behalf it is made, but not in his favor
any proceeding.

to

hereinafter stated)

unless

it is,

or

is

deemed

deemed

to be, relevant for

* See Note
'

Sturla

V.

some other

reason.^

IX.

Freccia, L. R. 5 App. Cas. 623.

an important rule that if part of a statement made by a party be


him as an admission, other parts of the same statement
which in any way qualify or explain such admission are also relevant,
though they are in such party's favor. Gr. Ev. i. ^ 201 Grattan v. Ins.
Co., 92 N. Y. 274; Gilderslcevc v. Landoti, 73 N. Y. 609
Insurance Co. v.
Newton, 22 Wall. 32 Vanneter v. Crosstnan, 42 Mich. 465 Farley v. Rodocanachi, 100 Mass. 427.
But other portions of the same conversation or
statement, which do not explain or affect the part which is unfavorable
to the declarant, are not admissible {Plainer v. Plainer, 78 N. Y. 90), nor
are independent declarations which are made by him and are in his own
favor.
Doivns v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 47 N. Y. 83. But a party giving evidence of the opposing party's admissions may also disprove those parts
of the same statement which are in the other party's favor, but are nevertheless receivable in evidence.
Moit v. Consumers' Ice Co., 73 N. Y.
2

[It is

relevant against

543-

Oral admissions may be proved by any witness who heard them if he


cannot remember the exact words, he may testify to the substance of the
admission.
Gr. Ev. i. $ 191 Kitiredge v. Russell, 114 Mass. 67,
;


A DIGEST OF

40

Article

who may make

[Part

I.

i6.*

admissions on behalf of others,

AND WHEN.
Admissions

may be made on

behalf of the real party to any

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
;

admissible against him.


Jackson, 12 Gray, 565.

deemed an admission

Fairchildv. Fairchild, 64 N. Y. 471


Topliff v.
failure to answer a letter is not generally
;

But

of the truth of

its

contents.

Learned

Tillotson,

v.

97 N. Y. I. As to other admissions by acquiescence, see Art.


last paragraph.

8,

ante,

Admissions made incidentally or indirectly are competent evidence as


made directly. Gr. Ev. i. ^ 194 Harrington v. Gable, 81
Pa. St. 406.
Admissions may also be made in pleading, or in evidence
given in a former proceeding.
Cook v. Barr, 44 N. Y. 156 Bliss v.
Nichols, 12 Allen, 443; Comm. v. Reynolds, 122 Mass. 454; Wheat v.
Summers, 13 Bradw. 444 Whiton v. Snyder, 88 N. Y. 299 see this rule
limited in Dennie v. Williains, 135 Mass. 28
Vogel v. Osborite, 32 Minn.
Admissions made simply for one trial cannot be used in another
167.
[McKinney v. Salem, jj Ind. 213), but the rule is otherwise, if they are
made without such limitation. Holley v. Yoimg, 68 Me. 215 Owen v.
Cawley, 36 N. Y. 600 Perry v. Simpson etc. Co., 40 Ct. 313
Oral admissions, though competent as evidence, must be received, it
is said, with great caution.
Gr. Ev. i. 199, 200 Jones v. K'nanss, 31
But admissions are conclusive when they amount to
N. J. Eq. 609.
estoppels (Gr. Ev. i. i^S^ 204-208)
and admissions made in pleading and
not obviated by amendment, are conclusive in the same case.
Cook v.
Barr, supra.]
well as those

THE

Chap. IV.J

LAW OF

EVIDENCE.

By any nominal party to that proceeding ;'


By any person who, though not a party to
has a substantial interest

event

in the

41

the proceeding,

;*

By any one who


any party

to the

is privy in law,' in blood/ or in estate


proceeding on behalf of that party.

[Mr. Stephen illustrates

'

who

to

by saying

this rule

assignor of a chose in action

'

that the admissions of an


the nominal plaintiff in an action

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;

vant against him.]


*

[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

not a party to the record nor a witness, are not received to


is

the real party in interest.

But the declarations of a person

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

But in some States it is held that such declarations are


when they accompanied the deputy's official acts, and

therefore formed part of the res gcstce.

270
2

Stewart

[Thus

Barker

v.

Bininger, 14 N. Y.

Wells, 6 Barb. 79.]


the admissions of an intestate are receivable against his adv.

v. Mailler, 12 N. Y. 118; Felloivsw. Smith, 130 Mass.


Leonard, 75 Ind. 171); and of testator against executor (t'/^/A/r
Jordati, 106 Mass. 321). So in an action by a widow for dower, admis-

ministrator {BroT.vn

378
v.

sions
her.

Slade

v.

made by

her husband while living are

Van Diiyne

v.

Thayre, 14

Wend.

deemed

to

be relevant against

233.]

[Admissions made by an ancestor are receivable against his heirs.


Spaulding v. Hallenbeck, 35 N. Y. 204 Enders v. Van Steenbergh, 2 Abb.
Dec. 31.]

[Admissions by a grantor of land are relevant against his grantee

of

A DIGEST OF

42

[Part

I.

A statement made by a party to a proceeding may be an


admission whenever it is made,' unless it is made by a person
suing or sued in a representative character only, in which case
(it seems) it must be made whilst the person making it sustains
that character."

a landlord against his tenant

of devisor against devisee

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.

Not only those declarations by an owner of

land, or by one claiming


which are in disparagement of his title, are admissible against the
declarant or persons in privity with him (see Bozveri v. Chase, 98 U. S.
254), but also those statements made by him while in possession, which
show the character of his possession and by what title he claims (Pitts v.
Jl'iMer, 1 N. Y. 525; Moore v. Hamilton, 44 N. Y. 666
Hale v. Rich, 48
Vt. 217 Hale v. Silloway, I Allen, 21), as e.g. to show that he held under
adverse claim of title (^Morss v. Salisbury, 48 N. Y. 636; Snsi/., etc., R.
Co. V. Quick, 68 Pa. St. 189), or as the tenant of a particular person
(Gi6ney v. Marchay, 34 N. Y. 301), or, as some cases hold, to show the
extent of occupation or boundary. Abeel v. Vaii Gelder, 36 N. Y. 513
title,

Sheaffer v. Eakrnan, 56 Pa. St. 144

see

Chapman

v.

Edmands, 3 Allen,

Such evidence comes properly under the doctrine of res gestce.


But declarations of an owner in
i. $ 109
see ante. Art. 3, note.)

512.

(Gr. Ev.

possession will not be received in place of record evidence nor to destroy

a record
379

title.

Hancock

Gibncy
Ins.

Co.

v.

Marchay., supra,- Dodge

v.

Moore, 34 Mich. 41

v.

Trust

Co., 93

but see Loomis

v.

U. S.

Wad-

ham, 8 Gray, 556.]


' \Cook v.
Barr, 44 N. Y. 156; Williams v. Sergeant, 46 N. Y. 481
Wig^in V. P. 6^ A. R. Co., 120 Mass. 201 Hatch v. Brown, 63 Me. 410;
Duncan v. Lawrence, 24 Pa. St. 154 cf. Shailer v. Bumstead, 99 Mass.
112, 127; so if one be substituted as a party after suit brought, his admissions are receivable.
Wads70orth v. Williams, 100 Mass. 126.]
2 [Gr. Ev. i. $ 179
Lamar v. Micou, 112 U. S. 452. Thus the declarations of an executor or administrator are not competent as admissions,
unless made after his appointment and while he was acting in that capacChurch v. Howard, 79 N. Y. 415
ity and representing the estate.
Brooks V. Goss, 61 Me. 307 Dent v. Dent, 3 Gill, 482 see Heywoodv.
Heywood, 10 Allen, 105. But if he sues or is sued in an individual capac-

ity, his

admissions

made

at other times are receivable.

See Whiton

v.

THE

Chap. IV.]

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

43

made by a person interested in a proceeding, or


any party thereto, is not an admission, unless it
made during the continuance of the interest which entitles
statement

by a privy
is

him

to

make

to

it.'

And

Snyder, 88 N. Y. 299.
receivable against

him

made

his admissions

as party in one suit are

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)
;

against the assignee,

when they

are

made

assignment and transDurnham v. Brcnnan,


Mc Lanathan v. Patten,

if

a transferor of land or

after the

Coyne v. Weaver, 84 N. Y. 386


Roberts v. Medbery, 132 Mass. 100

fer of possession.

74 N. Y. 597
39 Me. 142 Benson
;

v.

l.imdy, 52 la. 265.

But

chattels remains in possession, his declarations characterizing that pos-

session are often competent.

Lyon, 49 N. Y. 661
supra.
erty,

In

made

Roberts

New York

v.

Pier

v.

Duff, 63 Pa. St. 59 Newlin v.


but see Vrooman v. King,
;

Medbery, supra

the declarations of an assignor of personal prop-

while he remains in continuous possession of

it

after the as-

Adams

signment, are receivable to show fraud as to creditors.

v. Davidbut see Tilson v. Terwilliger, 56 N. Y. 273 Tabor v.


Van Tassell, 86 N. Y. 642. But the declarations of a grantor of land
after the grant cannot be received for the same purpose (Holbrook v. Holbrook, 113 Mass. 74), unless there be a conspiracy between the parties
to defraud creditors and such declarations are made in pursuance of
the conspiracy.
Cuylerv. McCartney, 40 N. Y. 221 Souder v. Schech-

son, 10

N. Y. 309

terly, 91 Pa. St. 83

The admissions

this rule

applies to personalty also.

of an assignor of a chattel or chose in action,

while he had ownership and possession, are in


tent against his assignee {Sandifer v. Hoard, 59

many
246

111.

made

compeMerrick v. Park-

States held
;

Alger v. Andreivs, 47 Vt. 238 Magee v. Raigiiel, 64


Pa. St. 110 Bond\. Fitzpatrick, 4 Gray, 89 Ratidegger v. Ehrhardt, 51
111. loi
aliter, as to commercial paper negotiated before maturity)
but
the rule is sometimes limited by important qualifications.
Coit v. Howe,

man, 18 Me. 407


;

Gray, 547.

This rule is like that applied to real estate. (See a7ite,


in New York, while the rule as to realty is accepted, a different rule is applied to personalty, and it is held that the declarations
of the assignor, though made before the assignment, are not admissible
I

note

5.)

against

But

Jin

assignee /^A- value or for th^ benefit of creditors.

Von

S(tcAf

A DIGEST OF

44

[Part

I.

Illustrations.

The

(a)

assignee of a bond sues the obligor in the

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

the assignee of the

bond

in the last illustration

be relevant on behalf of the defendant.


(ba) [The question is, whether a horse was sold to the defendant by
the plaintiff for .$500, or was entrusted to him as a bailee.
The defendant upon seeing an entry made in the plaintiff's book of
account immediately after the transaction, charging him with $500 as the
this admission is deemed to
price of the horse, admitted its accuracy

would

also be

to

be relevant against him.]


{bb) [A sues B to recover the possession of land.
A claims under C
and B claims under D. Declarations made by D while in possession of
the land that C was the owner are admissible against B.]^
{be) [The admissions of a holder of a promissory note after maturity,
made while he held it, are deemed to be relevant against a subsequent
"^

holder.]*
(r)

A statement made

a bankrupt

is

not

by a person before he becomes the assignee of


to be relevant as an admission by him in a

deemed

proceeding by him as such assignee.^


(d) Statements made by a person as to a bill of which he had been the
holder are deemed not to be relevant as against the holder, if they are
made after he has negotiated the bill.*
V. Kretz, 72 N. Y. 548, 554;
Truax v. Slater, 86 N. Y. 630; Clews v.
Rekr, 90 N. Y. 633. The same rule is adopted by the U. S. Supreme
Court. Dodge v. Trust Co. 93 U. S. 379.
But against other assignees,
not acquiring title for value (as an executor, etc.), such declarations of the
,

assignor are competent.

As

Von Sacks

w.

Kretz, supra.

admissions of a person in interest must be made


during the continuance of his interest, see Taylor v. G. T. R. Co., 48
N. H. 304.]
'
See Moriartyv. L. C. &> D. Co., L. R. 5 Q. B. 320; [seepage 41, ante,
note

to the rule that the

I.]

Tanner

Parshall, 4 Abb. Dec.

'

Dix, 131 Mass. 179.]


[ffondv. Fitzpatrick, 4 Gray, 89 contra. Clews v. Kehr, 90 N. Y. 633.]
Fenwick v. Thornton, M. & M. 51 (by Lord Tenterden). In Smith

\SiTnpson

v.

356.]

V.

V.

Morgan, 2 M. & R.
'

pQCOck

V, Billing,

257, Tindal, C. J.,

2 Bing. 269.

decided exactly the reverse.

Chap.

LAW

THE

IV.]

OF EVIDENCE.

Article

45

17.*

admissions by agents and persons jointly interested

with parties,
Admissions

them

may be made by

either expressly or

agents authorized to

by the conduct of

make

their principals;

but a statement made by an agent is not an admission merely


because if made by the principal himself it would have been
one.'

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.'

* See Note XI.


[The admissions of an agent, in order to be competent evidence
against his principal, must relate to, and be made in connection with,
some act done in the course of his agency, so as to form part of the res
gest(S.
Anderson v. Rome, etc. R. Co., 54 N. Y. 334 Alexander v. Cauldwell, 83 N. Y. 480; Monocacy, etc. Co. v. American, etc. Co., 83 Pa. St.
517 Xeuia Bk. v. Stewart, 114 U. S. 224 Lane v. B. &" A. R. Co., 112
Mass. 455. Or else they must be expressly authorized.
White v. Miller,
But an agent's declarations are not admissible to
71 N. Y. 118, 136.
prove his own authority. Starin v. Genoa, 23 N. Y. 439; Whiting v.
'

Lake, 91 Pa. St. 349.


A wife's declarations are competent against her husband

makes them

as his agent, within this rule, but not otherwise

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

Gr. Ev. i. % 185 Lay Grae v. Peterson,


Johnson, I Abb. Dec. 497; Rose v. Chapman, 44
Mich. 312 Hunt v. Strew, 33 Mich. 85 Goodrich v. Tracy, 43 Vt. 314
see McGregor v. Wait, 10 Gray, 72.

it

express or implied.

2 Sandf. 338;

Deck

v.

The admission

of a

party to the action,

is

member

of an aggregate corporation,

who

is

not a

not competent evidence against the corporation,

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.

solicitors are the agents of their clients for the

purpose of making admissions whilst engaged in the actual


management of the cause, either in court or in correspondence
relating thereto but statements made by a barrister or solicitor
;

Decker, 23 N. J. Eq. 283. The existence of the partnership, however,


must be first shown, and the admissions of one alleged partner are not
competent against others to prove them to be partners, though they are

Currier

receivable against himself.

Hun, 391

21

V. Sias,

Edwards

v.

Silloway^

Tracy, 62 Pa.

v.

Allen, 19
St.

374

Greenwood

Pleasants v.

Fant, 22 Wall. 116.


Different rules prevail in different States as to whether the admissions

of one partner, after a dissolution of the firm, shall be receivable against


In some States they are admissible against the others, when
the others.
in regard to past debts or transactions of the firm, or to remove the
Vinal v. Burbar of the Statute of Limitations as to a partnership debt.
Buxton v. Edwards, 134 Mass. 567 Merritt v. Day, 38
rill, 16 Pick. 401
N. J. L. 32 Bissellv. Adams, 35 Ct. 299. But in New York admissions by

made

one as

to dealings of the firm before dissolution or as to

are not competent against the others {Baker

Kcuren

Partnalee, supra)

v.

though

if

one

v. Stackpole,

barred claims

Cow. 420

Van

authorized to act as agent

is

winding up, the declarations which he makes in the


Nichols v. White, 85 N. Y. 531.
members cannot bind him by their
Pringle v. Leverich, 97 N. Y. 181. Some other States have

in the business of

course of his agency are competent.


When a partner retires, the remaining
admissions.

adopted similar
Alorrison,

Searight

rules.

Pet. 351

v.

see A^ewmaii

Craighead,
v.

& W.

P.

McComas, 43 Md. 70

135
;

Bell

v.

Parsons on

Partnership, pp. 184-197.


So in some States the admissions of one joint debtor or contractor are

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.
;

Sigourney, 19 Ct. 37 Bound v. Lathrop, 4 Ct. 336 Shcpley


Black v. Lamb, i Beas. 108 see Parker
house, 22 Me. 497
V.

worth, 46 N. J. L. 244.
is held (see Kallenbach

v.

Water-

v.

Butter-

In other States, a contrary or modified doctrine


v.

Dickinson, 100

States having the diverse rules, and cites

111.

427,

many

which enumerates the

leading cases).

Thus

it

of the States that one cannot bind the others, so as


Shoemaker v. Benedict,
to affect their defence that the claim is barred.
is

held in a

number

II N. Y. 176

Hanc(

V.

Bush

V.

Hair, 25 0.

Stowell, 71 Pa. St. 208

St. 349.

In

New York

Clark

it is

v.

Burn, 86

id.

502

well settled that a joint

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

THE

Chap. IV.]

47

on other occasions are not admissions merely because they


would be admissions if made by the client himself.'
The fact that two persons have a common interest in the
same subject matter does not entitle them to make admissions
respecting it as against each other.'

debtor or joint contractor has no authority to bind his associate, unless


he is the agent or in some other way the representative of such person.
Wallis V. Randall, 8i N. Y. 164; Leiuis v. VV'ood^uortk, 2 N. Y. 512 see
The rule in any State as to joint
Rogers v. Anderson, 40 Mich. 290.
;

debtors
'

is

much

[This rule

same

the

is

as to partners after dissolution.]

generally applicable in this country to attorneys and

Gr. Ev. L 186; Lewis v. Sumner, 13 Met. 269; Lord v.


Bigclow, 124 Mass. 185 Oliver v. Bennett, 65 N. Y. 559
People v.
Stephens, 52 N. Y. 306 Rogers v. Greenwood, 14 Minn. 333
Sohns v.
McCulloh, 5 Pa. St. 473. As to the effect of admissions made in counsel's
counsellors.

opening speech, see Oscattyan v. Arms Co., 103 U.


Wilcox, 19 Minn. 449 of. Adce v. Howe, 15 Hun, 20.
admissions, or those

made

casual conversation,

in

261

S.

As

Person

v.

unsolemn
which are not

etc.,

to

McCarthy, 8 Allen, 43 Rockwell v.


Taylor, 41 Ct. 55 McKeen v. Gammon, 33 Me. 187 Douglass v. Mitchell's Excr. 35 Pa. St. 441
Treadway v. S. C. etc. R. Co. 40 la. 526 cf.
Murray v. Chase, 134 Mass. 92. As to admissions made on a former
trial, see Perry v. Simpson, etc. Co., 40 Ct. 313
Hollcy v. Young, 68 Me.
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Slump, 28 Kan. 394 Owen v. Cawley, 36 N. Y.
215
600.
As to admissions by an attorney in the pleadings, see the cases
usually admitted, see Saunders

v.

cited in the preceding article (p. 40, ante).

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.

eral rule, that


client's

Loomer, 21 Ct. 245.]


' [Gr. Ev. i. $ 176.
trator

Thus

the admission of one e.xecutor or adminis-

not competent against his co-executor or co-administrator to es-

is

tablish a

demand

against the estate of the deceased, nor

against heirs or devisees (^Church


v.

Manhattan

Co., 3

Cow.

612)

v.

Vanderbilt, 3 Redf. 384; Shailer

Pier

V.

in

common

Duff, 63 Pa. St.

v.

it

receivable
;

v.

action against another, unless

spiracy {^Carpenter

is

415, 418

Morrison, 25 Pa. St. 453 La Bau v.


Bumstcad, 99 Mass. 112, 127) nor of
against another {Dan v. Brown, 4 Cow. 483
nor, generally, of one defendant in a tort
59)

legatee against another {Clark

one tenant

Howard, 79 N. Y.

Osgood
nor the admission of one devisee or
v.

made

as part of the res gestcs, as in con-

Weldcn, S Sandf. 77

Wilson

v.

O'Day, 5 Daly,

A DIGEST OF

[Part

1.

In cases in which actions founded on a simple contract have


been barred by the Statute of Limitations no joint contractor
or his personal representative loses the benefit of such statute,

of any written acknowledgment or promise


by (or by the agent duly authorized to make
such acknowledgment or promise of) any other or others of
them (or by reason only of payment of any principal, interest,
or other money, by any other or others of them).'

by reason only

made

or signed

A principal, as such, is not the agent of his surety for the


purpose of making admissions as to the matters for which the
surety gives security."
Illustrations.

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
(</)

by the station-master to a police officer, suggesting that the parcel had


been stolen by a porter, are deemed to be relevant, as against the railway, as admissions by an agent. ^

354 cf. Edgerton v. Wolf, 6 Gray, 453). As to the admissions of a cestui


que trust, see Pope v. Devercux, 5 Gray, 409.]
>
9 Geo. IV. c. 14, s. I. The first set of words in parenthesis was added
;

19 & 20 Vict.
The language is

by

c.

97,

s.

13

the second set

slightly altered.

several States of this country.


10

595,

Mass. 588

Maine Rev.

14 of the

s.

same Act.

Mass. Pub.

St., c. 197, 17

N.

J.

Rev., p.

^ 98, 100 Faulkner v. Bailey, 123


Bailey v. Corliss, 51 Vt. 366 Rogers v. Anderson, 40 Mich.
St.

c.

82,

New York

In

290.

by

[Similar statutes have been passed in

and some other

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

&

Green v. JV. Y. C. R. Co., 12 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 473


647
mont, 60 N. Y. 96.]
;

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

money for goods supplied to


be relevant against him as an admission by an

statement by her that he owes

deemed

is

to

agent.'
(c)

A sends

fact as against A, but

time

is

not

What B

his servant, B, to sell a horse.

deemed

to

says at the time of

deemed

to be a relevant
what B says upon the subject at some different
be relevant as against A - (though it might have

the sale, and as part of the contract of sale,

is

be relevant if said by A himselO.


((/) The question is, whether a ship remained at a port for an unreasonable time.
Letters from the plaintiff's agent to the plaintiff containing
statements which would have been admissions if made by the plaintiff
himself are deemed to be irrelevant as against him.'
(^) A, B, and C sue D as partners upon an alleged contract respecting
the shipment of bark.
An admission by A that the bark was his exclusive property and not the property of the firm is deemed to be relevant
as against B and C.''
(/") A, B, C, and D make a joint and several promissory note.
Either
can make admissions about it as against the rest.^
A notice
(^) The question is, whether A accepted a bill of exchange.
to produce the bill signed by A's solicitor and describing the bill as having
been accepted by A is deemed to be a relevant fact.'
{//) The question is, whether a debt to A, the plaintiff, was due from B,
the defendant, or from C.
A statement made by A's solicitor to B's solicitor in common conversation that the debt was due from C is deemed
not to be relevant against A.'
been deemed

(/)

to

One co-part-owner

of a ship cannot, as such,

make admissions

against another as to the part of the ship in which they have a

common

{RiUy v. Sitydcim, 4 Barb. 222.]


Clifford \. Purton, i Bing. 199.
Helyear v. Hawkc, 5 Esp. 72 [see Ahem v. Goodspecd, 72 N. Y. 108.]
Langliorn v. Allnutt, 4 Tau. 511.

'

'

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

out of the Statute of Limitations as against the others.

followed in

some

Dickinson, loo

Holt

V.

States of this country, rejected in others.

111. 427
Squire^ Ry. &

see p. 45, ante, note 3.]

Mo.

''Fetch V. Lyon, 9 Q. B. 147.

282.

This case
Kallenbach

A DIGEST OF

50

even

interest,

if

he

[Part

1.

co-partner with that other as to other parts of the

is

ship.'

B being dismissed makes statements


is surety for B, a clerk.
sums of money which he has received and not accounted for.
These statements are not deemed to be relevant as against A, as ad(J)

as to

missions."

Article

i8.*

admissions by strangers.
Statements by strangers

proceeding are not relevant

to a

as against the parties except in the cases hereinafter

men-

tioned.'

In actions against sheriffs for not executing process against

debtors, statements of the debtor admitting his debt to be due


to the execution creditor are

deemed

to

be relevant as against

the sheriff.*

In actions by the trustees of bankrupts an admission by the


bankrupt of the petitioning creditor's debt is deemed to be
relevant as against the defendant.^

* See Note XII.


yaggers v. Binning, i Star. 64. \The New Orleans, 106 U. S. 13;
McLellan v. Cox, 36 Me. 95 see Smith v. Aldrich, 12 Allen, 553.]
2 Smith V.
VVhippingham, 6 C. & P. 78. See also Evans v. Beattic, 5
Caermarthcn R. C. v. Manchester
Esp. 26 Bacon v. Chesne}\ i Star. 192
R. C. L. R. 8 C. P. 685.
3 Coole v. Braham, 3 Ex. 183.
\Brown v. Mailler, 12 N. Y. 118 Happy
v. Mosher, 48 N. Y. 313; Lyon v. Manning, 133 Mass. 439; Wilson v.
Bowden, 113 id. 422 Heller v. Howard, 11 Bradw. 554.]
Ketnpland \. Macaulay, Peake, 95; Willianis v. Bridges, 2 Star. 42;
\Hart\. Stevenson, 25 Ct. 499.]
^Jarrett\. Leonard, 2 M. & S. 265 (adapted to the new law of bank^

'^

ruptcy).

made

[This rule as thus stated

New York

is

peculiarly applicable to English

held that the declarations of a bankrupt,


before the bankruptcy, are competent against his assignee in bank-

practice.

But

in

it is

ruptcy, to establish or support a claim against the bankrupt's estate.

Sachs

Kretz, 72 N. Y. 548 see Holt v. Walker^ 26


White, 15 Gray, 378 / re Clark, 9 Blatch. 379.]
v.

Me. 107

Von

Games

v.

THE

Chap. IV.]

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

Article

51

19.*

admission by person referred to by party.

When

a party to any proceeding expressly refers to any other

person for information

in

reference to a matter in dispute, the

statements of that other person


the person

who

may be

admissions as against

refers to him.'

Illustration.

whether A delivered goods to B. B says " if C " (the


carman) " will say that he delivered the goods, I will pay for them." C's
answer may as against B be an admission.

The

question

is,

Article

20. f

ADMISSIONS MADE \VITHOUT PREJUDICE.

No
if

it

admission

made

is

is

deemed

to be relevant in any civil action


upon an express condition that evi-

either

dence of it is not to be given/ or under circumstances from


which the judge infers that the parties agreed together that

* See Note XIIL

See Note XIV.

Dinsmore^ in Mass. 45 Wekle v. Spelmav,


Chapman v.
Chadsey v. Greene, 24 Ct. 562
I Hun, 634, 4 T. & C. 649
But the statements of the referee are only admisTwitckell, 37 Me. 59.
sible when they relate to the subject-matter of the reference (Duval v.
[Gr. Ev.

'

i.

% 182

Gott

v.

Covenkover,

Wend.

linger^ 8 Wall. 480)

Cohn

As
V.

V.

561

Lambert

nor are those

'^

Cory

People, 76 N. Y. 220

V.

Bret ton, 4 C. &

P.

Allen

v.

Kil~

before the reference admissible.

Goldman, 76 N. Y. 284.
an interpreter, see Gr. Ev.

to the statements of

Palmer Co., 10 Allen, 539.]


Daniel \. Pitt, 1 Camp. 366,

v.

made

i.

(J

183

Camerlin

n.

462

[Copelandv. Taylor, 99 Mass. 613.]

A DIGEST OF

52

evidence of

[Part

should not be given,' or

it

if it

I.

was made under

duress."

Article

21.

confessions defined.

A confession is an admission made at any time by a person


charged with a crime, stating or suggesting the inference that
he committed that crime.' Confessions, if voluntary, are
' Paddock V. Forester,
[Under this rule statements in3 M. & G. 918.
corporating the express qualification that they shall be "without preju-

dice " are

send

deemed

not to be relevant as admissions.

V. AIercha?ifs' Ins. Co., 4.


J.

compromise a claim, or

to

to "

&

C.

S.

see Toiun-

So statements made

Sp. 772.

buy peace,"

as

as offers

termed, are not com-

it is

Gr. Ev. i. $ 192 Draper v. Hatfield, 124


Mass. 53 Lairrence v. Hopkins, 13 Johns. 288 Home Ins. Co. v. Baltimore, etc. Co., 93 U. S. 527
Campan v. Dubois, 39 Mich. 274. They are
equivalent to statements " without prejudice."
West v. Smith, loi

petent evidence as admissions.

U. S. 263, 273 Reynolds v. Manning, 15 Md. 510. But an admission of


an independent fact is relevant, though made during a negotiation for
compromise. Bartlett v. Tarbox, i Abb. Dec. 120 Marvin v. Richmond, 3 Den. 58 Durgin v. Somers, 117 Mass. 55 Arthur v. yames, 28
Pa. St. 236; Doon v. Rarey, 49 Vt. 293 Plumtner v. Currier, 52 N. H.
This is the general American rule.]
287.
^ Stockfieth v. De Tastet, per Ellenborough, C.
Camp. 11. [But
J., 4
admissions made by a party, while testifying as witness in a prior suit, are
;

relevant against him

"duress" under
Tooker

v.

the legal

this rule.

constraint

Gr. Ev.

i.

to

testify

is

193; see Art. 15

not

deemed

ante.,

note 2;

Conner.^ 2 Hilt. 71.

court of equity will sometimes restrain the use of admissions ob-

tained by fraud and duress.

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

relevant facts as against the persons

Article

22.*

confession caused dy inducement, threat, or promise, when irrelevant in criminal proceeding.

No confession is deemed to be voluntary if it appears to the


judge to have been caused by any inducement, threat, or
promise, proceeding from a person in authority, and having
reference to the charge against the accused person, whether
* See Note
last

paragraph, and note).

be under arrest

This

Ettitiger v.

cf.

XV.

true in

Kelley

at the time.

State, 36 O. St. 628

is

some

even though he

States,

People, 55 N. Y. 565

v.

Comm., 98 Pa.

St. 338

Murphy

contra,

v.

Comm.

McDertnott, 123 Mass. 440.


a general rule that an extra-judicial confession is not sufficient to
sustain a conviction unless corroborated by additional proof oi i}ixQ corpus

V.

It is

delicti.

Gr. Ev.

i.

217

People

v.

Hcimcssy, 15

Wend.

147

N. Y. Code

Cr. Pro. $ 395 South v. People, 98 111. 261


People v. Thrall, 50 Cal.
415; State v. Patterson, 73 Mo. 695; Gray v. Comm., loi Pa. St. 380;
;

v. Lane^ 49 Mich. 340


Blackburn v. State, 23 O. St. 146 State
Knowles, 48 la. 598 cf. Comm. v. Tarr, 4 Allen, 315. It is also an
important rule that the whole of a confession is to be taken together, so
that the prisoner may have the benefit of all qualifying or exculpatory

People

v.

statements incorporated therein.

Gr. Ev.

i.

218

State v. McDonnell,

Morehcad v. State, 34 O. St. 212


Corbett v. State, 31
32 Vt. 491
Ala. 329 see People v. Ruloff, 3 Park. Cr. 401.
But part of a conver;

sation
tially

may be

proved,

complete.

54 Ala. 520

Dob

if it

Com.m.
v.

v.

State,

amounts
32

id.

which

to a confession

Pitsinger, 110 Mass. loi

560

cf.

People

v.

is

substan-

Lez'ison v. State,

Gelabcrt, 39 Cal.

663.]

[Thus the confession of one of two or more defendants in a criminal


is evidence against himself only, and not against the others.
Comm.
V. higraham, 7 Gray, 46
State v. Albert, 73 Mo. 347
People v. Stevens,
47 Mich. 411 Fife v. Comm., 29 Pa. St. 429; Gore v. State^ 58 Ala. 391.
As to the declarations of conspirators, see .^rt. 4, ante.\
'

case

A DIGEST OF

54

addressed to him directly or brought


directly

[Part
to his

knowledge

1.

in-

'
;

and if (in the opinion of the judge)'' such inducement,

threat, or

promise, gave the accused person reasonable grounds for supposing that
or avoid

by making a confession he would gain some advantage


some evil in reference to the proceedings against him.'

is to be determined by the judge.


Hun, 469 Comm. v. Culver, 126 Mass. 464 State v.
Redd v. State, 69 Ala. 255 and cases infra. But
Patterson, 73 Mo. 695
in some States, the confession, when offered in evidence, is deemed prima
facie involuntary, and the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to show it
Young v. State, 68 Ala. 569 Nicholson v. State, 38 Md.
to be voluntary.
Thompson v. Comm. 20 Gratt. 724. In
140 People v. Soto, 49 Cal. 67
other States, it is considered prima facie voluntary, but the defendant
may object to its being admitted in evidence and show it to have been imComm. v. Sego, 125 Mass.
properly obtained and so cause its exclusion.
210 Comm. v. Culver, supra Rufer v. State, 25 O. St. 464 State v.
Davis, 34 La. Ann. 351 cf. Woodford v. People, 62 N. Y. 117.]
^ Judges are now less disposed than they formerly were to hold that
In R. v. Baldry,
the language used amounts to even an inducement.
'

[The admissibility of confessions

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.

Nott, 135 Mass. 269.]

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.

whether obtained by his inducements or not, is deemed to be voluntary,


if no inducements of the kind stated in the text are used.
Comm. v. Sego,
State v. Grant, 22 Me.
125 Mass. 210 People v. Wentz, 37 N. Y. 303
;

Chap.

THE

IV.]

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

55

A confession is not involuntary, only because it appears to


have been caused by the exhortations of a person in authority
to make it as a matter of rehgious duty,' or by an inducement
collateral to the proceeding,'' or

by inducements held out by a

person not in authority.^

171

Comm. v. Morey, i Gray, 461"; Fife v.


So confessions made by the prisoner while in custody are

State v. Partner, 43 la. 494

Comm., supra.
competent,

if

the officer use no improper inducements or threats {People

no

v.

Comm. v. Cuffee, 108


U. S. 574
Comm. v. Mosler, 4 Pa. St. 264 jfackson v. State, 6g Ala.
Mass. 285
Balboy. People, 80 N. Y. 484.
249), even though the arrest be illegal.
Cox, 80 N. Y. 501

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

[Illustration (r); State v. Tatso, 50 Vt. 483; People v. Cox, 80

{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,

other States there are rules more or less similar to


63 Ala.

People

v.

this.

Wolcott, 51 Mich. 612; Spears

v.

O. St. 583 Beggarly v. State, 8 Baxt. 520.


Confessions extorted by mob violence, or by like forcible means, have
been excluded. Miller v. People, 39 111. 457 Young v. State, 68 Ala.
State, 2

569

Jordan

v. State,

32 Miss. 382

State v. Resells, 34 La. Ann. 381.]

A DIGEST OF

56

The

[Part

I.

prosecutor, officers of justice having the prisoner in cus-

and other persons

tody, magistrates,

persons

in

The master

authority.'

in similar positions, are

of the prisoner

is

not as

such a person in authority, if the crime of which the person


making the confession is accused was not committed against
him.'

deemed

to be voluntary if (in the opinion of


have been made after the complete
removal of the impression produced by any inducement, threat,
or promise which would otherwise render it involuntary."
Facts discovered in consequence of confessions improperly
obtained, and so much of such confessions as distinctly relate

confession

the judge)

such

to

it is

facts,

is

shown

may be

to

proved.''

Illustrations.
{a)

The

question

is,

whether

murdered

B.

handbill issued by the Secretary of State, promising a reward and

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.

[People V. Ward, 15 Wend. 231


Brockman, 46 Mo. 566 Rector
;

v.

Wolf v. Comm., 30

lington, 2 Cr. C. C. 293; State v. Stalej, 14


in last

note and in note

Comm., 10

[Smith

[Illustration

V.

(e)

3,

on

State

v.

Pock-

Minn. 105

and cases

cited

U. S.

p. 54.]

Gratt. 734 ; cf. Comm. v. Sego, 125 Mass. 210.]


v. People, 3 Hill, 395
Comm. v. Howe, 132

Ward

Gratt. 833

Comtn., 80 Ky. 468;

State \. Brow?i, j^ Mo.


Mass. 250; Thompson v. Comtn., 20 Gratt. 724
Rcddv. State, 69 Ala. 255 Comm. v. Harman, 4 Pa. St. 269.]
631
4 [Illustration
(/) Duffy v. People, 26 N. Y. 588 People v. Hoy Yen,
Comm. v. James, 99 Mass. 438 Murphy v. State, 63 Ala. i
34 Cal. 176
;

Mortimer, 20 Kan. 93 see Murphy v. People, tj, N. Y. 590. Some


of these cases seem to adopt a more restricted rule than that of the text,
But sometimes the whole
as to admitting proof of words of confession.
confession is received, when thus corroborated, Laws v, Comm., 84 Pa,
State

V.

St. 200.]

R,

V.

Boswdl, C. & Marsh. 584,

THE

Chap. IV.]

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

57

grounds to confess his sins. A, in consequence, makes a confession.


This confession is voluntary.'
(c) The gaoler promises to allow A, who is accused of a crime, to see
A does so. This is a volhis wife, if he will tell where the property is.
untary confession. 2
Her mistress holds out an induce((/) A is accused of child murder.
ment to her to confess, and she makes a confession. This is a voluntary
confession, because her mistress is not a person in authority.

accused of the murder of B. C, a magistrate, tries to induce


by promising to try to get him a pardon if he does so. The
Secretary of State informs C that no pardon can be granted, and this is
communicated to A. After that A makes a statement. This is a volun(e)

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.*

confessions made upon oath, etc.


Evidence amounting
against the person
oath,

to a confession

who

gives

that

v.

Gilham,

the accused

Moo.

man

may be

in

used as such

was given upon


which it was given had

although

and although the proceeding


*

R.

'

it,

it

See Note XVI.

In this case the exhortation was


should confess " to God," but it seems from
C. C. 186.

man "to repair


any injury done to the laws of his country." According to the practice
The principle
at that time, no reasons are given for the judgment.
seems to be that a man is not likely to tell a falsehood in such cases,
from religious motives.
The case is sometimes cited as an authority
for the proposition that a clergyman may be compelled to reveal confessions made to him professionally.
It has nothing to do with the subject.
2 R. v. Lloyd, 6 C. & P.
393.
3 R. V. Moore^ 2 Den. C. C. 522.
parts of the case that he was urged also to confess to

Clewes, 4 C. & P. 221.


Gould, 9 C. & P. 364. This is not consistent, so far as the proof
of the words goes, with R. y. WurivHkshall, i Leach, 263.
"

R.

V.

''

R.

v.

A DIGEST OF

58

[Part

I.

same subject-matter as the proceeding in


be proved, and although the witness might have
but if, after rerefused to answer the questions put to him
fusing to answer any such question, the witness is improperly
compelled to answer it, his answer is not a voluntary confes-

reference to the

which

it is

to

'

sion."
Illustrations.

The answers given by a bankrupt

{a)

against

him

examination may be used


law of bankruptcy.'

in his

in a prosecution for offences against the

charged with maliciously wounding B.


A appeared as a witness for C, who was charged
with the same offence. A's deposition may be used against him on his
^b)

is

Before the magistrates

own

trial.*

(c)

[A

is

tried for the

murder of B.

Statements made by A under oath at the coroner's inquest upon the


body of B are competent evidence against him, though he knew when he
made the statements that he was suspected of the crime. ]^

[Comm.

V.

A7^, 8 Gray, 501

Me. 531. On
given by him in a

U. S. v. CAarles, 2 Cr. C. C. 76

State

the trial of a person for crime, testimony

VVit/iam, 72

V.

under oath, and amounting to a


State, 48 Wis. 288
Alston v.
But it is provided in some States by statute that on
State, 41 Tex. 39.
the preliminary examination of a prisoner before a committing magistrate,
he shall not be put under oath if, therefore, he is sworn and makes conGr. Ev. i. 5 224-229 N. Y.
fession, such confession is inadmissible.
voluntarily
confession,

is

prior suit

Dickerson

receivable.

v.

Code Cr. Pro. $ 198 Htinlrickson v. People, 10 N. Y. 9,


U. S. v. Duffy, i Cr. C. C. 164
V. Harman, 4 Pa. St. 269

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,

Lamb, 28 Mo. 218 Anderson v. State, 26 Ind. 89.]


Hendrickson
I Den. C. C. 236.
[Gr. Ev. i. $ 451

People, 10 N. Y. 9, 27, 31

see Art. 120, note,

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
;

Park. Cr. 595.]


s [Teachout v. People, 41 N. Y.
7 People v. McGloin, 91 N. Y. 241, 247
see State v. Oilman, 51 Me. 206; IVilHams v. Comm., 29 Pa. St. 102;
;

People

V.

Taylor, 59 Cal. 640.]

Chap.

THE

V.J

LAW OF EVIDENCE.
Article

59

24.

confession made under a promise of secrecy.


is otherwise relevant, it does not become
merely because it was made under a promise of
secrecy, or in consequence of a deception practised on the
accused person for the purpose of obtaining it,' or when he
was drunk,' or because it was made in answer to questions
which he need not have answered, whatever may have been
the form of those questions,^ or because he was not warned
that he was not bound to make such confession, and that
evidence of it might be given against him.*

If a

confession

irrelevant,

Article

25.

statements by deceased persons, when deemed to be


relevant.
Statements written or verbal of facts in issue or relevant or
to be relevant to the issue are deemed to be relevant,

deemed
'

418

[People

V.

State

v.

Wentz, 37 N. Y. 303, 305, 306 Price v. State, 18 O. St.


Phelps, 74 Mo. 128 Khi v. State, 40 Ala. 314 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

Robinson, 19 Cal. 41.]


^[People V. VVeiitz, 37 N. Y. 303, 306;

Comm.

v.

Ciiffee,

108 Mass.

285.]
*

Cases collected and referred to

in

Ph. Ev. 420,

and T. E.

5.

804.

See, too, Joy, sections iii., iv. v.


[Comm. v. Cuffee, 108 Mass. 285.
Such a warning is, however, sometimes given, though not required (State
,

Oilman, 51 Me. 206 People v. Simpson^ 48 Mich. 474) and sometimes


upon a preliminary examination before a committing magistrate, it is
required by statute. State v. Lamb, 28 Mo. 218 cf. Comm. v. King, 8
V.

Gray. 501.]

'

A DIGEST OF

6o

if

the person

who made

is

I.

dead, in the cases,

specified in articles 26-31, both inclu-

and on the conditions,


sive.

the statement

[Part

In each of those articles the word " declaration" means


is herein mentioned, and the word "demeans a dead person by whom such a statement was

such a statement as
clarant"

made

in his lifetime.

Article

26.*

dying declaration as to cause of death.

A declaration made by the declarant as to the cause of his


death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction
which resulted in his death,' is deemed to be relevant
only in
clarant

trials for

murder

the

or manslaughter of the de-

and only when the declarant

shown, to the satisfaction of

is

* See Note XVIL


But such declarations are not competent evidence
of prior or subsequent occurrences, as e.^^., of antecedent threats (State
Hackett v. People, 54 Barb. 370 Jones v. State, 71
V. Wood, 53 Vt. 560
Ind. 66), nor of matters of opinion, but only of facts to which declarant
Burns v.
would be competent to testify as a witness. Gr. Ev.
159
People v. Taylor, 59 Cal. 640 People v. Shaw, 63
State, 46 Ind. 311
N. Y. 36. But they are admissible, though made in answer to leading

[Gr. Ev.

>

i.

^ 156.

i.

questions, or obtained

words.

Maine

v.

by

expressed by signs instead of

solicitation, or

Hun,

People, 9

113

yottes

v.

State, 71 Ind. 66.

The

be confronted with the


witnesses against him does not e.xclude evidence of dying declarations.
Brown v. Comm., 73 Pa. St. 321, 328; State v. Dickinson, 41 Wis. 299;
constitutional provision that the accused

shall

Comm.

State, 8 O. St. 131.]

V.

Carey, 12 Cush. 246

Robbins

v.

Davis, 56 N. Y. 95 Kilpatrick v. Com?n., 31 Pa. St. 198


and other cases under this article. Thus
Scott V. People, 63 111. 508
such evidence is not received in civil actions ( Wilson v. Boerem, 15 Johns.
286), though they be actions for injury causing death (Daily v. N. Y.
[People

V.

etc.

v.

R. Co. 32 Ct. 356 Waldelev. N. V. C. R. Co., 19 Hun, 69 Marshall


nor in other criminal cases. Johnetc. R. Co., 48 111. 475)
;

Chicago,

son

V. State,

50 Ala. 456

see Illustration

(<!).]

CH

V.

\'

77/A'

ir

/.. /

OF E VIDENCE.

the judge,' to have been in actual danger of death, and to have


all hope of recovery at the time when his declaration

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.

127 Maine v. People, 9


The person offering the
declarations in evidence must show that they were made under the sense
of impending death.
This maybe shown by the declarant's own state'

i6o

i.

Hun, 113; Comm.

v.

v.

St.

Roberts, 108 Mass. 296.

ments, by his acts indicating a sense that death

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

but see Starkey

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.

Gray, 61 Cal. 164

V.

v.

Co?nm.

pressed, but afterwards

v.

Roberts, 108 Mass. 296.

when hope

are competent.

Small

that declarations

made when

v.

If

hope be ex-

gone, declarations are made, they


Comm., 91 Pa. St. 304, And it has been held
there

is

was no hope are admissible, though


and during this time expressed

the dying person lingered several days,

some hope.
It is

Swisher

v.

Comtn., 26 Gratt. 963.

not necessary that the declarant should die immediately.

case he died fourteen days after making the statement {yones


Ind. 66),

The

and

in

another seventeen days.

In

one

State, 71

v. Cooper, 5 Allen, 495.

deemed equivalent to the sanction of


Hence dying declarations made by persons disqualified to act

sense of impending death

an oath.

Comm.

v.

is

as witnesses in court are not competent, as e

.^.

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

are not received.


[People

Gr. Ev.

Knapp,

i.

Edm.

^ 157.]

Sel. Cas. 177.


If the declarations be reby a bystander, but are not read over to the dying
person, nor signed by him, parol evidence of the declarations is competent [Alison V. Comm., 99 Pa, St. 17; State v. Sullivan, 51 la. 142),
3

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.'

making the statement (which

B, at the time of

something, which

is

taken

down

thus

"

make

is

written down), says

the above statement

hope of recovery." B, on
the statement being read over, corrects this to " with no hope at present

with the fear of death before me, and with no

my recovery. " B dies thirteen hours afterwards. The statement is


deemed to be irrelevant.
(b) The question is, whether A administered drugs to a woman with
The woman makes a statement which would
intent to procure abortion.
have been admissible had A been on his trial for murder. The statement
is deemed to be irrelevant. ^
A dying declaration by
(<r) The question is, whether A murdered B.
C that he (C) murdered B is deemed to be irrelevant.^

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

But where the


and signed by him, it was held competent evidence {Jones v. State, 71 Ind. 66), though even where it was
subscribed and sworn to by him, parol evidence has been received.
But some cases have held that the
Comin. V. Haney, 127 Mass. 455.
Gr. Ev. i.
writing, if signed by the decedent, is the primary evidence.
see Epperson v. State, 5 Lea (Tenn.) 291.
161
Oral declarations may be testified to by any one who heard them, and
he is only required to state their substance (Comm. v. Haney, supra;
Starkey v. People, 17 111. 17) but they must be substantially complete.
State

lost.

Patterson, 45 Vt. 308.

v.

writing was read over to decedent

Gr. Ev.
'

"^

R.
R.

i.

V.
V.

$ 159; State v. Patterson, 45 Vt. 308.]

Mosley,

Moo. 97

Jenkins^ L.

R.

[cf.

People

C. C.

v.

Grunzig,

Park. Cr. 299.]

R. 187; [cf Jackson,

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.

Rep. 76; [see Poteete

v. State,

9 Baxt. 261.]

THE

Chap. IV. J
The
B makes

question

{d)

is,

LAW OF

whether

EVIDENCE.

murdered

(>^

B.

a statement before a magistrate on oath, and makes her mark


to it, and the magistrate signs it, but not in the presence of A, so that her
statement was not a deposition within the statute then in force. B, at the
time

when

the statement

was made, was

in

deemed

to

The statement

of recovery.

is

Article

a dying state, and had no hojjc


be relevant.'

27.*

declarations made in the course of business or


professional duty.

declaration

is

by the declarant

deemed
the

in

to

be relevant when
course

ordinary

of

was made

it

business, and

discharge of professional duty," at or near the time

in the

*See Note XVIH.


'

A". V.

Woodcoci,

East, P. C. 356.

In this case. Eyre, C. B.

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

settled that the question

is

for the judge.

Tur/ord, 3 B. & Ad. 890. [Gr. Ev. i. $^ 115-120


Chaffee v. U.
Fisher v. Mayor, 67 N. Y. 73, 77 Kennedy v. Doyle, 10
S. 18 Wall. 516
Costello v. Crowell, 133 Mass. 352
Allen, 161, 167
Laird v. Campbell,
^

Doe

V.

100 Pa.
366.

St.

Thus

159

Livingston

the books

Tyler, 14 Ct. 493


State v. Phair, 48 Vt.
or registers of a deceased notary are admissible to
v.

prove his acts as to the presentment, demand, and notice of non-payment


of negotiable paper. Halliday v. Martinett, 20 Johns. 168 Porter v.
yudson, I Gray, 175; Nicholls v. Webb, 8 Wheat. 326; see N. Y. Code
;

And so as to entries of a notary's clerk. Gaivtry


Doane, 51 N. Y. 84. So entries made by merchants' clerks, bank
tellers or messengers, or by other persons, as attorneys, physicians, etc.,
in the ordinary course of business and of professional duty as part of the
Civ. Pro. $ 924, 962.

v.

Leland v. Cameron, 31 N. Y. 115 Sheldon v.


v. Augusta Ins. Co., 10 Gray, 312
Augusta
V. IVinsloui, 19 Me. 317
Arms v. Middleton, 23 Barb. 571 Hedrick v.
Hughes^ 15 Wall. 123. The handwriting of the deceased person should
be proved. Chaffee v. U. S., 18 Wall. 516 Chenango Bridge Co. v. Lewis,
In some States, such evidence is also admitted if the per63 Barb. III.
son making the entries has become insane {Union Bk. v. Knapp, 3 Pick.
96), or has gone to parts unknown (^V. H., etc, Co. v, Goodwin, 42 Ct.
res gesta are competent.

Benham, 4

Hill, 129;

Perkins

A DIGEST OP

64

when

[Part

matter stated occurred, and

the

of

I.

own knowl-

his

edge.'

Such declarations are deemed

be irrelevant, except so

to

far

230; Reynolds v. Mannittg^ 15 Md. 510; see Chaffee v. U. S., supra), or


is out of the State {Alter v. Bcrghaus, 8 Watts, 77).
In New York death
is

the only cause thus far held sufficient, and

must be taken.

the State, his deposition

the clerk, etc.,

if

Brewster

v.

out of

is

Doatie, 2 Hill, 537

but see Code Civ. Pro. 924. But it is a


general rule that if he is alive and within the State, he should be made a
witness and authenticate the entries.
Ocea?t Bk. v. Carll, 55 N. Y. 440

Fisher

v.

Mayor,

6-j

N. Y. 73

Bartholomew v. Farwell, 41 Ct. 107 Briggs v. Rafferty, 14 Gray, 525.


As to what is a sufficient authentication, see Bank of Monroe v. Ctilver^
2 Hill, 531
Moots v. State, 21 O. St. 653 Anderson v. Edwards, 123
;

As

Mass. 273.

to the admissibility of entries or

memoranda, not made

in

the regular course of business, see Art. 136, note.]


'

[It is

in his

made by a party himself


own favor, when properly

a general rule in this country that entries

own books

of account are admissible in his

authenticated, as evidence of goods sold and delivered, of services ren-

dered, and sometimes of other matters. But different


tion are prescribed in different States.

modes of authenticaThus in New York it must be shown

by the party offering the books that they are the regular books of account
that there had been regular dealings between the parties, resulting in more
than a single charge that he kept no clerk that some of the articles
charged have been delivered, or some items of service rendered and
that other persons dealing with him have 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.

competent witnesses does not exclude


Tilton, 4 Abb. Dec. 324.

their

The fact

that parties are

now

books as evidence. Stroud

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

parties competent witnesses, see Nichols v. Haynes, 78 Pa. St. 174.

The

THE

Chap. IV.]

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

65

as they relate to the matter which the declarant stated in the

ordinary course of his business or duty.

Illustrations.

The question is, whether A delivered certain beer to B.


The fact that a deceased drayman ofA's, on the evening of the delivery, made an entry to that effect in a book kept for the purpose, in the
ordinary course of business, is deemed to be relevant.'
(b) The question is, what were the contents of a letter not produced
[a)

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

for that purpose,

rules in the different States are stated in the note to Price

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.

ing entries originally

made

in

another book.

I'ihnar v. Sckall^ 3 J-

&

Sp.

McCarty, 55 la. 702. Sometimes day-book and ledger


McGoldrick v. Traphare taken together as the book of original entries.
see Lame v. Rowland, 7 Barb. 107.
agen, 88 N. Y. 334
Sometimes entries or memoranda are first made upon a slate or paper,
and afterwards transcribed into the regular account books. Where this
is done on the same day or within two or three days, as a common busiStroud v.
ness practice, the books are generally admitted in evidence.
Tilton, 4 Abb. Dec. 324; McGoldrick v. Traphagcn, 88 N. Y. 334;
Hoover v. Gehr, 62 Pa. St. 136 Barker v. Haskell^ 9 Cush. 218. But
sometimes they have been admitted after a much longer interval. Hall
V. Glidden, 39 Me. 445, two to four weeks
Redlich v. Bauerlee, 98 111. 134,
four weeks.
But in Forsythe v. Norcross, 5 Watts, 432, a six days' interval was held too long.
As to the mode of proof when the party is dead

67

Fitzgerald

\.

or insane, see Hoover

v. Gehr, 62 Pa. St. 136


Pratt
Gay, 6 Cush. 215.]
Torrington, I S. L. C. 328, 7th ed.

477; Holbrook
'

"^

Price

v.

Pritt

v.

V.

Fairclough, 3

Camp.

305.

v.

White, 132 Mass.

A DIGEST OF

66

to the fact of the arrest;

where the arrest took

The course

(d)

but irrelevant so far as

to

make

I.

relates to the place

it

place.'

of business was for A, a

B, the foreman, what coals were sold,

get

[Part

entries in a

and

workman in a coal-pit, to tell


for B (who could not write) to

book accordingly.

(A and B being dead) are deemed to be irrelevant, because


B, for whom they were made, did not know them to be true.^
{e) The question is, what is A's age.
A statement by the incumbent in
a register of baptisms that he was baptized on a given day is deemed to
be relevant. A statement in the same register that he was born on a
given day is deemed to be irrelevant, because it was not the incumbent's
duty to make it.'

The

entries

Article

28.*

declarations against interest.

declaration

means

is

deemed

to

be relevant

if

the declarant

of knowing the matter stated,

had

he had no interest to misrepresent it, and if it was opposed to his pecuniary


or proprietary interest.* The whole of any such declaration.

peculiar

*
*

Chambers

v.

Bernasconi,

See Note XIX.


C. M. & R. 347

if

see, too,

Smith

v.

Blakey,

L. R. 2 Q. B. 326.

Brain v. Precce, 11 M. & W. 773 [S. P. Gould v. Conway, 59 Barb.


A>/ V. Garvin, i Gray, 148 Chaffee v. U. S., 18 Wall. 516, 543;
Hoffman v. A'; Y. C. R. Co., 14 J. & Sp. 526, 87 N. Y. 25. Sometimes,
however, entries made upon information derived from others are comPayne v. Hodge, 7
petent, but usually corroborative proof is required.
Hun, 612, 71 N. Y. 598 Harwood v. Mulry^ 8 Gray, 250 Smith v. Lata,
47 Ct. 431 cf. Wilson v. Knapp., 70 N. Y. 596.]
R. v. Clapham, 4 C. & P. 29 \^Kennedyy. Doyle, 10 Allen, 161
Whitcher v. McLaughlin, 115 Mass. 167
Blackburn v. Crazvfords, 3 Wall. 175
Weaver v. Lei man, 52 Md. 708 Si tier v. Gehr, 105 Pa. St. 577. So as
and a
to a register of marriages {Maxwell v. Chapman, 8 Barb. 579)
"

355

hospital record.

Louis

Town send v. Pepper ell, 99 Mass. 40

see Butler

v. St.

Ins. Co., 45 la. 93.]

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

and of any other statement referred to in it, is deemed to be


although matters may be stated which were not

relevant,

against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the declarant

but statements, not referred to in, or necessary to explain


such declarations, are not deemed to be relevant merely because they were

made

same time or recorded

at the

in the

same

place."

may be

declaration

person who makes

it, if

against the pecuniary interest of the


part of

it

charges him with a

liability,

though other parts of the book or document in which it occurs


may discharge him from such liability in whole or in part, and
(it seems) though there may be no proof other than the statement itself either of such liability or of its discharge in whole
or in part.'

statement

made by

a declarant holding a limited interest

any property and opposed

in

relevant only as against those

such interest is deemed to be


who claim under him, and not as

to

against the reversioner.^

An endorsement or memorandum of a payment made upon


any promissory note, bill of exchange, or other writing, by or
on behalf of the party to whom such payment was made, is not
sufficient proof of such payment to take the case out of the
operation of the Statutes of Limitation ^ but any such declaration made in any other form by, or by the direction of, the per;

Hohensack v. Hallman, 17 id. 154, 158 Humes v. O' Bryan,


St. 152
Chase v. Smith. 5 Vt. 556 Bird v. Huest07i, 10 O. St. 418.
74 Ala. 64
The doctrine is also recognized in dicta in Com?n. v. Denstnore, 12 Allen,
57 Pa.

Dwight V. Broivn, 9 Ct. 83, 92


The dictum in Lawrence v. Kimball^

537;

Webster v. Paul, 10 O. St. 531,536.


Met. 527, is inconsistent with En-

glish cases.]
'

^Livingston

Arnoux, supra

v.

Ellsworth

v.

Muldoon, 15 Abb. Pr. (N.

S.) 440, 448.]

and (<:).
and (<-).
see Lord Campbell's judgment

Illustrations (a) {b)

'

Illustrations

(</)

<

Illustration (g)

'

9 Geo. IV.

c.

14,

s.

3.

in

case quoted,

p. 177.

A DIGEST OF

68

son to

whom

payment was made

the

is,

[Part

I.

when such person

is

dead, sufficient proof for the purpose aforesaid.'

Any endorsement or memorandum to the efifect above menmade upon any bond or other specialty by a deceased

tioned

person,

is

regarded as a declaration against the proprietary

terest of the declarant for the

purpose above mentioned,

in-

if it is

shown to have been made at the time when it purports to have


been made f but it is uncertain whether the date of such endorsement or memorandum may be presumed to be correct
without independent evidence.'
Statements of relevant facts opposed to any other than the
pecuniary or proprietary interest of the declarant are not

deemed

to

Bradley

>

be relevant as such/
v.

jfames, 13 C. B. 822.

3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 42, which is the Statute of Limitations relating to


Specialties, has no provision similar to 9 Geo. IV. c. 14, s. 3.
Hence, in
2

case the ordinary rule

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

against the interest of the party

The

barred the claim.

making

it,

that

date of the indorsement

is,

before the statute has

is

not sufficient to show

but there must be independent evidence to this point. But it is not


necessary that the declarant be dead, in order that the indorsement be
this,

Indorsements by the debtor or with his consent


Roseboom v. DiWrngton, 17 Johns. 182 Hul-

received in evidence.

and

privity, are

competent.

bert v. Nichol^ 20

Hun, 454

Shaffer

Shaffer, 41 Pa. St. 51

v.

Phillips

Mahan, 52 Mo. 197 Clough v. McDaniel, 58 N. H. 201 Coffin


nam, 12 Me. 471 White v. Beaman, 85 N. C. 3 cf. Acklens Excr.
;

v.

v,

Buck-

v. Hick-

86 Pa. St. 502.

Frazer, 13 Bush, (Ky. ) 397 Clark v. Burn,


In some States there are statutes on the subject, either

establishing the

same

man, 60 Ala. 89; Frazer

diverse.

Me. Rev.

Mass. Pub.
St.,

c.

81,

Illustration {h).

rule as

above

stated, or special rules

St., c. 197, 16

Winsor, 44 Mich. 140


23 Kan. 543.]
*

v.

[Maine

v.

v.

Davidson

v.

more or

less

Delano, 11 Allen, 523

Dan/orth, 53 Vt. 504; Snyder v.


Perkins, 29 Minn. 173 Pears v. Wilson,

100; Bailey
Young"

v.

People, 9

Hun,

113.]

"

LAW

THE

Chap. IV.]

OF EVIDENCE.

69

Illttstratiotis.
{a)

An

The

entry in

deemed

whether a person was born on a particular day.


the book of a deceased man-midwife in these words

question

to

is,

be relevant

is

;'

''

W. Fowden,

Junr.'s wife,

Filius circa hor. 3 post merid. natus

W. Fowden,
App.

H.

Junr.

22, filius natus,

Wife,

^i

6s. \d.

Pd. 25 Oct., 1768."


[b)

The question

is,

whether a certain custom exists

in

a part of a

parish.

The following

entries in the parish books, signed

by deceased church-

wardens, are deemed to be relevant


"
of

our ancient custom thus

It is

Haworth pay
Followed by

to proportion church-lay.

The chapelry

one-fifth, &c.

" Received of Haworth,

who this year disputed this our ancient custom,


we had sued him, paid it accordingly -^8, ax\A \ for costs. "^
(c) The question is, whether a gate on certain land, the property of
which is in dispute, was repaired by A.
An account by a deceased steward, in which he charges A with the
expense of repairing the gate, is deemed to be irrelevant, though it would
have been deemed to be relevant if it had appeared that A admitted the
but after

charge. 3

The question is, whether A received rent for certain land.


deceased steward's account, charging himself with the receipt of
such rent for A, is deemed to be relevant, although the balance of the
whole account is in favor of the steward.
(^) The question is, whether certain repairs were done at A's expense.
A bill for doing them, receipted by a deceased carpenter, is deemed
{(/)

be

to

pairs

relevant

'

Higham
Stead

Doe

V.

there being no other evidence either that the re-

V.

v. Ridgway, 2 Smith, L. C. 318, 7th ed.


Heaton, 4 T. R. 669.

Beviss, 7 C. B. 456.

Williams

* jV.

were done or that the money was paid.

irrelevint

v.

Doe

v.

Graves,

V.

Div. 605,
V. Vowles.

C.

&

P. 592.

Higham v. Hidgway, 2 S. L. C. 333, 7th ed.


Vo7vles, I Mo. & Ro. 261.
In Toylor v. VVithams, L. R. 3 Ch.
Jessel, M. R., followed R. v. Heyford, and dissented from Doe

Heyford, note to

A DIGEST OF

70

[Part

I.

(y) The question is, whether A (deceased) gained a settlement in the


B by renting a tenement.
A statement made by A, whilst in possession of a house, that he had
paid rent for it, is deemed to be relevant, because it reduces the interest
which would otherwise be inferred from the fact of A's possession.'
parish of

{g)

The

question

is,

whether there

is

a right of

common

over a certain

field.

statement by A, a deceased tenant for a term of the land

in

ques-

he had no such right, is deemed to be relevant as against his


successors in th^ term, but not as against the owner of the field.
(h) The question is, whether A was lawfully married to B.
A statement by a deceased clergyman that he performed the marriage
under circumstances which would have rendered him liable to a criminal
prosecution is not deemed to be relevant as a statement against interest.^
tion, that

Article

29.

declarations by testators as to contents of will,

The

declarations of a deceased testator as to his testament-

ary intentions, and as to the contents of his

will,

are

deemed

be relevant

to

when

his will has

what were

to

'

*
3

been

contents

its

and when there


and

lost,
"*

R. V. Exeter, L. R. 4 Q. B. 341.
Papendick v. Bridgewater, 5 E. &

434 Picke7is\. Davis,


In re yohnson's Will, 40 Ct. 587 Foster's Appeal, 87 Pa.
provided in New York by statute that in an action to estab-

134 Mass. 252


It is

a question as

B. 166.

Sussex Peerage Case, 11 C. & F. 108.


[Cf. Mercer's Adm'r v. Mackin, 14 Bush, (Ky.

St. 67.

is

or in an application to have it admitted to


must be proved by at least two credible witnesses, a correct copy or draft being equal to one witness (Code Civ.

lish

a lost or destroyed

probate,

its

will,

provisions

Pro. ^$ 1865, 2621

Everitt

v.

Evcritt, 41 Barb. 385)

testator's declarations as to its contents

may be

that

evidence of the

received, see Hatch v.

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,

THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.

Chap. IV.]

71

when the question is whether an existing will is genuine or


and
was improperly obtained
when the question is whether any and which of more existing
documents than one constitute his will.'
In all these cases it is immaterial whether the declarations
;

were

made

'

before or after the making or loss of the

Article

will.'

30.*

declarations as to public and general rights.


Declarations are

deemed

to

be relevant (subject

condition mentioned in the next article)

the existence of any public or general right or


ter of public or

* 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.

Byers, 60 Md. 381.]

essential to the valid execution of a will that the

testator declare to the attesting witnesses that

ment

Taylor Will Case^ 10 Abb. Pr. (X. S.)

Dubois, 4 Barb. 393

\.

v.

to par-

R. 917.

11, Illustration

Crispell

[In

Also see Weeks

relate to

custom or mat-

But declarations as

general interest.*

XX.
M. &

to the third

when they

38).

This

is

it is

his last will

and

testa-

called the " publication " of the

will.

Evidence of such declarations is accordingly receivable upon a proceeding for the admission of the will to probate.
Or his assent to such declarations, when made for him by others in his presence, may be enough.
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

Velarde, 59 Cal. 457


Butler, 13 Ct. 309

v,

Ellicott

163

Pearl, 10 Pet. 412

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.

from which the existence of any such public or

general right or custom or matter of public or general interest

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-

to public rights are relevant

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

the tenants of a manor.

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.

Such declarations may be made

in

any form and manner.

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
;

out the boundaries.

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

Oldtown v. Shapleigh, 33 Me.


Greenfield \. Camden, 74 Me. 56
v. Oxford, 8 Pick. 476
see Boston, etc. Co. v. Hanlon, 132
;

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.'

statement by A (deceased) that he planted a willow (still standing)


show where the boundary of the road had been when he was a boy is
deemed to be irrelevant. *
(b) The following are instances of the manner in which declarations as
They may be
to matters of public and general interest may be made

to

made in
Maps prepared

by the direction

by, or

matter 3
Copies of Court

of,

persons interested in the

rolls

*
;

Deeds and leases between private persons ^


Verdicts, judgments, decrees, and orders of Courts, and
;

bodies'

similar

if final.^

Article

31.*

declarations as to pedigree.

declaration

deemed

is

to

be relevant (subject

ditions hereinafter mentioned) if

to the

con-

relates to the existence of

it

any relationship between persons, whether living or dead, or


to the birth, marriage, or death of any person, by which such
relationship was constituted, or to the time or place at which
any such fact occurred, or to any fact immediately connected
with

its

occurrence.*
* See Note

'

Crease

R.

Implied

E.

&

v.

Barrett, per- Parke, B.

7 A.

V. Bliss,

in

&

^
'

v.

M. &

R. 929.

Bradstrect, 10 Ex. 390,

McCausland

[Cf.

Forrest, 49 N. H. 230

XXL

C.

In each of these cases the

erly qualified.

<

E. 550.

Hammond

E. III.

v.

and Pipe

map was

Fleming, 63 Pa.

see p. 82, post, note

v.

Fulcher,

rejected as not propSt.

36; Smith

v.

2.]

Crease v. Barrett, I C. M. & R. 928.


Plaxton V. Dare, 10 B. & C. 17.

Duke of Newcastle v. Broxtowe,


Pim V. Currell, 6 M. & W. 234,
Illustration

N. Y. 434, 442

(a).
;

[Jackson

Haddock

v.

4 B.

& Ad.

273.

266.

v. King, 5 Cow. 237


Clark v. Chvens, 18
B. &- M. R. Co., 3 Allen, 298
Ellicott v,
;

A DIGEST OF

74

'

[Part

I.

Such declarations may express either the personal knowledge


him by other persons qualified to be declarants, but not information collected
by him from persons not qualified to be declarants.' They
may be made in any form and in any document or upon any
thing in which statements as to relationship are commonly
made.'
The conditions above referred to are as follows
(i) Such declarations are deemed to be relevant only in
cases in which the pedigree to which they relate is in issue,
and not to cases in which it is only relevant to the issue
(2) They must be made by a declarant shown to be legitimately related by blood to the person to whom they relate or
by the husband or wife of such a person.*
of the declarant, or information given to

Pearl, 10 Pet. 412

Weaver

v. Lei??tafi,

Amer, Life Ins. Co. v. Rosenagle, jj Pa. St. 50?


52 Md. 708; Van Sickle v. Gibson, 40 Mich. 170;

V. Brown, 78 111. 415


Morrill v. Foster, 33 N. H. 379 Eaton v.
Tallmadge, 24 Wis. 217. The declarant must be dead. Mooers v. Bunker,
29 N. H. 420 Kobbe v. Price, 14 Hun, 55. But such evidence is not
received in this country to show the place of birth, etc.
Wilmington v.

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.]

Plainjield, 39 Ct. 563

174;

Greenfield

v.

'

"^

Illustration

[c).

{Coinin. v. Felch, 132 Mass. 22


but see North Brook(/;).
Warren, 16 Gray, 174. Thus birth, marriage, and death cannot
be proved by such evidence in cases in which pedigree is not in issue.
Haines v. Giithrie, 13 Q. B. D. 818.]
Shrewsbury Peerage Case,
[The rule generally stated
7 H. L. C. 26.
in American cases is that the pedigree of a person may be shown by the
declarations of deceased persons related to him by blood or marriage.
Northrop v. Hale, 76 Me. 306 Haddock v. B. 6-" M. R.
Gr. Ev.
103
3

Illustration

field

\.

i.

THE

Chap. IV.]

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

75

(3) They must be made before the question in relation to


which they are to be proved has arisen but they do not cease
to be deemed to be relevant because they were made for the
purpose of preventing the question from arising.'
This condition applies also to statements as to public and
general rights or customs and matters of public and general
;

interest.
Illustrations.
{a)

The

question

which of three sons (Fortunatus, Stephanus, and

is,

Achaicus) born at a birth

The

is

the eldest.

fact that the father said that

took their names from

St.

Achaicus was the youngest, and he

Paul's Epistles (see

Cor.

xvi. 17),

and the
round

fact that a relation present at the birth said that she tied a string

the second child's


(b)

lives

arm

The question
is

is,

to distinguish

it,

are relevant."

whether one of the cestuis que vie

in

a lease for

living.

Schwenk, 94 U. S. 593, 598 or


Flanders, 57 N. H. 618, 624
Stein V. Boivman, 13 Pet. 209.
But whether all relatives by marriage,
both near and remote, are competent to make such declarations is undetermined.
See People v. Fire Ins. Co. 25 W'end. 205. In jfewell' s Lessee
V. yeioell, I How. (U. S.) 219, the declarations of a deceased husband
that the parents of his wife were not married were received.
So the declarations or conduct of deceased parents may be shown to prove their
children illegitimate (^Haddock v. B. & M. R. Co., 3 Allen, 298 Barnum
Co., 3 Allen, 298

Conn. Life Ins. Co.

expressions

similar

are

v.

used, Tyler

v.

Barnum, 42 Md.

prove legitimacy {Kenyan v. Ashbridge, 35


Pa. St. 157
cf. Alexander v. Chamberlain, i T. & C. 600).
But the relationship of the declarant must in any case be shown by other evidence
than the declarations themselves. Blackburn v. Crawfords, 3 Wall. 175
Thompson v. Woolf, 8 Or. 454 Sitler v. Gehr, 105 Pa. St. 577.
The declarations of deceased neighbors, acquaintances, servants, or
other strangers are not received.
Chapman v. Chapman, 2 Ct. 347
Cames v. Crandall, 10 la. 377 De Haven v. De Haven, jy Ind. 236 and
cases supra contra, Carter v. Montgomery 2 Tenn. Ch. 216.]
Berkeley Peerage Case, 4 Camp. 401-417. [^People v. Fire Ins. Co.,
Chapman v. Chapman, 2
25 Wend. 205 Stein v. Bowman, 13 Pet. 209
Ct. 347
Northrop v. Hale, 76 Me. 306 Comm. v. Felch, 132 Mass. 23
V.

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.]

report calls the son Achicus,

A DIGEST OF

76

The

fact that

he was believed

irrelevant, as the question


(f)

[Part

in his family to

be dead

is

deemed

to

I.

be

not one of pedigree.'

is

The following are instances of the ways in which statements as to


may be made By family conduct or correspondence in books

pedigree

used as family registers


stones, or portraits
living persons

in

known

in

deeds and

wills

in

inscriptions

on tomb-

pedigrees, so far as they state the relationship of

to the compiler.''

Article

32.*

evidence given in former proceeding,

when relevant.

Evidence given by a witness in a previous action is relevant


purpose of proving the matter stated in a subsequent

for the

proceeding, or in a later stage of the same proceeding, when


the witness is dead,' or is mad,* or so ill that he will probably
never be able to travel,^ or is kept out of the way by the adverse
party,* or in civil, but not, it seems, in criminal, cases, is out

* See Note XXII.


Whittuck V. Walters, 4 C. & P. 375. [For cases in which death has
been deemed a question of pedigree, see Cochrane v. Libby, 18 Me. 39
Webb V. Richardson, 42 Vt. 465 Clark v. Owe/is, 18 N. Y. 434.]
= In I Ph. Ev. 203-15, and T. E. ss. 583-7, these and many other forms
of statement of the same sort are mentioned and see Davies v. Loxvndes,
[See Biissom v. Forsyth, 32 N. J. Eq. note. The fol6 M. & G. 527.
lowing are instances family conduct or reputation {Eaton v. Tallmadge,
24 Wis. 217 Clark v. Owens, 18 N. Y. 434 Harland v. Eastman, 107 111.
535 Watson v. Brewster, i Pa. St. 381) family bible Weaver v. Leiman,
will (Pearson v. Pear52 Md. 708 Hunt v. Johnson, 19 N. Y. 279, 286)
parchment pedigree and inscription on tombstone
son, 46 Cal. 610)
(North Brookjicldv. Warren, 16 Gray, 171) depositions (A7ner. Life Ins.
deeds {Scharff v. Keener, 64 Pa. St.
Co. V. Rosenagle, 77 Pa. St. 507)
376 Jackson v. Cooley, 8 Johns. 128). The persons executing such instruments must have been relatives {Si tier \. Gehr, 105 Pa. St. 577); as
to the testimony of a witness who derives his information from docupients, etc., of these kinds, see Eastman v. Martin, 19 N. H. 152.]
^ Alayor of Doticaster v. Day, 3 Tau. 262,
* R. v. Eriswell, 3 T. R. 720.
^ R. V. Hogg, 6 C. & P. 176.
>

/?, V.

Scaife, 17 Q. B. 238, 243,

Chap.

THE

IV.]

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

of the jurisdiction of the Court,' or, perhaps, in

when he cannot be

in criminal, tases,

Provided
(i)

'

Fry

Godbolt,

but not

civil,

found.'

in all cases

That the person against

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,

Slasserv. Burlington, 47 la, 300 Cassady v.


Sickness which renders the witness unable to attend
sometimes held sufficient. Chase v. Springr^ale Mills Co., 75 Me. 156 see

Kelh\i;g\. Secord, 42 Vt. 318


Trustees, 105
is

111.

560.

Mitchell, 34 N. J. L. 337, 341 Howard v. Patrick, 38 Mich. 795.


In criminal cases, death is deemed sufficient (U. S. v. Macomb, 5 McL.

Dcrney

v.

286;

Drown

State

V.

v.

Comm., 73 Pa.

Fitzgerald, 63

la,

268

sence from the jurisdiction.

St. 321
;

Summons

State v. Able, 65

U. S.

v.

v.

State, 5 O. St. 325

Mo.

357), but not ab-

Angell, 11 F. R. 34

Brogy

v.

Comm., 10 Gratt. 722 People v. A'e^oman, 5 Hill, 295 Collins v. Comm.,


12 Bush, 271
but see People v. Chung Ah Chue, 57 Cal. 567. But if
the witness is wrongfully kept away by the defendant, the former evidence has been received. Reynolds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145 State v.
Houser, 26 Mo. 431 contra, Bergen v. State, 17 111. 426. As to sickness,
see .Mc La in v. Comm., 99 Pa. St. 86.
The constitutional provision that
the defendant shall be confronted with the witnesses against him is generally held not to exclude this kind of evidence.
(See all the cases in this
paragraph People v. Sligh, 48 Mich. 54.)
The former testimony may be proved by any witness who heard and
;

'

'

'

A DIGEST OF

78

had the

and opportunity

right

when he was examined


(2)

the

[Part

I.

cross-examine the declarant

to

as a witness

That the questions in issue were substantially the same


as in the second proceeding

first

in

Provided also
(3)

That the proceeding,

if civil,

was between the same parties

or their representatives in interest

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,

Keyes, 14 Allen, 236


son V. Charlton, 42

State v. Able, 65 Mo. 357 Summons v. State,


Whitcher v. Morey, 39 Vt. 459. But in Massachusetts
Costigan v. Lunt, 127
substantially the original language must be given.

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.
;

Ellsworth, 55 Vt. 415.


Former testimony given before arbitrators may be proved. Walbridge
Bailey v. Woods, 17 N. H. 365 contra, Jessup
V. Knippen, 96 Pa. St. 48
V. Cook, 6 N.
cf. Jackson v. Bailey, 2 Johns. 17.]
J. L. 529
' Doe
Doe v. Derby, i A. & E. 783, 785, 789.
v. Tatkam, I A. & E. 319
;

\Osborn

v, Pell,

5 Den. 370; Jackson

v.

Crissey, 3

Wend.

251

CAas(

v.

Chap,

same

If

THE

v.]

That,

(4)

the

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

criminal cases, the

in

same person

is

79

accused upon

facts.'

evidence

reduced

is

to the

form of a deposition, the pro-

visions of article 90 apply to the proof of the fact that

it

was

given.

The

conditions under which depositions

dence are stated

may be

used as evi-

in articles 140-142.

SECTION

II.

STATEMENTS IN BOOKS, DOCUMENTS, AND


RECORDS, WHEN RELEVANT
Article

33.

recitals of public facts in statutes and proclamaTIONS.'

When
issue or

ment of

any act of
is,
it

state or

Co., 75

and cases supra.


examination exist, though
N. Y.

293.

fact of a public nature

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

Me. 156 Walbridge v. Knippeti, 96 Pa. St.


It is enough that the opportunity for cross;

Bradley v. Mirick, 91
it is not exercised.
Privies in blood, in law, or in estate, are "representatives

Jackson v. Laiuson, 15 Johns. 539; Yale


But the plaintiffs in one suit may be defendants in the other.
(Id.)
But the testimony of the deceased witness
is inadmissible, unless he would, if living, have been a competent witness in the second suit.
Eaton v. Alger, 47 N. Y. 345. The testimony of a witness given at a coroner's inquest is not admissible in an
action to recover damages for causing the death of the deceased, though
the witness has since died.
Cook v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 5 Lans. 401. The
inquest is not an action or judicial proceeding between the parties.]
Beeston s Case, Dears. 405.
[See the criminal cases cited in note 2 on
page 77, ante.]
2 [See Pliil. etc. R. Co. v. Howard, 13 How. (U. S.) 307
Clhisc v. Springvale Mills Co.^ 75 Me. 156.]
3 [This article may be adapted to American law by making it read as
follows When any act of state or any fact of a public nature is in issue,
in interest" within this rule.

Comstock, 112 Mass. 267.

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.

relevancy of entry in public record made


formance of duty.

in per-

An entry in any record, official book, or register kept in


any of Her Majesty's dominions ^ or at sea, or in any foreign
country, stating, for the purpose of being referred to by the
public, a fact in issue or relevant or deemed to be relevant
thereto, and made in proper time by any person in the discharge of any duty imposed upon him by the law of the place
in which such record, book, or register is kept, is itself deemed
to be a relevant fact.^
is, or is deemed to be, relevant to the issue, any statement of it made
a recital contained in any public statute, or in any proclamation of the
Executive, or in state papers communicated by the Executive to the
Legislature, or published under public authority, or in legislative jour-

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

Root v. King, 7 Cow. 613 Spang-ler v. Jacoby, 14 111. 297


Whiton v.
Albany, etc. Ins. Go's., 109 Mass. 24, and cases cited Hanson v. South
Scituate, 1 15 Mass. 336; see Armstrongs. U. S., 13 Wall. 154. So of recitals in the official precept of a governor.
Comm. v. Hall., 9 Gray, 262.
;

As

to the effect of recitals in private statutes, see

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

council of a city, Ireland


R.

v.

Sutton, 4

M. &

\.

v. Bliss,

Rochester

S. 532.

should read, " in any State or Territory or the

this

Columbia. "]
V.

Freccia, L. R. 5

T. E.

App.

(from Greenleaf)

Ca

623

ss.

1429,

see

especially p. 633-4

See also Queen's

1432.

[Gr. Ev. i. ^^ 483-485, 493-495


Fry, L. R. 4 P. D. 230.
Evanston v. Gunn, 99 U. S. 660; Gurney v. Ho7i<e, 9 Gray, 404; Pells v.
Webquish, 129 Mass. 469 Gait v. Galhnvay, 4 Pet. 332 Bissell v. Hamb-

Proctor

V.

THE

Chap. IV.]

LAW OF EVIDENCE.
Article

8i

35.

relevancy of statements in works of history, maps,


charts, and plans.
Statements as to matters of general public history made
accredited historical books are
the occurrence of any such

deemed

deemed

matter

to

in issue

is

irt

be relevant when
or

is,

or

is

but statements in such


works as to private rights or customs are deemed to be irto be, relevant to the issue

relevant.'

Statements of facts in issue or relevant or


be relevant to the issue made in published maps

[Submitted)

deemed

to

or charts generally offered

for

sale as to matters of

public

public notoriety, such as the relative position of towns and

and such as are usually represented or stated in


such maps or charts, are themselves deemed to be relevant
countries,

lin,

6 Duer, 512

(f),

ante.

People

v.

Zeyst, 23

N. Y. 140

see Art. 27, Illustration

The books of a private corporation are of the nature of public books as


between the members (Gr. Ev. i. % 493), and are competent to show the
acts of the corporation, when duly kept in the regular course of business.
Hubbellw. Meigs, 50 N. Y 480; Turnpike Co. v. M'Kean, 10 Johns. 154;
Diehl V. Adams Co. Ins. Co., 58 Pa. St. 443. So they are evidence in
favor of the corporation, to show that it was properly organized. Mc FarIan V. Triton Ins. Co. 4 Den. 392 see Angell &: Ames on Corp. ^ 679,
681.
But they are not generally competent evidence in favor of the cor;

poration against a stranger.

Railroad
38

111.

As

Co. v.

Graville

Cunnington, 39 O.

St.

Y. C. R. Co., 34 Hun, 224


Chases. Sycamore, etc. R. Co.,

v. jV.

327

215.

to entries in other

books of a private or

quasi-o{^c\vi\ character, see

Art. 27, ante.'\

See cases in 2 Ph. Ev. 155-6. [McKinnon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y. 206, 216


Dogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Sandf. Ch. 633 Crill v. Rome, 47 How.
T'r. 400
Morris v. Harmer, 7 Pet. 554 State v. Wagner, 61 Me. 178,
188
Spalding v. Hedges, 2 Pa. St. 240, 243. These cases favor the viewthat if the author is living, he should be called as a witness to be examMere local hisined as to the sources and accuracy of his knowledge.
tories are not admitted in evidence.]
'

A DIGEST OF

82

facts

[Part

but such statements are irrelevant

;
'

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,

of Australia were given in evidence to show the

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

E.g., a line in a tithe

as to the position of the boundaries

Wilbei-force

v.

Hearfield, L. R. s

Ch. D. 709, and see Hatnmond v.


10 Ex. 390.
[As a general rule,
maps, surveys, and plans of land are not competent evidence, unless
their accuracy is shown by other evidence in the case {Johnston v. yoncs,
,

I Black, 209;
Whitehotise v. Bickford, 9 Foster, 471), as
testimony of the surveyors who prepared them. Curtiss

by the

e.g.,

Ayrault,

v.

But a map of public land, made by a public surveyor,


and filed in a public ofifice, as prescribed by statute, is
admissible per se {People v. Dcnison, 17 Wend. 312), and ancient maps
are admissible /t'r se to show matters of public and general right. Alis-

&

5 T.

C. 611.

and duly

certified

v. Kevtucky, 11 Wall. 395


McCausland v. Fleming, 63 Pa. St. 36
see Art. 30, ante.
Bufan ancient map of partition, showing the division
of land among private owners, is not evidence of title, jfackson v.

souri

Witter, 2 Johns. 180.

Where

map

a plan or

of land

conveyances of such land,

it

is

is

prepared, and

is

referred to in

making

evidence to show boundary or location,

v. Life Ins. Co., 64 N. Y. 33


Kingslatid
Crawford v. Loper, 25 Barb. 449). So in dediDerby v. Ailing, 40 Ct. 410. But if made by
a stranger without authority, it cannot be received to vary or contradict
a title under a previous deed. Marble v. IMcMinn, 57 Barb. 610 cf. Jackson V. Frost, 5 Cow. 346.
But sometimes maps, plans, etc., are admissible even between strangers.
Boston Water Power Co. v. Hanlon, 132
Mass. 483. And sometimes maps are admissible by statute, as maps of

or to explain the contract {Clark

Chittenden, 6 Lans. 15
cating land to the public.
v.

the public canals in

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.

contra. Bales v. State, 63

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.,

generally held that a medical or other scien-

not competent evidence to prove the truth of matters


{Comm. v. Sturtivant, 117 Mass. 122; Harris v. Panama

Hall, 48 Mich. 482

be read

New

other rules as to the admissibility of books, papers,

supra

People

v.

Wheeler, 60 Cal. 581

contra. State

v.

Hoyt, 46

Chap.

IV.]

THE

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

Articles

83

36, yj, 38.

entries in bankers' books.*

Article

39.*

" judgment."
The word "judgment" in articles 40-47 means any
judgment, order, or decree of any Court.

final

* See Note XXIIL


nor given in evidence to sustain or contradict the opinion of a
Davis v. State, 38 Md. 15 Knoll v. State, 55 Wis. 249. But
witness.
such a book may be read to discredit a witness when he has referred to
Ct. 330),

Pintjcy v. Caliill, 48 Mich. 584 Ripon


30 Wis. 614. And standard treatises have been allowed to be
read to an expert witness on cross-examination to test his knowledge.
Conn. Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 89 111. 516. An engraving in a medical book can-

it

as supporting his statements.

V. Bittell,

not be shown to the jury.


Ordway v. Haynes, 50 N. H. 159. So counsel
ought not in general to read extracts from other books and papers.
Baldwin v. Bricker, 86 Ind. 221 as to reading law books, see State v.
;

Hopkins^ 56 Vt. 250.

price current list, appearing from extrinsic evidence to be reliable,


competent to prove market value [Cliquot's Champagne, 3 Wall. 114;
Whelan v. Lynch, 60 N. Y. 469 see Whitney v. Thacher, 117 Mass. 523
Peter v. Thickstun, 51 Mich. 589)
the Northampton tables to show duration of life {Schell v. Plumb, 595 N. Y. 52
Coates v. Burlington, etc.
N. Co., 62 la. 486)
an almanac to show time of sunrise, etc. State v.
Morris, 47 Ct. 179 Munshower v. State, 55 Md. 11. So market reports
have been received {Sisson v. Cleveland, etc. R. Co., 14 Mich. 489), and
a weather record kept at a State asylum. De Armond v. iXeasmith, 32
Mich. 231. But a gazetteer is not admissible to prove relative distances
is

of places {Spalding

V.

Hedges, 2 Pa.

St. 240),

nor are law reports of cases

formerly decided competent to prove the facts of those cases (Mackay

Wall. 619), nor to prove a local custom of trade.


Buhl, 42 Mich. 86.]

f.aston, 19

Co. v.
'

[Articles 36, 37,

and 38

they are not retained here in the

appendix.
in this

v.

Cliffs

state the provisions of special English stat-

utes relating to entries in bankers' books.


lish law,

Iron

See Note XLIX.

As

As they are peculiar


text,

but

will

to

be found

to the admissibility of corporation

country, see Articles 27 and 34, ante, and notes.]

Engin

the

books

A DIGEST OF
The

[Part

provisions of articles 40-45 inclusive, are

I.

subject to

all

the provisions of article 46.

Article

40.

all judgments conclusive proof of their legal


EFFECT.
All

judgments whatever are conclusive proof as against

all

persons of the existence of that state of things which they actually effect

fected

when

The

issue.'

proved

the existence of the state of things so ef-

a fact in issue or

is

is,

or

is

deemed

to be, relevant to the

existence of the judgment effecting

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

conclusive proof as against B, that

recovered damages against A,

is

in

did recover

damages against

that action.
{fi)

The

question

is,

whether A, a shipowner,

is

entitled to recover as

by capture against B, an underwriter.


A judgment of a competent French prize court condemning the ship
and cargo as prize, is conclusive proof that the ship and cargo were lost
to A by capture. 3
(f) The question is, whether A can recover damages from B for a mafor a loss

licious prosecution.

[Gr. Ev.

>

i.

527, 538, 539

lain V. Carlisle, 26 N. H. 540;

Murray

Deyo, 10 Hun, 3

v.

Dorrell

see Smith

v.

Chamber83 Md. 357


Sharps teen, 8 N. Y. 388;

v. State,

Wadswortk

v.

Chapin, 31 Ct. 530

Coodnow

v.

Smith, 97 Mass. 69.]


2

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.]

[cf Rose v. Hifnely, 4

Chap.

THE

IV.]

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

of a Court by which A was acquitted


was acquitted by that Court.'
A, as executor to B, sues C for a debt due from C to

The judgment

conclusive

is

proof that
(d)

85

The grant

of probate to

is

B.

conclusive proof as against C, that

is

B's executor.*

(e)

deprived of his living by the sentence of an ecclesiastical

is

court.

Tne sentence

conclusive proof of the

is

of deprivation in

fact

all

cases.'
(_/)

and B are divorced a vinculo matrimonii by a sentence of the

Divorce Court.
The sentence

is

conclusive proof of the divorce in

{g) [The question

is

whether A, an alien born,

all cases.''

a citizen of the Uni-

is

:ed States.

The record

'

Leggatt

& Ry.

277

of a

judgment

of

a competent Court admitting him to be-

TolUrvey, 14 Ex. 301

v.

and see Caddy v. Barlow, i Man.


Burt v. Place, 4 Wend.

[see S^iyles v. Briggs, 4 Met. 421

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.
;

U. S. 238, 243 Steen v. Bennett, 24 Vt. 303 Quidorfs Adm'r.


Pergeaux., 3 C. E. Gr. 472 so as to guardian, Farrar v. Olmstead, 24 Vt.
But the grant of ad123 or receiver, Whittlesey v. Frantz, 74 N. Y. 456.
Tisdale, 91

V.

ministration

upon

the estate of a living person

Stevenson

Superior

is

wholly void for lack of

Jochumsen v. SufMelia v. Simmons, 45 Wis. 334 Devlin v.


Comm., loi Pa. St. 273
Lavin v. Emigrant Sav. Bk., 18 Blatch. I, 36.
But in New York by statute, the determination by the surrogate of the
fact of death is deemed conclusive, so far as to render the acts of the administrator valid until his authority is revoked.
Roderigas v. Fast River
Sav. Inst., 63 N. Y. 460 but this power of the surrogate does not extend

jurisdiction.

v.

folk Sav. Bk., 3 Allen, 87

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

Bury, 2 T. R. 346, 351

[cf.

Needham v. Bremner, L. R. i C. P. 582. [Hood v. Hood,


Burlen v. Shannon, 3 Gray, 387 Hunt v. Hunt, 72 N. Y.
impeaching the judgment for lack of jurisdiction, see People v.
in

no

Mass. 463

217

as to

v.

Baker, 76 N. Y.

78.

'

A DIGEST OF

86

come a
is

citizen

and reciting the

facts

[Part

which entitled him

to

1.

such judgment

conclusive proof of his citizenship.]

Article

41.

judgments conclusive as between parties and privies


of facts forming ground of judgment.
Every judgment

conclusive proof as against parties and

is

privies of facts directly in issue in the case, actually decided

by the Court," and appearing from the judgment


[McCarthy

'

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.

State v. Macdoiiald, 24 Minn.

48.]
"^

V.

[Gr. Ev.

i.

Chase, 128 Mass.

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.

conclusive between parties and privies as to facts actually

decided, whether these do or do not appear

not

may be shown by

upon

the record

such as do

parol evidence to have been litigated and de-

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.

Knight V. Dez'lin, 52 N. Y.399.


A judgment is said to be conclusive not only as to matters which are,
but also as to those which might have been litigated and determined in the
action.
yorJ<in v. Van Epps, 85 N. Y. 427 Petershine v. Thomas, 28 O.
Bates v. Spooner, 45 Ind. 489.
St. 596
Par?tell v. Hahn, 61 Cal. 131
Thus, if part of a single cause of action be sued on and judgment recov;

Secor v. Sturgis, 16 N. Y. 548


for the residue.
96 U. S. 430 Warren v. Comings, 6 Cush. 103 BrunsAnd if a defensee Illustration {c).
den V. Humphrey, 14 Q. B. D. 141
dant fails to set up defences which he might and should maintain, and

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

unless evidence was admitted


ground on which it was based
in the action in which the judgment was deUvered which is ex;

to the matters actually in issue,

if

the subsequent cause of action be dif-

Foye v. Patch, 132 Mass. 105.


But matters of set-off and recoupment (and sometimes other matters),
though not used as defences inactions where they might be so used, may
still be sued on independently. Brown v. Gallaudct, 80 N. Y. 413
Gillespie V. Torrance^ 25 N. Y. 309 Malloney v. Horan, 49 N. Y. ill
Burnett
V. Smit/i, 4 Gray, 50
Vufes v. Fassett, 5 Den. 21 see Barker v. Cleveland,
19 Mich. 230.
Some additional rules of importance concerning judgments are the following (a) A judgment, in order to conclude parties and privies, must
be a final decision on the merits. Gr. Ev.
$ 529, 530 Webb v. BiickaleT.v, 82 N. Y. 555.
Thus a judgment of nonsuit or of dismissal of the
complaint in an action at law does not bar another action {Smith v. AfcNeal, 109 U. S. 426
Wheeler v. Ruckman, 51 N. Y. 391), though a dismissal in equity on the merits will have that effect [Diirant v. Essex
Co., 7 Wall. 107
aliter, if not on the merits, Hughes v. U. 6'., 4 id. 232;
see Ogsbury v. La Farge, 2 N. Y. 113
N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. % 1209).
So if there be a discontinuance {Audubon v. Excelsior Ins. Co., 27 N. Y.
216), or the action be prematurely brought {Quackenbush v. Ehle, 5 Barb.
469), or a plea in abatement be sustained I'aughan v. O'Brien, 57 Barb.
A verdict without judgment
491), judgment for such causes is no bar.
entered is no bar. Smith v. AIcCool, 16 Wall. 560.
{b) Judgment on
demurrer, rendered on the merits, is a bar to another action on substantially the same complaint
but not to an action on a new complaint setting
forth the facts of the same transaction so as to present a different cause
of action.
Alley v. Nott, iii U. S. 472 People v. Stephens, 51 How. Pr.
Gould v. R. Co. 91 U. S.
235 Stowell V. Chamberlain, 60 N. Y. 272
(c) Judgment by confession
533 Los Angeles v. Melius, 59 Cal. 444.
or default is a bar. Robinson v. A/arks, 19 Hun, 325 Jarvis v. Driggs,
Spring Run Co. v. Tosier, 102 Pa. St. 342. (d) An inter69 N. Y. 143
locutory order is not conclusive between parties Webb v. Buckalew, 82
N. Y. 555 Riggs v. Pursell, 74 N. Y. 380 Spitlcy v. Frost, 15 F. R.
299) aliter as to final orders on the merits in special proceedings, where
there are opposing parties who have full opportunity to be heard.
Id. ;
Demarest v. Darg, 32 N. Y. 281 cf. Frauenthar s Appeal, 100 Pa. St. 290.
(<?) A judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction, whether of law,
equity, admiralty, etc., will bar an action on the same ground in another
court whose jurisdiction is of a different nature.
Westcott \ Edmunds^
Cro7nwell

ferent.

Sac, 94 U. S. 351

v.

i.

A DIGEST OF

[Part

eluded in the action in which that judgment

is

I.

intended to be

proved.'

Illustrations.

The

(a)

question

whether C, a pauper,

is,

is

settled in parish

or par-

ish B.

is

E the father of C. D, E, and several of their


removed from A to B before the question as to C's settleby an order unappealed against, which order described D as

the mother and

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

clusive proof as against

A company

(c)

sues

that

for

is

nearer of kin to

unpaid premium and

than A.^

calls.

special case

Court of Common Pleas, A obtains judgment on the


ground that he never was a shareholder.
The company being wound up in the Court of Chancery, A applies for
the repayment of the sum he had paid for premium and calls.
The decision that he never was a shareholder is conclusive as between him and
the company that he never was a shareholder, and he is therefore entitled to recover the sums he paid.''
(d) A obtains a decree of judicial separation from her husband B, on
the ground of cruelty and desertion, proved by her own evidence.
being stated

in the

Powers v. Chelsea Sav. Bk., 129 Mass. 44. Thus if one


St. 34
sues on a contract at law as it is, he cannot afterwards sue in equity to

68 Pa.

reform the contract. Steittbach v. Relief his. Co., 77 N. Y. 498.]


' R.
v. Hutchins, L. R. 5 Q. B. D. 353, supplies a recent illustration of
[cf. Putnam v. Clark, 34 N.
this principle
Maybee v. Avery,
J. Eq. 532
;

18 Johns. 352
"

R.

v.

Qiiinn

v. Qitinn.^

Harthigton Middle Quarter, 4 E.

Allfrey, L. R. 10 C. P. 29

172
3

[see Bethlehem

Barrs

16 Vt. 426.]

v.

v.

yackson,

&

B. 780

and contrast Dover

v.

and see

Flitters v.

Child, L. R.

IVatertown, 47 Ct. 237.]


I Phill. 582, 587, 588
[see Caujollc
;

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.

marriage on the ground of


A charges B

B nor A can give evidence.


The decree in the first suit

adultery, in which suit neither

with cruelty

89

is

deemed

to

be irrelevant in the second.'


(e) [A sues B to recover damages for the conversion of some bed-quilts
and obtains judgment.
This judgment defeats a recovery in a subsequent action for the conversion of a bed which was taken by B at the same time with the quilts.]'
(/") [A, a physician, sues B in a justice's court to recover the value of
his medical services, and upon B's default to appear and contest the action obtains judgment.
B afterwards sues A in a superior court to recover damages for malpractice in rendering said services. The former judgment is conclusive
The defence of malpractice might have been set up
in bar of the action.
in the first suit and used to defeat recovery therein moreover, an award
of damages against the physician for this cause would be wholly inconsistent with his prior recovery for his services.] ^
(^) [A sues B on a promissory note, and the suit not being defended,
enters judgment for its full face value, without crediting B with a payment already made thereon. This judgment bars a subsequent action by
B to recover the amount of said payment.] *
(h) [An assignee in bankruptcy sued several defendants to determine
the title to certain goods, and it was adjudged that the title was in him.
One of these defendants, who claimed title in himself and had put it in
issue in this suit, afterwards sued another of them to recover the same
;

goods.

The judgment
in the second.]
()

[A sues B

cluded

in

Stoate

475

cf.

in the first suit

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

Swa. & Tr. 223; \^VVoodruff

Bradley,

\^Farringto

\_Blair v. Bartleft, 75

76

v.

(O.) 464; see Goble

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.

Payne, 15 Johns. 432.]

contra, Ressequie

conclusive against the right to recover

is

v.

Elliott,

60 Mo. 25

A DIGEST OF

90

[Part

I.

bill of sale is fraudulent and void.


B afterwards
residue of the goods covered by the bill of sale.

on the ground that the


sues

A for the

The former judgment is deemed conclusive upon the question of fraud,


and defeats B's recovery.]
(7) [A sues B to recover the price of goods sold and obtains judgment.
'

A sues B

Afterwards

to recover damages for fraud in obtaining a


The former judgment defeats recovery.] 2

for the goods.

Article

credit

42.

statements in judgments irrelevant as between


strangers, except in admiralty cases.
Statements contained in judgments as to the facts upon
which the judgment is based are deemed to be irrelevant as
between strangers, or as between a party or privy and a
stranger,' except in the case of judgments of Courts of Admiralty condemning a ship as prize. ^ In such cases the judg''

'

{Doty

"

{Caylus

V.

Brown, 4 N. Y.
N. Y., etc. R.

71.]

76 N. Y. 609

prior recovery will bar a subsequent action for the

a general rule that a


same claim, though

the forms of action be entirely different.

^ 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.

Co. v. iVat. Bk., 102

as an objectionable

See, too, Castrique

P. 545.

U. S.

anomaly

v. Itnrie,

L.

434-5.

6 [A judgment of a court of Admiralty condemning a ship as prize, or


of any competent court condemning property under laws of forfeiture, be-

longs to the class of judgments

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.

dication as to personal status may, in

i.

525, 541-546. But an adjucases, only be effectual within

some

the limits of the State in which the decision is rendered. People v.


Wh. Ev. ii. $ 815-818 cf. Bishop, M. & D. ii. %%
Baker, 76 N. Y. 78
Sc attachment suits against non-residents are in the
155-200, 6th Ed.
;

'

THE

Chap. IV.]

ment

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

conclusive proof as against

is

persons of the fact on

all

which the condemnation proceeded, where such

upon the

stated

91

fact

plainly

is

face of the sentence.

Illustrations.

and B is, whether certain lands in Kent


had been disgavelled. A special verdict on a feigned issue between C
and D (strangers to A and B) finding that in the 2nd Edw. VI. a disgavelling Act was passed in words set out in the verdict is deemed to be irrel-

The

question between

The

question

{a)

evant.
[b)

is,

whether

committed bigamy by marrying B dur-

ing the lifetime of her former husband C.

A decree in a suit of jactitation of marriage, forbidding C to claim to


be the husband of A, on the ground that he was not her husband, is
deemed to be irrelevant.^
The question is, whether A, a shipowner, has broken a warranty
(<
to B, an underwriter, that the cargo of the ship whose freight was insured
by A was neutral property.
The sentence of a French prize court condemning ship and cargo, on
the ground that the cargo was enemy's property, is conclusive proof in
favor of B that the cargo was enemy's property (though on the facts the
Court thought it was not.) ^
((/) [The question is whether A or C is rightfully entitled to hold a
)

public

office.

A judgment

in

a previous action between

and B

to

determine the

nature of actions in rem, the property attached being the res.


Neff, 95

v.

U. S. 714

Mc Kinney

doctrine as to judgments in

rem

is

Pennoyer

N. Y. 216. This general


virtually included in Article 40, supra.

v.

Collins, 88

See Appendix, Note XXIII.

The English
tion

is

rule stated in this article, that the

conclusive, not only as to

demnation stated therein,


Croudson

is

title

judgment of condemna-

but also as to the grounds of con-

upheld also

in

some American

courts.

Leonard, 4 Cr. 434 see Cushing v. Laird, 107 U. S. 69, 80


Baxter v. New Eng. Ins, Co. 6 Mass. 277. But in New York it is only
frim^ facie evidence of such facts, and in a collateral action such eviv.

dence may be rebutted.

Durant v. Abendroth, 97 N. Y. 132, 141.]


Drydges, 6 M. & G. 282.
^ Duchess of Kingston s Case, 2 S. L. C. 760
[see Williams v. Williams,
3 Barb. Ch. 628.]
3 Geyer v. Aguilar,
[sec Note 5, supra.\
7 T. R. 681
1

Doe

V.

'

A DIGEST OF

92

title to

same office, in which it was declared


deemed to be irrelevant as against C]

the

title, is

Article

[Part
that

had the

I.

rightful

43.

effect of judgment not pleaded as an estoppel.


If a judgment is not pleaded by way of estoppel, it is as between parties and privies deemed to be a relevant fact, whenever any matter which was or might have been decided ' in
the action in which it was given is in issue, or is or is deemed
to be relevant to the issue, in any subsequent proceeding.
Such a judgment is conclusive proof of the facts which it
decides, or might have decided," if the party who gives evidence of it had no opportunity of pleading it as an estoppel.'
Illustrations.

deepening the channel of a stream, whereby the flow


of water to A's mill was diminished.
A verdict recovered by B in a previous action for substantially the same
cause, and which might have been pleaded as an estoppel, is deemed to
be relevant, but not conclusive in B's favor.
{V) A sues B for breaking and entering A's land, and building thereon
a wall and a cornice.
B pleads that the land was his, and obtains a
verdict in his favor on that plea.
[a)

sues

for

>

'

[People

V.

Murray, 73 N. Y.

''[That a judgment

is

535.]

conclusive as to what "might have been de-

cided," see Art. 41, note 2.]


5 [But it is held in many States of this country that ajudgment

conclusive

when given

an opportunity

in

evidence, as

equally

Krekeler v. Hitter, 62 N. Y. 372 Foye v.


it.
Furlcy v. Hatibert, 30 Pa. St. 194
Walker v.
Bcall v. Pearre, 12 Md. 550 Larum v. Wilmer, 35
;

Chase, 53 Me. 258


244; see Blair v. Blair, 45 Vt. 538
;

is

pleaded, even though there was

to plead

Patch, 132 Mass. 105


la.

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.

Afterward B's devisee sues A's wife (who on the

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.

judgments generally deemed to be irrelevant as


between strangers.
Judgments are not deemed to be relevant as rendering probmay be inferred from their existence, but

able facts which

which they neither state nor decide


as between strangers
as between parties and privies in suits where the issue is
different, even though they relate to the same occurrence of
subject matter;
;

or in favor of strangers against parties or privies.''

'

Whitaker v. jfackson, 2 H. & C.


See 2 Ph. Ev. 24, n. 4.

This had previously been

926.

doubted.
^

[Gr. Ev.

Sclirauth
"

v.

[Gr. Ev.

i.

$522, 523; Bartlett v. Boston Gas Co., 122 Mass. 209;


Bk., 86 N. Y. 390 see Art. 42, note 3.]
Stowell v. Chamberlain, 60 N. Y. 272
Cole%% 532, 533

Dry Dock
i.

man's Appeal, 62 Pa.


Huxley, 13 Gray, 285

St.
;

252

Russell

v.

Place, 94 U. S. 606

see Illustrations {ca)

{,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

evidence (see Illustration

{cc)),

Tuttlc, 14

v.

N. Y.

465), or are given in

or are improperly set

up by way of coun-

Denison, 84 N. Y. 272) nor as to matters which the


judgment does affirm, but which are immaterial to the issue and not
terclaim {People

v.

actually in controversy [People

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

relates to a matter of public or general interest,

so as to be a statement under article 30.^

Illustrations.

whether A has sustained loss by the negligence of


B, his servant, who has injured C's horse.
A judgment recovered by C against A for the injury, though conclusive
as against B, as to the fact that C recovered a sum of money from A, is
deemed to be irrelevant to the question, whether this was caused by B's
[a)

The

question

negligence.

is,

[B unlawfully creates an obstruction

in the street of a city, and A,


being injured thereby, sues the city for damages. The city gives notice
to B to defend the action, and. that he will be liable for the amount recovered. B does not defend the action, and A recovers judgment.
In a suit afterward brought by the city against B for indemnity, the
prior judgment is conclusive evidence against B of the city's liability to
A, of the amount of damages recoverable, and that the injury was not
caused by any default on A's part but is not competent to prove that
((71^)

the injury

was caused by B's negligence, which must therefore be

shown.] ^

two or more
is

joint tortfeasors, if followed

available to bar a suit against another.

by satisfaction (not otherwise)


Knapp v. Roche, 94 N. Y. 329
;

Murray, 3 Wall, i Elliott v. Hayden, 104 Mass. 180. But


judgment against one of two joint contractors bars an action against the
I.ovejoy V.

other.

Kingsley

v.

Davis, 104 Mass. 178.]

527 a; St. Louis Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 69 Mo. 72 Parks v.


Masher, 71 Me. 304, holding it open to explanation see City Bk. v. Dear'

[Gr. Ev.

i.

horn, 20

N. Y.

244.]

[See People v. Buckland, 13 Wend. 594.]


' Greens. Nexv River Compa?iy, ^ T. R. 589; \^Bank of Owcgov. Babcock,
5 Hill, 152; Second Nat. Bk. v. Ocean iVat. Bk., 11 Blatch. 362; Drummond\. Prestman, 12 Wheat. 515 see ne.xt note.]
"

of Rochester v. Montgomery, 72 N. Y. 65 Robbins v. Chicago, 4


Wall. 657, 2 Black, 418 Boston v. IVorthington, 10 Gray, 496 see Portland v. Richardson, 54 Me. 46. The notice need not be express. Village
of Port jfcrvls v. First jXut. Bk., 96 N. Y. 550. The same principle af)^

\_City

plies in other cases

where one party

is

primarily liable, but has a

remedy

THE

Chap. IV.]

The question

(b)

on the bill. The


to be irrelevant.'

(f)
is

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

w hether a

fact that

bill of exchange is forged arises in an action


was convicted of forging the bill is deemed

between two

collision takes place

damaged by the other.


The owner of A sues

95

ships,

and

B, each of which

owner of B, and recovers damages on the


was the fault of B's captain. This judgment
is not conclusive in an action by the owner of B against the owner of A.
(Semblc, it is deemed to be irrelevant. )3
for the damage done to B.^
{Cii) [A recovers damages from B for a wrongful dismissal from B's
employment before the term of service had expired.
This judgment does not preclude a recovery by A in a subsequent
action of the sum due for wages during the time he was actually employed, and payable before the dismissal.]
{cb) [The will of A is duly admitted to probate by a surrogate's court
having competent jurisdiction.
A's widow afterwards brings action for the admeasurement of her
ground that the

the

collision

dower.

over against another to obtain indemnity. Heiser


Cj.
Chicago,
T. R. Co. v. Latham, 63 Me. 177

614

Co., 70

111.

As a general

217.

rule,

binding upon his surety (though

it

Hatch, 86 N. Y.

v.

etc.

R. Co.

Packet

v.

a judgment against a principal

may be used

to

is

not

prove the fact of

its

recovery), unless the latter agreed to indemnify against the results of the

had notice and opportunity

or unless he

suit,

15 N. Y. 405

bcll,

Giltma?i

v.

bonds, as administrators' bonds,

official

held concluded by such judgments

Thomas

to defend.

Strong, 64 Pa.

St.

sheriffs'

v.

bonds,

etc.,

Hi;b-

upon

Sureties

242.

are often

the absence of fraud or collusion),

(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

indemnity contracts and the necesCo. v. Wilson, 34 N. Y. 274,

to the different kinds of

giving notice, see Bridgeport Ins.

Swab. Ad.

Corbley

v.

Wilson, 71

U.
111.

&

I.

App. 434;

S. 238, 244

209

Si^ns

Hargcr

v.

28.

the general principle in Duchess of Kingston's Case, 2 S. L. C.

813.
<

L. R. 4 E.

Ins. Co. v. TisdaU\ 91

\_Perry v. Dickcrson, 85 N. Y. 345.]

A DIGEST OF

96

The

surrogate's record of probate of A's will

[Part
is

not

deemed

to

be

I.

rele-

vant to prove A's death.] '


(cc) [A sues B to recover the value of board furnished to B's wife, and
recovers judgment, but the judgment does not state whether it is ren-

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

A's guilt must be proved as against B.^

{e)

sues B, a carrier, for goods delivered by

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.''

A sues B for trespass on land.


A judgment, convicting A for a nuisance by
(/")

the place said to have been trespassed on,

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

91 U. S. 238 cf. Kearney v. Demi, 15 Wall. 51


V. Smith's Adm'r, 70 Pa. St. 450.]
2 \Biirlen v. Shannon, 14 Gray, 433.]
;

Semble from R.

v.

Turner,

Moo. C.

generally held that the judgment against

C. 347.

is

Ins. Co. v. Tisdale,

but see Cuiininghain

[In this country

it

is

admissible in such a case,

prima facie evidence of A's guilt, but not conclusive. B may,


Lezy v. People, 80 N. Y. 327 State v. Mosley, 31
it.
Kan. 355 Bishop Cr. Pro. ii. % 12, 3d Ed.; cf. Comm. v. Elisha, 3 Gray,
460; yones\. People, 20 Hun, 545.]
and

is

therefore, controvert
;

Buller,

Petrie

N.
v.

P. 242, b.

Nuttall, 11 Ex. 569.

THE

Chap. IV.]

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

Article

judgments conclusive

97

45.

in

favor of judge.

When any action is brought against any person for anything


done by him in a judicial capacity, the judgment delivered,
and the proceedings antecedent thereto, are conclusive proof
of the facts therein stated, whether they are or are not necessary to give the defendant jurisdiction, if, assuming them to be
true, they show that he had jurisdiction.
Illustration.

A
500

peace) for taking from him a vessel and


of gunpowder thereon.
B produces a conviction before him-

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

conclusive proof for B, that the thing called a boat

boat,'.

Article

46.

fraud, collusion, or want of jurisdiction may be


PROVED.

Whenever any judgment

is

offered as evidence under

of the articles hereinbefore contained, the party against

'

Brittain v. Kinnaird,

Den. 537
115, 119.

People

It

judges) that
the court

is

is

v.

B.

Collins, 19

& B. 432 [see Harman


Wend. 56, 62 Wells v.
;

v.

any

whom

Brotherson, i

Stevens, 2 Gray,

stated as a general rule (not limited to actions against

when

the jurisdiction of a court depends

required to ascertain and determine in

its

upon a

fact

which

decision, such de-

reversed or vacated in a direct proceeding for that


The Rio Grande, i Woods, 279 Colton v. Beardsley, 38
Barb. 29, 51
Stoddard v. Johnson, 75 Ind. 20 see Dyckman v. Mayor
of N. K, 5 N. Y. 434, 440), and will protect all persons acting upon it in
good faith. But in other cases in which some fact must exist to give
jurisdiction, a court cannot acquire jurisdiction simply by deciding that
such fact exists. Roderigas v. East River Sav. Inst., 63 N. Y. 460, 464
see Grignons Lessee v. Astor, 2 How. (U. S. 319.]
cision

is

final, until

purpose {Otis

v.

A DIGEST OF

98

it is

so offered

may

prove that the Court which gave

jurisdiction,' or that

[On

[Part

it

has been reversed,' or,

if

he

it

I.

had no

a stranger

is

the ground that " a record imports absolute verity,"

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;

Coan v. Clow, 83 Ind. 417 Tiirrell v.


v. Duncan, 6 Vr. 389
Warren, 25 Minn. 9 Culver's Appeal, ifi(Z^. 165, 173 Bafinon v. People,
Wetherill v. Stillman, 65 Pa. St. 105 llahn v. Kelly, 34
I Bradw. 496
Cal. 391
that jurisdiction will be presumed when the record is silent on
but there has been much
that point, see Galpiii v. Pai^e, 18 Wall. 350)
See Fer^uso?t v.
diversity of opinion as to the last branch of this rule.
Crawford^ 70 N. Y. 253, 86 N. Y. 609. Judgments of inferior courts, or
of courts of limited jurisdiction, or even of courts of general jurisdiction
acting in the exercise of special statutory powers not according to the
course of the common law, may, however, be attacked collaterally, as a
Miller

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
;

Kelly supra; Hcndrick


^

ment of any court may


Freydcndall
In

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.

States, however, in which equitable defences are allowed in

legal actions, the

judgments even of higher courts may be attacked

col-

laterally for fraud in acquiring jurisdiction, notwithstanding this contradicts the record.

Ferguson

see Cavanaugh

v.

Crawford, supra

Clark

v. Little,

41

la.

Smith, 84 Ind. 380, in which case the record was


silent as to jurisdiction.
And some cases declare broadly that a judg-

497

v.

m.ent rendered without or in excess of jurisdiction can be

void for this cause either directly or collaterally.

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.

and over the subject matter. But a judgment


Comstock v.
cannot be collaterally impeached for error or irregularity.
Crawford, 3 Wall. 396 Hheldon v. Wright^ 5 N. Y. 497.]
diction over the person

{Smith

426.

As

V.

Frankfield, 77

Y. 414; Clodfelter

v.

Hulett, 92 Ind.

an appeal, while yet pending, see Mtirray


Sage v. Harpending, 49 Barb. 166 De Camp

to the effect of

Green, 64 Cal. 363


Miller, 44 N. J. L. 617.]
;

v.

v.

THE

Chap. IV.]
to

it,

that

it

LAW OF

EVIDENCE.

was obtained by any fraud or

neither he nor any person to

whom

Article

he

is

99

collusion,' to

which

privy was a party."

47.

foreign judgments.

The

provisions of articles 40-46 apply to such of the judg-

ments of Courts of foreign countries as can by law be enforced


in this country, and so far as they can be so enforced.'
[A stranger, but not a party, may avoid collaterally for fraud. OtterV. MiddUton, 102 Pa. St. 78
Davis v. Davis, 61 Me. 395 Krekeler
V. Ritter, 62 N. Y. 372.
But as a party may in a proper case bring suit
in equity to avoid a judgment procured by fraud {Ross v. Wood, 70 N. Y.
8), so in some States he may set up such fraud as an equitable defence.
MandevilU v. Reynolds, 68 N. Y. 543-546 Ferg-iison v. Crawford, 70
N. Y. 253. And when the fraud is in acquiring jurisdiction, the rules in
'

son

note
'

I,

supra, apply.]

Cases on

this article

collected in T. E.

and Ochsetibein

too, 2 Ph. Ev. 35,

v.

ss.

1524-1525,

See,

1530.

s.

Papelier, L. R. 8 Ch. 695.

^ 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.*

WHEN RELEVANT AND WHEN


Article

I.

NOT.

48,

opinion generally irrelevant.

The fact

that

not exist
fact,'

any person

is

of opinion that a fact in issue, or

deemed to be relevant to the issue, does


deemed to be irrelevant to the existence

relevant or
is

or does
of such

except in the cases specified in this chapter.^


*

See Note XXIV.

N. Y. 156; Rogers v. Gwin?i, 21 la. 58 see Hunt v. Hunt, 72 N. Y. 217),


and a court of equity will set such a judgment aside. Doughty v.
Doughty, orj N. J. Eq. 315. But such judgments are not impeachable
;

upon

the merits for error or for irregularity.

Christmas
90 N. Y. 502
25 N. J. Eq. 60.

v.

Russell, 5 Wall. 290

Pringle v. Wood-worth,
see Nichols v. Nichols,

Similar principles apply to foreign judgments. Lazier v. Westcott, 26


N. Y. 146 Grahatn v. Spencer, 14 F. R. 603 Bischoff v. Wetherel, 9
Wall. 812 Roth v. Roth, 104 111. 35. It is held in England that fraud
;

procuring such a judgment is a good defence, though the fact whether


such fraud existed had been investigated in the foreign court.
Abouloff\. Oppenheimer, 10 Q. B. D. 295.

in

As to the effect of a judgment in another State obtained by default


upon service of process by publication on a non-resident and an attachment of his property, see Pcnnoyer v. Ncff, 95 U. S. 714 Fitzsimons
V. Marks, 66 Barb. 333
Gilman v. Oilman, 126 Mass. 26 Eastman v.
Wadleigh, 65 Me. 25 and see generally as to judgments in rein, Durant
;

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

N^ew Bedford, etc. St. Co., 97


Teerpenningw. Corn Ex. Ins. Co., 43 N. Y. 279. This is esMass. 361
pecially true of opinions relating directly to the questions of law or fact
at issue in the action.
These are questions to be determined by court or
jury from i\\e facts in evidence.
Id. ; see Illustrations (b) and (c).]
^ [Besides the exceptions stated by the author, the following are recogCo. V. Delpench, 82 Pa. St. 225
;

v.

THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.

Chap, v.]

loi

Illustrations,

The question
when he made his

whether A, a deceased testator, was sane or not


His friends' opinions as to his sanity, as exwill.

{a)

nized

is,

The subscribing

(i)

may

witnesses to a will

state their opinions

Egbert

as to the testator's sanity at the time of e.vecuting the will.

Egbert, 78 Pa.

326

St.

Wood, 55 N. Y. 635.

may

Hastings

many

In

(2)

state their opinion as to

v.

Riders, 99 Mass. 622 Hewlett v.


States, witnesses who are not experts
v.

a person's sanity or insanity,

connection

in

with a statement of the facts within their personal knowledge,

upon

Conn. Ins. Co. v. Lathrop, iii U. S. 612


which that opinion is based.
Smith V. Hickenbottom, 57 la. 733 Upstone v. People^ 109 111. 169 Hardy
Chase v. Winans, 59 Md. 475 Pidcock v. PotV. Merrill, 56 N. H. 227
State v. Harden, 51 Vt. 296 Rice v. Rice, 50 Mich.
ter, 68 Pa. St. 342
Baiighman v. Baitghman, 32 Kan. 538 People v. VVreden, 59 Cal.
448
In New York this is not permissible, but the witness may testify to
392.
acts and declarations known or observed by him, and characterize them
Holcomb v. Holcomb, 95 N. Y. 316. And so in
as rational or irrational.
Massachusetts testimony of opinion as to general soundness or unsoundness of mind is not received from non-experts, but the questions to a
witness which have been held allowable border very closely upon such
;

May

Comtn. v. Brayman, 136


v. Dradlee, 127 Mass. 414
So generally the opinions of non-experts, when based
known and observed by them, are admissible as to many mat-

an inquiry.
Mass. 438.

(3)

upon facts
upon which men

in general, without expert training, are competent


form a reliable opinion. If only the facts upon which such opinions
were based could be stated to the jury, such facts could not usually be
described so perfectly as to enable the jury to form a just conclusion from
them. Such testimony of opinion is received as to a person's identity
People v. Rol/e, 61 Cal. 540) a person's
(^Stute V. Dickson, 78 Mo. 438
age {Comm. v. O'Brien, 134 Mass. 198 De Witt v. Barly, 17 N. Y. 340,
344); whether a person was drunk or sober {Comm. v. Dowdican, 114 Mass.
Castner v. Sliker, 33 N. J. L. 507 People v. Eastwood, 14 N. Y. 562)
257
sick or well {City of Phi la. v. Gilmartin, 71 Pa. St. 161; Elliott v. I'an
Buren^ -^1 Mich. 49 Iligbce v. Life Ins. Co., 53 N. Y. 603 but not as to

ters
to

the nature of a sickness,

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

pressed by the letters which they addressed to him


deemed to be irrelevant.'

[An action

{b)

tract.

by the

The

is

brought to recover damages for a

in

his

tort or

I.

lifetime, are

breach of con-

damage sustained
deemed to be irrelevant.

opinions of witnesses as to the amount of

from the act complained of are


damages from ihe/iicts proved.] ^
(c) [The question is which of two deeds convey a greater right.
A
witness cannot be examined as to his opinion upon this point] ^
{d) [In an action for breach of promise of marriage the question is
whether the plaintiff was sincerely attached to the defendant.
Witnesses who lived with the plaintiff during the courtship and observed her deportment may give in evidence their opinions upon this

The

plaintiff

jury are to estimate the

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,

though they are not experts,]

Tatfiam, 7 A.

Lathrop, iii U.

S.

state their opinions

on

this

&

E. 313

612, 622

[as to this case, see Con}?.

People

v.

Montgomery, 13 Abb.

Pr. (N. S.) 207, 249.]


2

[Morehouse

Cleveland,

etc.

v.

R.

Mathews,

2 N. Y.

514; Bissell v. West, 35 Ind. 54;


But evidence of opinion as

Co. v. Ball, 5 O. St. 568.

to the value of houses, lands, chattels, medical, legal, or other services,


is commonly received from persons having special knowledge and
experience concerning such matters. Hills v. Ho7ne Ins. Co., 129 Mass.
Whiton v. Sny345 Pittsbtirgh^ etc. R. Co. v. Robinson, 95 Pa. St. 426

etc.

Whitney v. Thacher, 117 Mass. 523 Reynolds v. RobN. Y. 299


inson, 64 N. Y. 589.
This is commonly regarded as e.xpert testimony,
though it has been said that it is not such, strictly speaking, as respects
the value of property.
Swan v. Middlesex, loi Mass. 173.
Evidence of opinion has been received as to the value of land both before and after an injury thereto, or a taking therefrom by eminent domain. Sexton V. N. Bridgcwater, 116 Mass. 200 Carter v. Thurston, 58 N.
H. 104 East Pa. R. Co. v. Hottenstine, 47 Pa. St. 28. This is much the
same as giving an opinion as to damages in such cases. Snow v. B. &^ M.

der, 88

R. Co., 65 Me. 230.].


=*

[^Bennett

[McKee
[Comm.

v.

Cletnence,

6 Allen, 10.]

Nelson, 4 Cow. 355.]


V. Dorsey, 103 Mass. 412.]
v.

THE

Chap, v.]

LAW OF EVIDENCE.
Article

103

49.

opinions of experts on points of science or art.

When

there

is

a question as to any point of science or art,

upon that point of persons specially skilled in any


such matter are deemed to be relevant facts.
Such persons are hereinafter called experts.
The words " science or art " include all subjects on which a
the opinions

course of special study or experience

is

necessary

to the for-

mation of an opinion,' and amongst others the examination of


handwriting.

When
experts

there

who

is

a question as to a foreign law, the opinions of

acquainted with such law

in their profession are

are the only admissible evidence thereof, though such experts

may produce to the Court books which they declare to be


works of authority upon the foreign law in question, which
books the Court, having received all necessary explanations
from the expert, may construe for itself.'
Carter v. Bochm) 28 Vict. c. 18, s. 18.
Edgar, 99 U. S. 645, 657 jfones v.
Tucker, 41 N. H. 546; Coyle v. Comm., 104 Pa. St. 117; Muldoivncy v.
Ferguson v. Hubbell, 97 N. Y. 507. An ex///. Ce7t. R. Co., 36 la. 462
pert may not only testify to opinions, but may state general facts which
Emerson v. Lowell Gas Co., 6
are the result of scientific knowledge.
But the opinions of experts are not admissible upon matters
Allen, 146.
of common knowledge. As these are within common observation and experience, the jurors are deemed qualified to judge without expert aid.
Fergwion v. Hubbell.^ supra Milwaukee R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469
Franklin Ins. Co. v. Griiver, 100 Pa. St. 266
Lttce v. Dorchester Ins.
see Illustrations (g) and
Co., 105 Mass. 297; Knoll v. State, 55 Wis. 249
(h).
Nor, in general, is expert testimony received as to the very point in
issue in the case.
Seymour v. Fellows, 77 N. Y. 180 Buxton v. Somerset
Works, 121 Mass. 446 Noonan v. State, 55 Wis. 258 Hughes v. Musca'

[Gr.

S. L. C. 555, 7th ed. (note to

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.

It is the duty of the judge to decide, subject to the opinion


of the Court above, whether the skill of any person in the mat-

may be proved by

country {Mowry

this

[That the unwritten or common law of other


expert testimony is well settled in
Chase, 100 Mass. 79
Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. (U.

T. 510-511.

Case^ 30 S.

States or countries

v.

S.)4oo; In re Roberts' Will,

and

8 Pai. 446),

is

often declared in statutes,

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
;

Parrashick, 2 Low. 142.


In proof of foreign written law, e.xpert evidence

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

the generally established

mode

of proving the statute law

of Congress or of the sister States (see Art. 81, post).


testify as to the official
etc.

Pacific

Gas

Co.

But an expert may

or authoritative character of the printed volume,

Whcclock, 80 N. Y. 278

v.

Hynes

v.

McDermott,

82 N. Y. 54 Spaulding v. Vincent, 24 Vt. 501.


The expert is usually a lawyer, but the testimony of other persons
;

may be

acquainted with the law


v.

Thellusson, 8 C. B. 812

received in proper cases. Van der Donct


Pickard\. Baily, 26 N. H. 152 Amer. Life Ins.
;

Rosenaglc^ 77 Pa. St. 507.


Evidence of the foreign law must be

Co.

V.

not in the appellate court.

deemed a question

ally

The

first

introduced

in the trial court,

question what the foreign law

of fact, unless

it

is is

usu-

involves merely the construction

of a written statute or judicial opinion,

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,

forum is usually applied {Savage v. G' Neil, 44 N. Y. 298 Rohards


Marley, 80 Ind. 185 Marstcrs v. Lash, 61 Cal. 622) but whether the
statute law of the forum will be applied, or only the common law, see
Carpenter v. G. T. R. Co., T2 Me. 388 Harris v. White, 81 N. Y. 532,
544 Rogers v. Zook, 86 Ind. 237 Ncese v. Farmers' Ins. Co., 55 la. 604
see Art. 58, noie., post.^
the

v.

'

THE

Chap, v.]

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

105

on which evidence of his opinion is offered is sufficient to


him to be considered as an expert.
The opinion of an expert as to the existence of the facts on
which his opinion is to be given is irrelevant, unless he perter

entitle

ceived them himself.^

Illustrations,

The

(a)

'

question

Rristow

V.

Co.

71

Perkins

v.

Rowley

opinion of an expert

knowledge of the

v.

L. &^

I P.

Starrs, 69 Pa. St.

v. yohnson, 58 N. Y. 613.
admissible though he has no personal

Roberts

practice of his profession, etc.

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.

Sequeville, 6 Ex. 275

N. Y. 453
V.

A was

whether the death of

In the Goods of Donclli, L. R.

R. G Ex. 221.

boat Co.

is,

is

But

facts of the case.

counsel claim them to

in the question

asking his opin-

should then be stated in


hypothetical form ; and in framing the question, counsel may assume such
a state of facts as the evidence fairly tends to justify (Stearns v. Field, 90
ion, the facts, as

exist,

Jcwett v. Brooks, 134 Mass. 505 Pidcock V. Potter, 68 Pa. St.


cross-examination counsel need not be so restricted. People
V. Aiigsbury, 97 N. Y. 501.
This rule applies even though the witness
has heard the evidence of the facts as given by prior witnesses, if the
Guiterman v. Liverpool, etc. St. Co.,
facts are controverted or doubtful.
83 N. Y. 358 Dexter v. Hall, 15 Wall. 9 Coyle v. Comm. 104 Pa. St.
But in some cases, as where the
117; Woodbury v. Obear, 7 Gray, 467.
N. Y. 640

127)

but

in

evidence heard is clear and plain and not


mind, the expert may be asked his opinion upon what

facts are not in dispute, or the


difficult to

bear

in

he has heard, without a

mour
State

V.
V.

Klinger, 46

hypothetical statement of the

full

Fellows, 77 N. Y.

178;

Mo. 224

Hunt

State

And where

v.

facts.

Sey-

Lowell Gas Co., 8 Allen, 169;


Hayden, 51 Vt. 296 see Olmsted v.
v.

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.

the expert bases his opinion

ceived as to the effect of the evidence

Hunt

v.

530.

Nor

Lowell Gas

obligation.

is

in establishing

controverted

Co., 8 Allen, 169; see Priest v. Groton,

facts.

103 Mass.

a witness's opinion received as to a matter of legal or moral


Gr. Ev.

i.

j 441.]

A DIGEST OF

io6

The

{Part

I.

symptoms produced by the poison by


have died, are deemed to be relevant.'
{b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was,
by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature
of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to
which

opinions of experts as to the

is

supposed

to

law.

The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms


A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such
unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the
exhibited by

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

whether a certain document was written by A.


produced which is proved or admitted to have

The opinions of experts on the question whether the two documents


were written by the same person, or by different persons, are deemed to
be relevant. 3
[d) The opinions of experts on the questions, whether in Illustration (.?),
A's death was in fact attended by certain symptoms whether in Illustration [b), the symptoms from which they infer that A was of unsound mind
existed whether in Illustration (c), either or both of the documents were
written by A, are deemed to be irrelevant.
{e) [The question is, whether certain blood-stains have been caused by
human blood or by the blood of animals.
The opinion of an expert that some of the stains are of the one sort and
some of the other is deemed to be relevant. ^
But a non-expert may give evidence that stains freshly made are caused
by blood.]
(/) [The question is, whether certain circumstances affecting property
;

insured are material to the

'

I?, v.

[Stephens
^ J?.

V.

Palmer
v.

(^passim).

Dove {passim).

28 Vict.

See

my

'

Gen. View of Crim. Law," 357,

People, 4 Park. Cr. 396.]

Lake, 12 N. Y. 358

risk.

c.

State

18, s. 8

[But that an expert

Gen. View Crim. Law, 391.


Hayden, 51 Vt. 296.]

[See People

v.

v.

[see Art. 52,

may

and

note.]

testify that the

disputed document was writ-

ten by A, see Costello v. Crowell, 133 Mass. 352


5 [Linsday v. People^ 63 N. Y. 143, 147, 156.]

see Art. 52.]

\. People^ 85 N. Y. 75; in AIcLam v. Comm., 99 Pa. St.


was even held that a non-expert might testify that stains were made
by human blood, and that, too, though the stains were not freshly made.]
^

86,

[Greenfield
it

THE

Chap, v.]

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

The opinions of experts upon the


deemed to be relevant, except in

are

107

materiality of these circumstances

cases where an ordinary jury would

be capable of determining the question.]'


(f) [The question is, whether a railway train stopped long enough at a
station to enable passengers to get off.

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.

facts bearing upon opinions of experts.


Facts, not otherwise relevant, are

deemed

to

be relevant

if

they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts,

when such opinions

deemed

are

to

be relevant.*

Illiistrations.

The question is, whether A was poisoned by a certain poison.


The fact that other persons, who were poisoned by that poison, exhibited certain symptoms which experts affirm or deny to be the symptoms
of that poison, is deemed to be relevant.^
(a)

'
{^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

Abb. Dec. 480

Hun, 410

see .Milwaukee R. Co.

v.

78 N. Y. 611.J

9 Allen, 181 Booth v. Cleveland Mill


Miller, 66 Pa. St. 388
cf. Doyle v. N. Y.

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,

Mrs. Serjeantson Smith, similarly

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

expert gives his opinion that

fact that other

harbors similarly

[Part
harbor

it is

is

caused by a

not.

situated in other respects, but

where there were no such banks,' began to be obstructed


same time, is deemed to be relevant.

Article

I.

at

about the

51.

opinion as to handwriting, when deemed to be


relevant.

When

there

is

a question as to the person by whom any


or signed, the opinion of any person

document was written

acquainted with the handwriting of the supposed writer that it


was or was not written or signed by him, is deemed to be a
relevant fact.'

deemed to be acquainted with the handwriting


when he has at any time seen that person
write,' or when he has received documents purporting to be
written by that person in answer to documents written by himperson

is

of another person

self or

under

Foulkes

and addressed

his authority,

Chadd, 3 Doug. 157

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

mott, 82 N. Y. 41, 53.

not read or write himself.


4

{Chaffee

v.

v.

JVusenheimer, 78

witness

Foye

may
v.

111.

22

Hynes

v.

McDer-

handwriting who can-

testify as to

Patch, 132 Mass. 105.]

Taylor, 3 Allen, 598

Clark

v.

Freeman, 25 Pa.

St. 133

Hudson River Bk. 21 Wend. 557 Empire Mf'g Co. v.


Stuart, 46 Mich. 482.
But this is sometimes not sufficient authentication.
McKcQne v, Barnes, 108 Mass. 344. So if the witness has received letters

Cunningham

v.

THE

Chap. V.]
when,

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

109

ordinary course of business, documents purport-

in the

by

ing to be written

that person have

been habitually submitted

to him.'
Illustration.

The question

whether a given

letter is in the handwriting of A, a


merchant in Calcutta.
B is a merchant in London, who has written letters addressed to A, and
received in answer letters purporting to be written by him. C is B's
clerk, whose duty it was to examine and file B's correspondence.
D is
B"s broker, to whom B habitually submitted the letters purporting to be
written by A for the purpose of advising with him thereon.
The opinions of B, C, and D on the question whether the letter is in
the handwriting of A are relevant, though neither B, C, nor D ever saw

is,

write.*

The opinion

of E,

who saw

write once tvv'enty years ago,

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.

or other writings of a person,

knowledged
;

etc.

Mass. 275

'See
6 S.

&

ments

their

v.

Hickman, 28 Pa.

St.

318;

Ntines

v.

Perry, 113

Illustration

\Titfordv.

Thus

A'nott,

2 Johns. Cas. 211

Comm.

who have seen many

v.

Smith,

docuhaving the signature of a certain justice, may


an alleged signature of his. Rogers v. Ritter, 12 Wall. 317

R. 568.

public officers

official

filed in their office,

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.

made by witnesses, and such writings, and the


evidence of witnesses respecting the same, may be submitted
mitted to be

Court and jury as evidence of the genuineness or otherThis paragraph applies to all

to the

wise of the writing in dispute.

courts of judicature, criminal or

by law, or by consent of
examine evidence.'
'

17

&

18 Vict.

on

rules

125,

c.

27

s.

civil,

28 Vict.

18,

c.

this subject in different States.

glish rule prevails in all the

and

to all

persons having

parties, authority to hear, receive,

8.

s.

A rule

and

[There are diverse


EnNew York, New Jer-

substantially like the

New England States,

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.

Todd, 36 Ct. 218


c.

36; N.

Peck

Rev., p. 381

J.

Co. v. AfcFarland,

many

v.

53

la.

Callaghan, 95 N. Y. 73 Laws of 1880, N. Y.


Koons v. State, 36 O. St. 195 Singer Mfg.
;

540

Macomber

and irrelevant

v. Scott,

10 Kan. 335.

But

in

cannot be introduced for


comparison ( WiUiatns v. State, 61 Ala. 33 First Nat. Bank v. Robert, 41
Mich. 709 Hazlcton v. Union Bank^ 32 Wis. 34 State v. Clinton, 67 Mo.
380 Brobston v. Cahill, 64 111. 356 Burress'' Case, 27 Gratt. 946 Herrick
States, collateral

^\Titings
;

Md. 439

Hawkins

Grimes, 13 B. Mon. 260


Yates v.
Yates, 76 N. C. 143
so in the Federal Courts, U. S. v. yones, 20 Blatch.
generally, however, in these States genuine writings properly in
235)
v.

Su'omley, 56

v.

may be used for comparison by the jury, and in a


them such comparison may be made by experts to aid the jury.
In Indiana comparison may be made by experts with writings ad-

evidence in the case

number
(Id.)

of

mitted to be genuine.

Shorb v. Kinzie, 80 Ind. 500. In Pennsylvania


comparison with writings proved to be genuine may be made by the jury
as corroborative evidence, but not
Pa. St. 489.
xvii. 21

See

Gr. Ev.

this
i.

^ij

by

experts.

Berryhill

general subject fully treated in

v.

Kirchner, 96

Am. Law Rev.

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

Williams v. State, 61 Ala. 33.


sometimes permitted npon cross-examination, or when the
made at the request of the opposite party who offers it for comGilbert v. Simpson, 6 Daly, 29

this is

writing

is

Hun, 341

v. Le Barron, 45 Me. 534


Kingy. Donahue, no Mass. 155.

Chandler

parison.
;

Bronner

Letterpress copies cannot be used for comparison.

v.

Loomis, 14

Cohen

v.

Tdkr,

THE

Chap, v.]

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

Article

53.

opinion as to existence of marriage,

When

there

is

iii

when relevant.

a question whether two persons are or are not

married, the facts that they cohabited and were treated

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,

or in proceedings for a divorce, or in a petition for

damages

against an adulterer,'

93 Pa. St. 123

may

be,

when

Comm.

v.

But photographic copies


Hynes v. McDerBarnes, 16 Gray, 162 but see Tome v. Par-

Eastman,

Cush.

189.

the originals are also before the court.

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.

Tankersley, 78 Va. 242.]

A DIGEST OF
Article

[Part

1.

54.

grounds of opinion, when deemed to be relevant.


Whenever

the opinion of any living person

relevant, the grounds on

deemed

which such opinion

is

deemed to be
based are also

is

be relevant.^

to

Illustration.

An

expert

may

give an account of experiments performed

by him

for

the purpose of forming his opinion.^

Fall River, 119 Mass. 94.]


Mass. 522 Sullivan

'

{^Hawkins

\^Eidt V. Cutler, 127

Linsday

v.

v.

People, 63 N. Y. 143, 156

People

v.

v.

Contm., 93 Pa. St. 28

Morgan, 29 Mich.

.]

THE

Chap. VI.]

LAW

OF"

EVIDENCE.

CHAPTER
CHARACTER,

113

VI.*

WHEN DEEMED TO BE RELEVANT


AND WHEN NOT.
Article

55.

character generally irrelevant.

The

fact that a person is of a particular character is deemed


be irrelevant to any inquiry respecting his conduct, except
the cases mentioned in this chapter.

to
in

Article

56.

evidence of character in criminal cases.


In criminal proceedings, the fact that the person accused

has a good character,

deemed to be
is deemed

but the fact


be
it is itself a fact in issue, or unless evidence has been given
that he has a good character, in which case evidence that he
has a bad character is admissible.*
that he has a

is

bad character

relevant

'

irrelevant, unless

to

See Note XXV.


Heine v. Comm. 91 Pa. St. 145.
the proof must be of good character in respect

'

\Stover

V.

People, 56 N. Y. 315

generally held that

is

the trait involved in the charge.

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,

Fair, 43 Cal. 137 State v.


56 State v. Ki7ig, 78 Mo.
;

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.

For additional rules

Fair^ 43 Cal. 137.


/t?j/,-

St.

Such evi-^
v. People, 16 N. Y. 501
Gr. Ev. iii. % 25.
generally received, whether the evidence to show the pris-

oner's guilt be direct or circumstantial.

v.

O.

It

to

H. 245

in criminal cases, see

A DIGEST OF

14

'

In this article the word

[Part

" character" means reputation

distinguished from disposition, and evidence


of general reputation
tation or disposition

may be

and not of particular acts by


is

I.

as

given only

vv^hich

repu-

shown.*

Article

57,

character as affecting damages.


In

the character of any party to the


such as to affect the amount of damages which he

civil cases, the fact that

action

is

ought to receive,

is

generally

deemed

[Just before this last paragraph, Mr.

to

be irrelevant.^

Stephen

inserts in this article

the following special statutory rules of the English law


" When any person gives evidence of his good character
:

Being on

previously convicted of felony

Or who, being upon

who

any felony not punishable with death, has been

his trial for

for any offence punishable under the


Larceny Act, 1861, has been previously convicted of any felony, misdemeanor, or offence punishable upon summary conviction
Or who, being upon his trial for any offence against the Coinage Offences Act, 1861, or any former Act relating to the coin, has been previously convicted of any offence against any such Act
The prosecutor may, in answer to such evidence of good character,
give evidence of any such previous conviction, before the jury return
their verdict for the offence for which the offender is being tried.
(7 & 8
Geo. IV. c. 28, s. II, amended by 6 and 7 Will. IV. c. iii. If 'not punishhis trial

able with death

'

means not

so punishable at the time

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.

Rowton, I L. & C. 520. R. v. Tttrberfield, I L. & C. 495, is a


case in which the character of a prisoner became incidentally relevant
*to a certain limited extent.
\Comm. v. O'Brien, 119 Mass. 342 Snyder
2 J?,

v.

Comm.

Lapage, 57 N. H. 245
of a person must be that in his own community.
Conkey
V.

85 Pa. St. 519

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

evidence as admissible, though perhaps

it

does not absolutely affirm the

Chap.

THE

proposition that

so

it is

LAW

OF E VIDENCE.

and yones

pp. 266, 268, which decides that it


Sampson, cited post in this note.]

v. Stez'etts, ii
is

The

Price, 235, see especially

[The

not.

question

latest case
is

is

Scott

v-

now rendered com-

paratively unimportant, as the object for which such evidence used to be


tendered can always be obtained by cross-examining the plaintiff to his
credit.

[Evidence of a party's character is generally incompetent in civil acWh. Ev. i. ^ 47). Thus in an action for assault
i. $ 55

tions (Gr. Ev.

and battery, the

plaintiff's

bad character cannot be proved (Corning

w.

Corning, 6 N. Y. 97 Bruce v. Priest, 5 Allen, 100), nor the defendant's


good character (Brown v. Evans, 17 F. R. 912 Elliott v. Russell, 92 Ind.
;

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

91 Pa. St. 393

424

and now

v.

v.

McP'arlin, 4

Detroit Post Co.,

this doctrine is

ap-

Sampson, 8 Q. B. D. 491) but not that reports were in


circulation charging him with the act imputed {Ketmedy v. Gifford, 19
Wend. 296 Pease v. Shippen, 80 Pa. St. 513 Mahotiey v. Belford, 132
Mass. 393; Scott \. Sampson., supra contra. Case v. Marks, 20 Ct. 248),
at least if the defendant did not kno\r of such reports when he made the
charge {Hatfield v. Lasher, 81 N. Y. 246 Lothrop v. Adams, 133 Mass.
nor can particular acts of misconduct be proved {McLaughlin v.
471)
Conley, 131 Mass. 70 Scott v. Sampson, supra)
nor can the defendant
prove his own bad character. Hastings \ Stetson, 130 Mass. 76. So in
an action for malicious prosecution, plaintiff's general bad repute maybe
v.

shown

to

gibbon

V.

reduce the damages (Gregory v. Chambers, 78 Mo. 294 FitzBrown, 43 Me. 169) and sometimes such evidence is received as
;

affecting the existence of probable cause (Gr. Ev.

ii.

^ 458).

In actions

A DIGEST OF

ii6

[Part

I,

breach of promise of marriage, and


may be proved.
Van Storch v. Griffi7i, 71 Pa. St. 240 Paddock v. Salisbury, 2 Cow. 811,
814 Doubet v. Kirkman, 15 Bradw. 622 Hogdn v. Cregan, 6 Rob. 138
Mitchell V. Work, 13 R. I. 645 as to proof of specific acts of unchastity
for criminal conversation, seduction,

indecent assault, the woman's bad reputation for chastity


;

in

such cases, see

rumors, see Healy


ter of

post ; Gr. Ev.

Id.; Art. 134, xioiQ,


v.

O' Sullivan, 6 Allen, 114.

As

ii.

to

$ 56 and 579 as to
proving the charac;

a witness, see Art. 133, post.

" Character

" in this article

and note means general reputation (except


Usually the reputation proved concerns the particular trait involved in the cause of action (see cases supra), but sometimes evidence of general moral character is also received.
Clark v.
as otherwise stated).

Brown, 116 Mass. 504, slander case Duvalv. Davcy, 32 O.


see Root v. King, 7 Cow. 613, 4 Wend. 113.]
;

St. 604,

612

Chap.

1 1

THE

LAW

OF E VIDENCE.

PART

II.

ON PROOF.
CHAPTER

VII.

FACTS PROVED OTHERWISE THAN BY EVIDENCEJUDICIAL NOTICE.


Article

what facts the court takes

of
It

the duty of

is

lowing facts
(i)

58.*

all

to take judicial notice of the fol-

judges

unwritten laws,

All

judicial notice.

force of law administered

rules, and principles having the


by any Court sitting under the au-

See Note XXVI.

[It is

the duty of courts in this country to take judicial notice of the

following facts

'

The common law and

(i)

\^Shaw

V.

Tobias, 3

public statute law of their

N. Y. 188

the law merchant {Reedv.

Unity

v.

Wilson, 41 N.

own

Burrage, 103 U. S. 447


J. L. 29)

municipal corporation, being a public statute {Stier

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)

of the laws of the antecedent

government when there has been a

union or division of states or countries {U. S. v. Perot, 98 U. S. 428


Stokes v. Macketr, 62 Barb. 145) but not of private statutes Tunlow v. P.
&' R. R. Co., 99 Pa. St. 284), unless, as often now happens, a special law
;

authorizes

Code

it

N. Y. 250

v. Bank 0/ Ashland, 12 Wall. 226


see N. Y.
nor of municipal ordinances. Porter v. Waring, 69

(Railroad Co.

Civ. Pr. $ 530)

Chicago,

etc.

R.

Co. v. Klauber, 9

Bradw. 613.]

'

A DIGEST

iia

[Part

OI^

II.

Her Majesty and her successors in England or


whatever may be the nature of the jurisdiction

thority of

'

Ireland,

<

thereof.'

All public Acts of Parliament,'

(2)

ment whatever, passed


trary
'

&

Ph. Ev. 460-1

13

&

all

Acts of Parlia-

since February 4, 1851, unless the con-

expressly provided in any such Act.*

is

of 1873),

and

s.

T. E.

s.

4,

and see 36 & 37

Vict.

c.

66 (Judicature Act

25.

14 Vict.

c. 21, ss. 7, 8,

and see

(for date)

caption of session of 14

15 Vict.

but not the law of any other State or country

; '

but the judges of the

Federal Courts take notice of the public laws of each State,

when such

laws are properly applicable to cases heard before them,^ and, in like

manner, general acts of Congress


(2)

The

will

sions, its usual course of proceeding,

but not the transactions in


(3)

be noticed

in State courts.

existence of the legislature, the time and place of

its

and the privileges of

its

its

ses-

members,*

journals.*

General customs observed in the transaction of business,

> \Monroe v. Douglas,


5 N. Y. 447 see Art. 49, note 2, ante ; but the
laws of one State have been noticed in another in which acts or judgments
based on such laws have been declared by its own laws or the laws of
;

Congress

to

be

I.

411

Co., II R.
^

[Lamar V.

[Kessel

Carpenter v. Dexter, 8 Wall. 513


Ohio v. Hinchman, 27 Pa. St. 479.]
Micou, 114 U. S. 218.]
valid.

Albetis, 56 Barb. 362

v.

Paine

v. Ins,

Bird v. Cotnm.

21 Gratt. 800.]

Coleman v. Dobbins, 8 Ind. 156, 162. Thus the courts


will notice which of two bodies of men is the rightful legislature, when
each claims the right (Opinion of Justices, 70 Me. 609). The doings of
the executive and legislative departments of the government will be
noticed.
Id., Prince \. Skillin, 71 Me. 361.]
' [Grob V. Cushman,
45 111. 119; Burt v. Winona, etc. R. Co., 31 Minn.
Coleman v. Dobbins, 8 Ind. 156. But it is also held that the courts
472
will take notice of such journals, in order to determine the validity of a
*

[Or. Ev.

i.

$ 6

statute.

People

v.

Kan. 194; Moody


499

Mahattey, 13 Mich. 481

y.

State, 48 Ala. 115;

cf.

Divisio?i 0/

Gardners.

Howard

Collector,

v. Devlin, 33 N. Y. 269.]
Blackman, 39 Mich. 108 Merchants' Nat. Bank

Co., 15

GV^zW.

but see People

[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

but not transactions in their journals.'

their sittings,

which have been held to have the


any division of the High Court of Justice or by
any of the superior courts of law or equity, and all customs
All general customs

(4)

force of law in

'

The

(4)

Ph. Ev. 460

course of proceeding and

court itself

'

its

courts established

own

T. E.

all

s.

5.

rules of practice in force in the

record books and entries therein

by law

same

in the

State, their judges,

the other
extent of

and course of proceeding;^ and appellate courts will take


and methods of practice in inferior courts
when reviewing their judgments or decrees.*

jurisdiction

judicial notice of the rules

(5)

The

official

status and signatures of officers of the court,

as

attorneys, clerks of court, etc.^

83 N. Y. 338.

In this last case, the court took notice of the practice of


banks to grant renewals of obligations upon payment of a new discount.
See American Nat. Bank v. Bushey, 45 Mich. 135.]

[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
;

See Gr. Ev. i. 6, note.]


* {March v. Comm., 12 B. Mon.
Contee v. Piatt, 9 Md. ()j but see
25
Cutter v. Caruthers, 48 Cal. 178
Cherry v. Baker, 17 Md. 75.
These
matters are often now governed by statutes, which would be noticed
under (i) supra.'\
doubtful question.

V. Afevins, I Hill, 154


Mackinnon v. Barnes, 66 Barb. 91
Lawrence, 21 La. Ann. 692 Alderson v. Bell, 9 Cal. 315. Thus
the signature of an attorney, admitting service of papers, will be noticed.
Ripley v. Burgess, 2 Hill, 360.]
'

[People

Hall

v.

A DIGEST OF
which have been duly

[Part

and recorded

certified to

in

II.

any such

court.'

The course of proceeding and all rules of practice in force


Supreme Court of Justice. Courts of a limited or inferior jurisdiction take judicial notice of their own course of pro(5)

in the

The

'

old rule was that each Court took notice of customs held

by or

have the force of law. It is submitted that the effect of


the Judicature Act, which fuses all the Courts together, must be to produce the result stated in the text. As to the old law, see Piper v. Chappell^
Ex parte Powell, In re Matthews, L. R. i Ch. D.
14 M. & W. 649-50.
505-7, contains some remarks by Lord Justice Mellish as to proving customs till they come by degrees to be judicially noticed.

certified to

it

The

(6)

to

political constitution of their

own government

the acces-

sion of the President of the United States or of the executive of the

and

State,

their signatures

officers of the

the official status of the chief public

'

United States or of the State, as

foreign ministers, senators,

and the like, ^

also of

e.g.

cabinet officers,

sheriffs

and marshals

(and their signatures) ''but not of their deputies.'*


(7) The existence and title of every State and sovereign recognized
by the national government ; ^ also their public seals when attached to

public acts, decrees, judgments, or other

official

documents.*

\yount\. Hotvcll, 14 Cal. 465; IVells v. Company, 47 N. H. 235


v. lVillia7>is, 5 Wis. 308.]
2 [Major V. State, 2 Sneed, 11
York, etc. P. Co. v. Winans, 17 How.
(U. S. 30; see Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 42.]
3 [Thompson v. Haskell, 21 111. 215
Ingram v. State, 27 Ala. 17. Some
cases say that notice will be taken of all county officers (Farley v. McCon'

State

fiell,

7 Lans. 428

court

sits

Himmelmann

Thielmaiin

therein.

v.

v.

Hoadley, 44 Cal. 213), at least if the


111. 293.
So notice has been

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.

Hoadley, 44 Cal. 213.]


^ [Gr. Ev. i.
the recognition must be by the executive branch of
$ 4
the government, before the courts will take such judicial notice. Gelston
;

V.

Hoyt, 13 Johns. 561, 587, 3 Wheat. 249.]


[Lazier V. Westcott, 26 N. Y, 146
GriswQld

Cpit

v.

Mi(likcn,

Den. 376.]

v,

Pitcairn, 2 Ct. 85;

LAW OF

THE

Chap. VII.]

EVIDENCE.

121

ccdure and rules of practice, but not of those of other courts


of the

same

kind, nor does the

judicial notice of the course of

Supreme Court of Justice take


procedure and rules of practice

of such Courts.'
(6)

esty

'

The accession and (semdk) the sign manual of Her Majand her successors."

Ph. Ev. 462-3

The law

(8)

their seals

T. E.

of nations

^ i

19.

s.

Ph. Ev. 458

and

States,

T. E.

ss. 16, 12.

and maritime courts and

foreign admiralty

the seals of notaries public

'

and of the United

State
seals

'

the seals of their

of the courts thereof

own

which have

but not the seals of foreign municipal courts or of foreign

officers. *

proclamations by the executive branch of the government,

(9) Public

as of war, peace, amnesty, etc.,' treaties

made

with foreign countries

;''

executive decrees or messages of a public nature and ordinances of


state ;^

(10)

days of general political elections.^

The

extent of territory included within their

T/ie Scotia. 14

'

"

[T/iompson

'

[^Pierce v.

<

[t/. S. v.

Williams

v.

own

State or with-

Wall. 170.]

Stemart, 3 Ct. 171


Indseth, 106 U. S. 546
v.

Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392


Wilkes, 14 Pa. St. 228.

Mumfordv. Bowne, Anth. N.

P. 56.J

Chapman, 38 Ct. 230.]


Delafield\. Hand, 3 Johns. 310, 314;
The seal of a Federal Court will be
Askcraft

v.

noticed in other Federal Courts and in State courts.

Turnbull

95 U. S. 418 Adams v. Way, 33 Ct. 419.]


' [Dcla/eldv. Hand, supra
Vandervoort

v.

Payson,

v. Smith, 2Cai. 155


Church v.
Hubbart, 2 Cr. 187. These rules are sometimes modified by statutory
provisions, providing how foreign records shall be proved.
See N. Y.
;

Code

'

Civ. Pr. $ 952-956.]


V. U. S., 13 Wall. 154.]
[Lacroix Fils v. Sarrazin, 15 F. R. 489.]

[Armstrong

^{I'urner's Adm'r., 49 Ala.


the orders of a military

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

of every State and

title

II.

Sovereign

recognized by Her Majesty and her successors.'


(8)

The accession

to office,

names,

functions,

titles,

and when

attached to any decree, order, certificate, or other judicial or


official documents, the signatures of all the judges of the Su-

preme Court

of Justice.^

Ph. Ev. 460 T. E. s. 3.


Ph. 462 T. E. 19 and as to latter part, 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113,
modified by 36 & ^n Vict. c. 66, s. 76 (Judicature Act of 1873).
'

2 1

in the national

domain

; '

the

s.

2,

as

the country or State, as

civil divisions of

into States, counties, cities, towns, etc. ;^ the relative positions of such

divisions in the State, as that a city or

town

the chief geographical features of the State


against the United States

a certain county

in

is

the existence of war

other public matters directly concerning

the general government of the State or country

the existence of for-

eign countries and that they have a government and courts and a

The Federal Courts

system of law like our own.''


1

[Gr. Ev.

\Comvi.

Gooding
s

V.

i.

State v. Dunnell, 3 R.

Desmond, 103 Mass. 445


Morgan, 70 111. 275.]
V.

[^People V. Suppiger^ 103

werker

v.

111.

Wend. 530

People, 5

434

I.

State

127.]

Chapman

so notice

take notice of the

v.

Wilder, 6 Hill, 475

Powers, 25 Ct. 48
Vandertaken that a town is not withHinckley v. Beckwith, 23 Wis.
v.

is

a certain distance of the place of trial.


Such local divisions may be determined by public statutes and be
Branson v. Gleason, 7 Barb. 472.]
noticed for that reason.
in

328.

Young, 40 N. H. 420; Note to 10 Abb. N. C 117. The


is noticed [Farley v. McConnell, 7 Lans. 428)
what
the State are navigable {Browne v. Schofield, 8 Barb. 239
Wood

[Lake

Co. v.

population of counties
rivers in
V.

Fowler, 26 Kan. 682)

but not the width of streets or sidewalks

in

Waring, 69 N. Y. 250) the distance between great cities


in different States has been noticed.
Pearce v. Langjit, loi Pa. St. 507
but see Goodivin v. Appleton, 22 Me. 453.]
city (Porter v.

[Swinnerton

v. /ns. Co., 37 N. Y. 174.]


[Opinion of Justices, 70 Me. 609 People v. Snyder, 41 N. Y. 397 as
to matters affecting the' government of a city, see Patten v. Elevated R.
5
^

Co., 3
">

Abb. N. C.

{Lazier

v.

306.]

Westcott, 26 N. Y; 148

Morse

v.

Hewett, 28 Mich. 481.]

THE

Chap. VII.J

(9)

The Great

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

123

Seal, the Privy Seal, the seals of the Superior

Courts of Justice,' and

all seals which any Court is authorized


by any act of Parliament," certain other seals mentioned
in Acts of Parliament,* the seal of the Corporation of London,'
and the seal of any notary public in the Queen's dominions,*

to use

'

The Judicature Acts

confer no seal on the

Supreme

High Court or

or

divisions.

its
2

Doe

V.

Edwards, 9 A. & E.

4 K.

See a

555.

Ph. Ev. 464


T. E. s. 6.
Cole V. Slier ard, 11 Ex. 482.

3 1

list in

T. E.

&

As

to foreign notaries, see Earl'sTrutt,

boundaries of the several States and judicial

common

tory,^ but not those of

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

Morris, 47 Ct. 179)


Bosvjell, 60 Ind. 235.]
;

matters of general public his-

Dixon

v.

v.

Nichols, 39

day {People

as the time of sunrise or sunset on a certain


Cal. 404

to the ordinary

local histoi-y ;' other matters of

Petersoti, 9 F.

U. S. v. Jackson

and of the

abbreviations ;* legal weights and

measures and moneys of the country

Ev.

flows,

natural and artificial divisions of time

;'^

ing of Englisii words and

[Gr.

and

districts.'

which must have happened according

(11) Matters

course of nature

Ross

6.

J. 300.

ports of the United Slates in which the tide ebbs

'

s.

v.

Ckee

111.

372;

Kee.,

61

and the succession of the seasons.

[Wh. Ev. i. % 335. Thus notice is taken of the coincidence of days of


the week with days of the month. Phila. etc. R. Co. v. Lehman, 56 Md.
5

209; Mcintosh

v.

Lee, 57 la. 356; Mechanics'

Bank

v.

Gilson, 7

Wend.

460.]

[^Lettahan v. People, 5 T.

&

C. 268

State

v.

Intoxicating Liquors, 73

Me. 278 (meaning of C. O. D. noticed) Moseley v. Mastin, 37 Ala. 216


so of the meaning of current expressions which everyone understands.
Bailey v. Kalamazoo Piib'g Co., 40 Mich. 251 but see Baltimore v. State,
15 Md. 376, 484.]
;

'

[Gr. Ev.

i.

$ 5

Johnston

v.

Hedden, 2 Johns. Cas. 274.]

[Thomas v. Stivers, 5 Pa. St. 480 Howard v. Moot, 64 N. Y. 262 as


the civil war in this country, 1861-65, ^"d its duration.
Cross v. Saiin,
Turner s Adm'r., 49 Ala. 406; Swinnerton v. Ins. Co.., yj
13 F. R. 308
7 [McA'innon v. Bliss, 21 N. Y. 206.]
N. Y. 174.]
"

'

A DIGEST OF

124

The

(lo)

extent of the territories under the dominion of

Majesty and her successors

II.

Her

the territorial and poUtical divis-

England and Ireland, but not

ions of

[Part

their geographical posi-

tion or the situation of particular places

the

commencement,

continuance, and termination of war between Her Majesty and


any other Sovereign and all other public matters directly
;

concerning the general government of Her Majesty's dominions.'

(ii)

of nature, natural and artificial dimeaning of English words.*


other matters which they are directed by any statute

The ordinary course

visions of time, the


(12) All
to notice.'

'

2 I
^

Ph. Ev. 466, 460, 458

Ph. Ev. 465-6

T. E.

E.^., the Articles of

such

and T. E.

s.

15-16.

ss.

14.

War.

See

sec. i of the

Mutiny Act.

general and public notoriety that everyone

may

fairly

be pre-

be acquainted with them.


(le) Matters of general knowledge and experience within their jurisdiction ; ^ and matters which they are directed by any statute to no-

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)
;

Sandf Ch. 571) the usual time to run trains


between prominent cities {Pearce v. Laugfit, loi Pa. St. 507 contra,
Wiggins V. Burkhatn, 10 Wall. 129) the practice of checking baggage
{Oppenheijtt v. Wolf, 3

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)

in this country (Isaacson v.

Schlicht V. State, 56 Ind. 188.]

"^[Howard

V.

Moot, 64 N. Y. 262, 271

Opinion of Justices, 70 Me. 609

as e.g., the result of an election affecting the organization of a county.

Andrews

v.

Knox

Co.,

70

111.

65.]

THE

Chap. VII.]

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

Article

125

59.

as to proof of such facts.

No

evidence of any fact of which the Court will take judicial


by the party alleging its existence but

notice need be given

upon being called upon to take judicial notice


thereof, may, if he is unacquainted with such fact, refer to any
person or to any document or book of reference for his satisthe judge,

faction in relation thereto, or

may

refuse to take judicial notice

thereof unless and until the party calling upon

him

to take

such notice produces any such document or book of reference.'

Article

60.

evidence need not be given of facts admitted.

No

fact

need be proved

in

any proceeding which the parties

thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which

hearing and with reference


Provided that in a trial for
felony the prisoner can make no admissions so as to dispense
with proof, though a confession may be proved as against him,
they have admitted
thereto, or

by

before

the

their pleadings.'^

subject to the rules stated in articles 21-24.'


T. E. (from Greenleaf) s. 20. E.g., a judge will refer in case of need
an almanac, or to a printed copy of the statutes, or write to the Foreign Office, to know whether a State had been recognized. [Gr. Ev.
9 6 Secrist v. Petty, 109 111. 188 Halls. Brown, 58 N. H. 95 Siuhitttrtoti
'

to

i.

V. Ins. Co. 37 N. Y. 174, 188


State v. Wagner, 61 Me. 178
State v.
Morris, 47 Ct. 179 State v. Clare., 5 la. 509.
But a judge must not take
judicial notice of matters merely because he in fact knows them.
Lena;

han

V.

People, 5 T.

&

C. 268.]

See Schedule to Judicature Act of 1875, Order x.\.xii.


[Cutler v.
Wright, 22 N. Y. 472; Cunningham v. Smith's Adm'r., 70 Pa. St. 450;
Musselman v. Wise, 84 Ind. 248 Miller v. Payne, 4 Bradw. II2.] The
fact that a document is admitted does not make it relevant and is not
equivalent to putting it in evidence, per James, L. J., in Watson v. Rodwell, L. R. II Ch. D. 150.
3 1 Ph. Ev.
In R. v. Thornhill, 8
& P. 575, Lord Abinger
391, n. 6.
acted upon this rule in a trial for perjury.
[Gr. Ev. iii. $ 39.)
i

'

A DIGEST OF

126

CHAPTER

[Part

II.

VIII.

OF ORAL EVIDENCE.
Article

6i.

proof of facts by oral evidence.

All

facts

may be proved by

visions as to the proof of

IX., X., XI.

oral evidence subject to the pro-

documents contained

Chapters

in

and XII.

Article

62.*

ORAL evidence MUST BE DIRECT.


Oral evidence must in

all

cases whatever be direct

that

is

to say
If

it

refers to a fact alleged to

the evidence of a witness


If

it

refers to a fact alleged to

the evidence of a witness


If

it

have been seen,

who says he saw


who

it

have been heard,

says he heard

refers to a fact alleged to

it

must be

it

must be

it

have been perceived by any


it must be the evidence of

other sense or in any other manner,

a witness who says he perceived

manner

it

by

that sense or in that

grounds on which that


must be the evidence of the person who
holds that opinion on those grounds."
If

it

refers to an opinion, or to the

opinion

is

held,

it

*
'

*<2r^,
2

See Note XXVII.

[See Tcerpe7!ning\. Corn Ex.

55N.

his. Co., 43

N. Y. 279

Fassin

v.

Hub'

Y. 465.]

[A witness may

testify to his impression.^

if

based upon his own


upon hearsay (Gr. Ev.

this is

observation or experience or recollection, and not

THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.

Chap. IX.]

CHAPTER

12;

IX.

OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRIMARY AND


SECONDARY, AND ATTESTED DOCUMENTS.
Article

63.

proof of contents of documents.

The

contents of documents may be proved either by primary


by secondary evidence.

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
;

Parsons, 32 Hun, 338)


or to his intent or belief, when that is material
in the case {Bayliss v. Cockcroft, 81 N. Y. 363; Shockey v. Miles, 71
Ind. 288 Homans v. Corning, 60 N. H. 418 Recder v. Holcomb, 105 Mass.
Hamilton v. Nickerson, 13 Allen, 351), but not to a conclusion of law.
93
V.

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
;

and thus have the effect of evidence as the weapon or instrument


used to commit a crime, bloody garments, a person's injured limb, etc.
Wh. Ev. ^^ 345-347 People v. Gonzalez, 35 N. Y. 49 A'ingv. N. Y. C.
R. Co., 72 N. Y. 607.
So a person may be produced before a jury to en-

jury,

i.

A DIGEST OF

128

[Part

must be called under the provisions of

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.^

able them to judge as to his being a minor.

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

Turnpike Co. v. Baily,


^7 O. St. 104; White \. Milwaukee R. Co., 61 Wis. 536; Schroeder v.
Railroad Co.., 47 la. 375 that he cannot, Roberts v. Ogdensburgh, etc. R.
Co., 29 Hun, 154; L.oyd V. Hannibal, etc. R. Co.., 53 Mo. 509; in suits
for divorce because of impotence, it is well settled that the court has
the power.
Bishop, M. & D. ii. $ 590.J
can, see Atchison,

Co. v. Tlnd, 29

of a document

M. & W. 664. [This


may be proved by a party's

several States.

Loomis

'

Slatterie

Pooley^ 6

v.

doctrine that the contents

admissions

VVadhams, 8 Gray, 557; Edgar

\.

is

accepted

v.

Richardson,

in

Edwards v. Tracy, 62 Pa.


Me. 332 cf. Morrill v. Robinson,
But in New York it is rejected {Sherman v. People, 13 Hun,
71 Me. 24.
575) though such evidence is receivable if the document is lost or de33 O. St. 5S1
St.

374

Taylor

Mandeville

stroyed.

14

v.

Peck, 21 Gratt. 11

Blackingtoti v. Rockland, 66

Wend.

619

v.

Reynolds, 68 N. Y. 528, 537


Cor bin v. Jackson,
Wh. Ev. ii. $ 1091-1093.]
i.
96

see Gr. Ev.

^ [Each of several duplicate originals is primary evidence.


Lewis v.
Payn, 8 Cow. 71
Hubbard v. Russell, 24 Barb. 404
Totten v. Bucy,
State v. Gurnec, 14 Kan. in
Gardner v. Eberhart, 82
57 Md. 446
III. 316
cf. Crossman v. Crossman, 95 N. Y. 145
see p. 139, note,
So a copy may, under special circumstances, be deemed primary
fost.
evidence.
Carroll s. Pcakc, i Pet. 18
Clark v. Clark, 47 N. Y. 664.]
s Roe d.
West v. Davis., 7 Ea. 362. [Loring v. Whittemore, 13 Gray,
C. &= T. R. Co. v. Perkins, 17
228 Nicoll V. Burke, 8 Abb. N. C. 213
Mich. 296.]
;

Where

LAW OF

THE

Chap. IX.]

number

of

EVIDENCE.

documents are

129

made by

all

printing,

lithography, or photography, or any other process of such a

nature as in itself to secure uniformity in the copies, each

is

but where they


primary evidence of the contents of the rest
are all copies of a common original, no one of them is primary
;

'

evidence of the contents of the original."

Article

65.

proof of documents by primary evidence.


The contents

of

documents must, except

in the cases

tioned in article 71, be proved by primary evidence;'

'

R.

Watson, 2 Star.

V.

(EUenborough, C.

J.,

This case was decided long before the

129.

invention of photography

menand

but the judgments delivered by the Court


and Abbott, Bayley, and Holroyd, JJ.) establish
;

[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-

the principle stated in the text.


nett,

versies

between the sender and the company,

delivered for transmission.

U.

IV.

Tel.

is

message

the original

Co. v. Hopkins, 49 Ind. 223.

made by

But when a contract

is

prove the contract

the

telegrams, the primary evidence to


message of the sender as delivered to the receiver and the answering message of the receiver as delivered by him
Ditrkee v. Vt. R. Co., 29 Vt. 127 Howley
to the office for transmission.
V. Whipple, 48 N. H. 487; Wilson v. M. &> N. R. Co., 31 Minn. 481
Saveland v. Green, 40 Wis. 431 Smith v. Easton, 54 Md. 138 see cases
collected in Oregon Steamship Co. v. Otis, 14 Abb. N.
So in
388.
sending directions by telegraph, the message received by the addressee
is primary evidence.
Morgan v. People, 59 111. 58 cf. Comm. v. Jeffries,
is

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.

Comm. v. yeffries, 7 Allen, 548 King v. Worthington, 73


so of photographic copies.
Duffln v. People., 107 111. 113

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.*

proof of execution of document required by law


to be attested,
If a document is required by law to be attested," it may not
be used as evidence (except in the cases mentioned or referred to in the next article) if there be an attesting witness

alive, sane,

and subject

proving

one
purpose of

to the process of the Court, until

attesting witness at least has

been called

for the

execution.'

its

be shown that no such attesting witness is alive or can


be found, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signaIf

it

ture of the person executing the

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'
;

George, 97 Pa. St. 238 Melcher v. Flanders, 40 N. H. 139. But


the absence of all must be accounted for, before evidence of handwriting

Ass'n

V.

be admitted, yackson v. Gager, 5 Cow. 383 Tarns v. Hitner, 9 Pa.


Turner v. Green, 2 Cr. C. C. 202.]
* [S. P. as to deeds
Mass. Pub. St., c. 120, ^^S 8, 10; Maine Rev. St.,
But generally in this country it
c. Ti< 19; Vt. Rev. St., $ 1938, 1943.
is sufficient to prove the signature either of a witness or of the party,
Proof of the signawithout proving both. Borst v. Empire. 5 N. Y. 33.
ture of one witness is sufficient proof of execution {Stebbins v. Duncan,
108 U. S. 32
Gelotl v. Goodspeed, 8 Cush. 411
Van Rensselaer v. "Jones,
2 Barb. 643) but proof of the party's identity may be needed besides, in
will

St. 441

Chap.

The
the

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

THE

IX.]

which

rule extends to cases in

document has been

131

burnt,' or cancelled,' [or lost]

cases of doubt or suspected fraud (Id.; Browtt v. Khnball^ 25 Wend. 259)


and the signatures of other witnesses or of the party may, of course, always be proved, in addition to that of one witness. Jackson v. Chamber;

lain, 8

Wend. 620

Scrvis

v.

Ah-lson, 14

N.

Eq. 94.

J.

signature of a witness must always be proved,

if

In

New

York, the

practicable, before that

but if the witness's


of a paitycan be {Willson v. Betts, 4 Den. 201)
writmg cannot be proved, then the party's should be. Jackson v. IV'aldron^ 13 Wend. 178
S. P. Lessee of Clarke v. Courtney, 5 Pet. 319.
But
in a number of the States the writing of the party may be proved without
proving that of a witness {jfoncs v. Roberts, 65 Me. 273 Cox v. Davis, 17
Ala. 714 Landers v. Bo/ton, 26 Cal. 393
Wellford v. Eakin, i Cr. C. C.
that the handwriting of either or both may be proved, see Clark v.
264)
Gelott v. Goodspecd, 8 Cush. 411.
Boyd, 2 Ohio, 55
Besides death or insanity {Neely v. Needy, 17 Pa. St. 227), absence of
witnesses from the State will let in proof of handwriting {Richards v.
Ballinger v. Davis, 29 la. 512 McMinn v. Whelan,
Skiff, 8 O. St. 586
27 Cal. 300 Lush v. Druse, 4 Wend. 313 the deposition of the absent
witness need not be taken as to execution, Clark v. Houghton, 12 Gray,
or the fact that no witness can be found after diligent search, or
38)
none who is competent to testify. Gr. Ev. i. 572 Pelletreau v. Jackson,
II Wend, no; Woodman, v. Segar, 25 Me. 90.
Special statutes in some States require proof of certain documents by
more than one witness as e.g., prooi oi xai lis in New York for admission
;

N.

probate.

to

Y.

Code

Civ. Pr. ^^ 2618-2620

Carson's Appeal,

cf.

But in an action at law in this State, the execution of a


will may be proved by one subscribing witness.
Cornwcll v. IVooley, i
Caw v. Robertson, 5 N. Y. 125, 134. But if the witnesses
Abb. Dec. 441
are dead, absent, etc., it may be necessary to prove the handwriting of
them all and of the testator. Jackson v. Vickery, i Wend. 406 see Rider

59 Pa.

St. 493.

Lcgg, 51 Barb. 260. As to the proof of a will in a suit in equity, see


Chapman v. Rodgers, 12 Hun, 342.]

V.

Gillies v. Smither, 2 Star. R. 528.

'

Breton

''

v.

Cope, Pea. R. 43.

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.

Havens, 29 Hun, 119

ascertained
sible.

who were

Jackson

V.

if,

however, by reason of the

loss,

it

cannot be
is admis-

the subscribing witnesses, other evidence

Vail, 7

Wend.

125

Davis

v.

Spooner, 3 Pick. 284.]

'

A DIGEST OF

132

the subscribing witness


the person by
to testify to his

whom

blind

is

Part

document was executed

the

own execution

of

II.

it

prepared

is

*
;

the person seeking to prove the document is prepared to


prove an admission of its execution by the person who exe-

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.*

cases in which attesting witness need not be called.


In the following cases, and in the case mentioned in article

no others, a person seeking to prove the execution


to be attested is not bound to
that purpose either the party who executed the deed or

88, but in

of a

document required by law

call for

*See Note XXVIII.


Cronk V. Frith, 9 C. & P. 197 [see Cheoiey v. Arnold, 18 Barb. 434.]
"^R. V. Harringworth, 4 M. & S. 353.
[This is true, though parties are
now competent to testify. Bri^ham v. Palmer, 3 Allen, 450 Jones v.
Underwood, 28 Barb. 481
Weigand v. Sickel, 4 Abb. Dec. 592 Hess v.
Griggs, 43 Mich. 397; contra, Bowlings. Max, 55 Mo. 446,]
3 Call V. Dunning, 4 Ea. 53.
See, too, Wkyman v. Garth, 8 Ex. 803
Randall v. Lynch, 2 Camp. 357 \^Fox v. Riel, 3 Johns. 477 Smith v.
Cawlin, 1 Cr. C. C. 99 Kinney v. Flynn, 2 R. I. 319 Zerby v. Wilson, 3
Ohio, 462. But a contrary rule became established in New York as to
negotiable paper. See Jones v. Underwood, 28 Barb. 483 S. P. Williams V. Floyd, II Pa. St. 499 but see Art. 69, note 2.
If the witnesses are dead, and the document lost or cancelled, so that
handwriting cannot be proved, evidence of admissions is receivable
'

V. Vail, 7 Wend. 125


the witnesses' testimony

(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.

Sawin, 10 Allen, 340

pleadings (Robert

v.

48 N. Y. 253) so both parties


Hardin, 62 111. 206.]
,

such admis-

Good, 36 N. Y. 408

may waive proof

Chap.

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

THE

IX.]

any attesting witness, or

133

prove the handwriting of any such

to

party or attesting witness

When

(i)

he

is

entitled to give secondary evidence of the

contents of the document under article 71

When

(2)

his

opponent produces

claims an interest under

'

()

when

it

and

called upon,

in reference to the subject-matter of

it

the suit

When the person against whom the document is sought


be proved is a public officer bound by law to procure its
due execution, and who has dealt with it as a document duly
(3)

to

executed.'
'

Cooke

[Rawley

Tanswell, 8 Tau.

V.

450

Doe, 6 Blackf. (Ind.

v.

holds that the e.\ecution of the


either

by

direct evidence, or

Poole

143

8 A. & E. 588
Young, 15 Ala. 112,

Warren,

v.

but Bright

\.

document must be proved in this case,


be lacking, by evidence of circum-

if this

stances tending to prove the

fact.

Sec Jacksoti

v.

IVoolsey, 11 Johns.

446.]
2

Ev.

Pearce
i.

v.

$ 571

Hooper, 3 Tau. 60 Rearden v. Mintcr, S M, & G. 204 [Gr.


yackson v. Kingsley, 17 Johns. 158 McGregor v. Wait, 10
;

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.

Waithman, 3 Stark. 168;


would perhaps jus']2>i

& W.

Bidwell, 13 M.

a slight enlargement of the exception, but the circumstances of the

case were very peculiar.

Mr. Taylor (ss. 1650-1) considers it doubtful


whether the rule extends to instruments executed by corporations, or to
deeds enrolled under the provisions of any Act of Parliament, but his
authorities hardly seem to support his view at all events, as to deeds by
corporations.
[This exception does not appear to have become established in American law
but see Gr. Ev. i. 573.]
i [The
following are additional exceptions
;

(rt)

It is

required

a rule in

when

some

States that proof by a subscribing witness

the instrument

is

dentally or collaterally in question.

Kitchen

v.

Smith, loi Pa.

452

St.

is

not directly in issue, but only comes

Gr. Ev.

Aycrs

v.

i.

573, b

Wh.

Ev.

Hewett, 19 Me. 281

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

States recorded deeds

and other instruments may be

A DIGEST OF

134

Article

[Part

II.

68.

proof when attesting witness denies the execution.


does not recollect the exe-

If the attestiag witness denies or

cution of the document,

its

execution

may be proved by

other

evidence.'

Article

69.

proof of document not required by law to be


attested.

An attested document
may in all cases whatever,

not required by law to be attested


criminal, be proved as

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.
;

attesting witness has denied

all

Ev.

% 740.]

i.

knowledge of the matter,

" Talbot v. Hodson,


if there were no attesting witness
[Hamsher v. K/i?ie, 57 Pa. St. 397; Matter of Cottrcll,
Thomas v. Le Baron,
95 N. Y. 329 Patterson v. Tucker, 9 N. J. L. 322
8 Met. 355
cf. Tompson v. Fisher, 123 Mass. 559
so generally if the
witness's testimony is inadequate to prove execution.
Harrington v.
Gable, 81 Pa. St. 406; Frost \. Deering, 21 Me. 156.]

the case stands as

7 Tau. 251, 254.

'i

&

17

18 Vict. c. 125,

statutes are in force in


c.

195

Pub.

St. R.

s.

some

I., c.

26

28

&

29 Vict.

c. 18, ss.

States of this country

214,

s.

41;

cf.

111.

Rev.

Laws

St., p.

[Similar

i, 7.

of 1883, N. Y.
543,

s.

51 {ed.

But by the common-law rule, which still generally prevails, if a


document is actually attested, though the law does not require its attestation, its execution must be proved by the attesting witness, or as other1883).

wise prescribed

As

to the

Mass. 23

St.

25 Me. 249.]

in Art. 66.

proof of unattested documents, see Nichols


"John

v.

Anier. Ins. Co., 2 Duer, 419

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

Other copies made from the original and proved

(2)

correct

and

copies,

to

be

'
:

Counterparts of documents as against the parties who

(3)

did not execute

them

^
:

Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by

(4)

some person who has himself seen

it/

Article

71.

cases in which secondary evidence relating to


documents may be given.
Secondary evidence may be given of the contents of a docu-

ment

in the following cases

When

the original is shown or appears to be in the pospower of the adverse party,


and when, after the notice mentioned in article 72, he does
(a)

session or

not produce

it

'

See chapter

[See

ron
2

x.

p. 129, n. 2

a copy of a copy

Peck, 37 Ct. 555.]


Muiin V. Godbold, 3 Bing. 292

is

sometimes admissible.

[Lor tug

v.

IVhitfemore, 13 Gray, 228

see Art. 64, n. 3.]


* [The witness must be able to prove substantially

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.]

Entick v. Carrington, 19 S. T. 1073, is


an authority for this proposition. I do not think
it supports it, but it shows the necessity for the rule, as at common law
no power existed to compel the production of documents. [Chambcrlin
V. Huguenot Co., 118 Mass, 532; Hanson v, Eustace's Lessee, 2 How,
''

R.

cited

V.

Watson^ 2 T. R. 201.

by Mr.

Phillips as

A DIGEST OF

136

When

{b)

the original

is

[Part

II.

shown or appears to be in the posbound to produce it,

session or power of a stranger not legally

and who refuses

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

the original has

made

search has been

When

for

the original

is

and proper

lost,

'

it

of such a nature as not to be easily

Naugatiick Co. v. Babcock, 22 Hun, 481


Garland v Dicmc,
(U. S.) 653
The party refusing to produce incurs the penalty of
37 Pa. St. 228.
having all inferences from the secondary evidence taken most strongly
;

Cahcn

against himself.

Continental his. Co., 69 N. Y. 300.]


732 Marston v. Downes, i A. & E. 31.

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.

where an attorney refuses

to

p. 140, n.

I, post.'X

Ph. Ev.

* I

452

s.

2 Ph. Ev. 281

may be proved by an
Haworth, 4 C. & P. 254.

loss

T. E. (from Greenleaf)

s.

399.

admission of the party or his attorney

The
R.

v.

McLaughlin, 115 Mass. 167;


Stebbins v. Duncan, 108 U. S. 32
Llandeville v. Reynolds, 68 N. Y. 528
Diligent search must ordinarily be
Dichl V. Eniig, 65 Pa. St. 320.
shown, exhausting all reasonable means of discovery. Simpson v. Dall,
Kearney v. Mayor of
3 Wall. 460 yohnso7i v. Ar?iwine, 42 N. J. L. 451
Hatch v. Carpenter, 9 Gray, 271. But the less the
N'. Y. 92 N. Y. 617
importance of the instrument, the less the diligence required. Amer.
Proof of the existence and genIns, Co. V. Rosenagle, jj Pa. St. 507.
uineness of the lost instrument is required, in order that secondary evidence maybe admissible. A'icAols v. Iron Co., 56 N. Y. 618; Krise w.
\^lVhitcher

v.

Neason, 66 Pa.

party

St. 253.

who has voluntarily destroyed

ary evidence of

its

innocent intent.
Cal. 430
169.]

yones

been with

Lord, 70 N. Y. 280 Bagley v. McMickle, 9


Knaus, 31 N. J. Eq. 609 Joannes v, Bennett, 5 Allen,

Steele
v.

a document cannot give second-

contents, unless he shows his act to have


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

a document for the proof of which

originals

the

by

made by any Act

law in force for the time being


{h)

it is

the party has been deprived of the original

fraud, so that
(.")

a country from which

in

137

When

(c)

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

THE

IX.]

of Parliament, or any

or

^
;

consist

of

numerous documents

which cannot conveniently be examined in court, and the


fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection
;

Mortimer v. McCallan, 6 M. & W. 6j, 68 (this was the case of a libel


on a wall) Bruce v. A^icolopulo, ii Ex. 133 (the case of a placard
posted on a wall).
[Gr. Ev.
$ 94 North Brookfisld v. Warren, 16 Gray,
Stearns v. Doe, 12 Gray, 482 (name
171 (inscription on a tombstone)
of a vessel)
cf. Cozzens v. Higgins, I Abb. Dec. 451 (photograph of a
'

written

i.

place

see Art. 64, ante.

^Ativan

Furnival,

v.

13 Johns. 58

so

if

)]

C.

M. & R.

the original

Mersick, 50 Ct. 272


liard, 55 N. H. 428
Driggs, 20 Wall. 125, 134
;

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.

State or country, so that

is

its

Ware

y.

Morgan, 67 Ala. 461

Rhodes

Sei-

v.

These cases do not declare it necessary to take his


deposition, but in some cases his deposition has been taken, and secondary evidence received because he would not give up the original.
Burney v. Russell, 109 Mass. 55 Bailey v. jfohnson, 9 Cow. 115 (in
these cases he gave a copy which was used) Forrest v. Forrest, 6 Duer,
102, 137.
Mere absence of the document from the State is not enough,
some cases hold, if proper effort will secure its production. Shaw v.

bert, 2

Pa. St. 18.

Mason, 10 Kan. 184 Forrest v. Forrest, supra.]


3 See chapter x
[including public records see Gr. Ev.
$ 91.]
< {^Grimes v.
/Cimiall, 3 Allen, 518
Nealley v. Greenough, 5 Foster,
Mitchell v. Jacobs, 17 111. 235
325
see Marlow v. Marlow, 77 111.
;

i.

633-

This paragraph is substituted for one which is peculiar to English law.


be found in the Appendix, note XLix.]
* See chapter x
[many such statutes are in force in this country.]

It will

A DIGEST OF

138

provided that that result


calculation.'

is

[Part

II.

capable of being ascertained by

'

Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, any secondis admissible.^

ary evidence of a document

Meyer v. Sefton, 2 Star. 276. The


Doxcn, Peake, 116
should in such a case be ready to be produced if required.
Johnson v. Kershaw^ i De G. & S. 264. [Gr. Ev. i. $ 93 Wh. Ev. i. $ 80
Von Sachs v. Kretz, 72 N. Y. 548 JorBurton v. Driggs, 20 Wall. 125
dan V. Osgood, 109 Mass. 457 B. e-^ \V. R. Co. v. Dana, i Gray, 83
'

Roberts

books,

etc.

v.

Fosdick
^

V.

Van Horn, 40 O.

St. 459.]

[Besides the cases here stated, another is sometimes asserted, viz.,


when proof is required of the contents of a document which merely

that

some collateral fact, parol evidence of the contents is sufficient.


McFadden v. Kingsbury, 11 Wend. 667. But this doctrine is doubtful.
Frank v. Manny, 2 Daly, 92 Jones v. Under-wood, 28 Barb. 481.
But a document may be so far collateral to the question in issue, though
relating to the same subject matter, that its production is not required,
relates to

nor proof of

its

In such a case parol evidence

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

producing the written receipt

Moses, 45 N. H. 222) so oftentimes of written proposals,


Gr. Ev. i. %% 89, 90; Wh. Ev. i. $^S 64, 77; see
notices, demands, etc.
So collateral facts about a document
Co7nm. V. Morrell, 99 Mass. 542.

{Kingsbury

v.

may be proved by
As

to

See

parol.

p. 164, n. 3, post.

proof of a person's holding a public

office,

see Art. 90, last para-

graph.]
3

If

a counterpart

or account for

it.

is

known

Mun?t

to exist,

v. Godbold, 3

it

is

the safest course to produce

Bing. 297

R.

v. Castleton,

7 T. R.

236.
[It is

the English doctrine that there are no degrees in secondary evi-

dence, and a party

mony

States adopt the

Eslow

may

introduce any form thereof (as

instead of a copy),

V.

same

if

the original cannot

doctrine.

Mitchell^ 26 Mich. 500

Goodrich
Carpenter

v.
v.

be had.

e.g.,

parol

testi-

Some American

Weston, 102 Mass. 362

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

given as to the general result

of the

documents by any person who has examined them, and

who

skilled in the examination of such

is

documents.

Questions as to the existence of facts rendering secondary


evidence of the contents of documents admissible are to be

decided by the judge, unless in deciding such a question the

judge would in

effect

decide the matter in

Article

issue.'

72.*

rules as to notice to produce.


Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents remay not be given, unless the party
proposing to give such secondary evidence has,
if the original is in the possession or under the control of
the adverse party, given him such notice to produce it as the
Court regards as reasonably sufficient to enable it to be procured ' or has,
ferred to in article 71 {a)

* See Note XXIX.


Williams, 20 Wall. 226; Reddington

v.

Gilntaii, I Bos. 235;

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.

Smith, 8 Pick. 272; Ri^-gs v. Tayduplicate originals, all must be

Of

Art. 64, ante.

destroyed, etc., before secondary evidence will be re-

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.

Mersick, 50 Ct. 272.]


Ne^obrotigh, 58 N. Y. 481

People v. Walker, 38 Mich. 159 EilHatfield, 124 Mass. 53


bert V. Finkheiner, 68 Pa. St. 243.
Notice is not required unless the
v.

original

is in

the party's possession or control.

Roberts

Baker v. Pike, 33 Me. 213 Shcppard


The notice may be given to the party's attorney.
Mass. 397

Wend.

454

Den v.

McAllister, 7 N.

J.

L. 46.

v.

v.

Spencer, 123

Giddings, 22

Brown

Ct

282.

v. Littlefield,

The notice must be given <\

A DIGEST OF

I40

if

the original

is

II.

in the possession of a stranger to the action,

served him with a subpoena duces


tion

[Part

tcctati

requiring

produc-

its

'

if a stranger so served does not produce the document, and


has no lawful justification for refusing or omitting to do so,
his omission does not entitle the party who served him with

the snbpccna to give secondary evidence of the contents of the

document.''
time beforehand {Bourne

sufficient

Duff, 6 F. R. 45

V.

Dc Witt

Duffington, 125 Mass. 481

v.

v. Prescott,

51 Mich. 298

U. S.

McPkcrsott

v.

Wend. 216; Utica Ins. Co. v. Cadwell, 3 Wend. 296), and


Walden v. Davison^ 11
must definitely describe the document required.
Wend. 65 see Gr. Ev. 563 Art. 71, a?ite ; Arts. 138, 139, /^j/.
In the Federal courts, the production of books and writings by a party
Rathboiie, 7

i.

may

also

Rev.

St.

utes in

before

be required under a special statute


^ 724

many
trial.

Lowenstein

v.

States also allow discovery

N. Y. Code Civ.

in actions at law.

and

Carey, 12 F. R. 811,

U. S.

note.

Stat-

and inspection of documents

Pr. 803-809;

Mass. Pub.

St.,

c.

167,

$49-60.]

Newton v. Chaplin, 10 C. B. 56-69 [Aikin v. Martin, 11 Pai. 499


Lane v. Cole, 12 Barb. 680 Baker v. Pike, 33 Me. 213 In re Skep/iard,
3 F. R. 12 so on examinations before masters and commissioners in
'

Co. v. Heath, 8 Blatch. 413

Erie R.

federal practice.

U. S.

v.

Tilden,

Such a subpoena may be served on a party, now that parMwray v.


ties are competent witnesses {Shelp v. Morrison, 13 Hun, no
Cummer v. Kent Judge, 38 Mich. 351 but see
lston, 23 N. J. Eq. 212
Campbell v. Johnston, 3 Del. Ch. 94), or on a corporation, by serving the
10 Ben. 566.

proper

IVertheim

officer.

\.

Continental R. Co., IS F. R. 716

Ex parte

Brown, T2 Mo. 83 (telegrams) U. S. v. Babcock.^ 3 Dill. 566 (telegrams)


N. Y. Code Civ. Pr. 868 In re Sykes, 10 Ben. 162. The writ should
describe documents definitely {Ex parte Brown, supra; U. S. v. Hunter,
15 F. R. 712), and is compulsory, unless it is set aside, or the witness
;

is

privileged.

16 Blatch. 334
Arts. 118-120,

Bonesteel

\.

Johnson

v.

/(J-f/.

Lynde^ 8 How. Pr. 226, 352 Corbettw. Gibson,


Donaldson, 3 V. R. 22 see Art. 71 {b), ante
;

[The recusant witness may be sued


contempt {Bone226, 352), and is generally subject also to a
When he is a party, his pleading has sonietinies been
statutory penalty.
Shelp v, Morrison, 13 Hun, no.]
stricken out.
'^

R.

V.

Llanfaethly, 2 E.

damages {Lane v. Cole,


steel v. Lynde., 8 How. Pr.

for

&

B. 940.

12 Barb. 680), punished for


Chap.

THE

IX.]

LAW

'

OF EVIDENCE.

141

Such notice is not required in order to render secondary


evidence admissible in any of the following cases
(i) When the document to be proved is itself a notice
;

When

(2)

the action

document

the

When

possession or power of the adverse

in the

is

party and requires

its

founded upon the assumption that

is

production

proved that the adverse party has


obtained possession of the original from a person subpoenaed
'
to produce it
(4) When the adverse party or his agent has the original in
(3)

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

Allen, 16 Me. 41.]


Hall, 14 Ea. 247.
In an action on a bond, no notice to pro-

V.

How

V.

See other illustrations in 2 Ph. Ev. 373 T.


N. Y. 616 Morrill v. B. &> M. R. Co.,
58 N. H. 68 Dana v. Conant, 30 Vt. 246 Railway Co. v. Cronin, 38 O.
as in an action of trover for the document. Hotchkiss v. Mosher,
St. 122

duce the bond


E.

is

required.

422. [^Lawson v. Bachmaii, 81

s.

The

48 N. Y. 479.
berry, 48

Me.

rule applies also in criminal cases.

State v.

May-

218.]

3 Leeds V. Cook, 4 Esp.


256 [cf. Bonesteel v. Lynde, 8 How. Pr. 226,
352 so where a party tore off a part of a document with intent to destroy,
Scott v.
notice to produce the portion he took was held unnecessary.
;

Pentz, 5 Sandf. 572.]


Formerly doubted, see 2 Ph. Ev.
278, but so held in Dwyer v. Collins, 7
Ex. 639. [.'\ verbal notice in court is in this case sufficient to let in secondary evidence.
Ckadwick v. U.
3 F. R. 750; Kerr v. McGuirc, 28
N. Y. 446 see Atwell v. Miller, 6 Md. 10 Barton v. Kane, 17 Wis. 37
Hammond v. Hopping, 13 Wend. 505 some early cases are to the con.S". ,

trary

Pa.

Watkins

St. 23.

Boynton

ment.

rison, 13
'

Or

v.

Pintard,

the court
v.

J. L.

\b)

v.

Mor-

duplicate original

may be

notice to produce the other.


;

Milliken v. Barr, 7
(Co.ve) 378
the witness to produce the docu-

Boynton, 25 How. Pr. 490, 41 N. Y. 619 Shelp


McGregor v. Wait, 10 Gray, 72.]

Hun, no, 113

[Additional rules are as follows

(a)

446

N.

may compel

given in evidence, without giving


i.
Totten v. Ducy, 57 Md.
561

Gr. Ev.

see Art. 64, ante.

Absence of the party having the document from the State

is

no ex-

A DIGEST OF

i42

CHAPTER

[Part

II.

X.

PROOF OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.


Article

y^.

PROOF OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.

When

a statement

made

in

any public document, register, or

record, judicial or otherwise, or in any pleading or deposition

kept therewith

the issue in any

in issue, or is relevant to

is

proceeding, the fact that that statement

document, may be proved

in

is

contained in that

any of the ways mentioned

in this

chapter.'

Article

74.

production of document

itself.

The contents of any public document whatever may be


proved by producing the document itself for inspection from
proper custody, and identifying it as being what it professes to
be.'

cuse for not giving notice,


Stirling; v.

134

Aliter,

he can be found.

Carland

v.

Cun7iingham,

if

Art. 71 {d), ante.'\

'

See

[Gr. Ev.

ante,

articles 34

and

Ct. 194.
of a

if

a stranger out of the State have the document.


Buckingham, 46 Ct. 461 see Burton v. Driggs, 20 Wall. 125,

37 Pa. St. 228.

and

90.

Wh. Ev. i. $ 635-660 Arts. 33 and 34,


479, 482-484
cases cited Miller v. Hule, 26 Pa. St. 432 Phelps v. Hunt, 43
i.

is not competent original evidence


Hardy, 57 Ind. 393.]

printed report of a decision

judgment.

Donellan

v.

THE

Chap. X.]

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

Article

examined

143

75.*

copies.

public document whatever may in all


by an examined copy.'
An examined copy is a copy proved by oral evidence to have
been examined with the original and to correspond therewith."
The examination may be made either by one person reading
both the original and the copy, or by two persons, one reading
the original and the other the copy, and it is not necessary

The contents of any

cases be proved

(except in peerage cases

that each should alternately read

'),

both."

Article

76.t

[GENERAL RECORDS OF THE NATION OR STATE.]


[Copies of any documents, records, books, or papers in any
of the executive departments of the United States Govern-

ment, authenticated under the seals of such departments, respectively, are admitted in evidence equally with the originals

and the same

true of copies of

is

documents

in various

public offices, certified by the proper public officer and authenticated

under

his seal of office.*

similar rule as to the proof in State courts of public docu-

* See Note XXX.. also Doe v. Ross, 7 M. & W.


t [For original article, see Note L.]
1

[Gr. Ev.

i.

$$ 48s. 508.]
Hillw. Packard, 5

106.

Wend. 387 Amer. Life Ins. Co. v.


It is also
Roscnagle, 77 Pa. St. 507 see N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. $ 962.
Hubbell v. Meigs, 50
called a " sworn copy."
Gr. Ev. i. $j 485, 501
N. Y. 480]
2

[Gr. Ev.

i.

% 508

Slane Peerage Case, 5 C. & F. 42.


\Kellogg v.
R. N. P. 113
2 Ph. Ev. 200, 231
T. E. ss. 1379, 1389
Kellogg, 6 Barb. 116; Krisc v. Neason, 66 Pa. St. 253.]
' [U. S.
Rev. St. $$ 882-898 decisions collected in Bump's Federal
^
<

Procedure, pp. 552-562.]

'

A DIGEST OF

144

ments

in State offices

commonly

is

[Part

established

by

II.

statutes of

the States, respectively.]

Article tj*
exemplifications.

An

exemplification

a copy of a record set out either under

is

the Great Seal or under the Seal of a Court.

copy made by an

make

it, is

bound by law to
it is some-

officer of the Court,

equivalent to an exemplification, though

times called an office copy.^

An

exemplification

equivalent to the original document

is

exemplified.^

Article

78.*

copies equivalent to exemplifications.

copy made by an officer of the Court, who is authorized


it by a rule of Court, but
not required by law to

make

to

*See NoteXXXL
[See N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. 933, 957, 958
So statutes may provide that documents
70.
'

N. Y. Code Civ. Pro.

so proved in State courts.

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

Spauldingv. Vincent, 24 Vt. 501.]

[This rule applies to

all

same

courts within the

jurisdiction.

Gr. Ev.

Copies of public records, whether judicial or otherwise, made


$507.
by a public officer authorized bylaw to make them, are also often termed
" office copies," as e.g., copies of recorded deeds.
Craggy. Learned, 109
i-

Mass. 167;

Elwell

" certified copies. "

declared admissible

v.

Cuningham, 74 Me.

in

many

out further authentication.


of

127.

They

are

ialso

called

Borrowscale, 104 Mass. 207. They are


cases in courts of the same jurisdiction with-

Sanuiels

v.

The

officer

may be

he has one.]
[This is spoken of domestic records,

required to attach his seal

office, if

additional authentication.

Gr. Ev.

i.

ij

etc.;

501

foreign records

Art.

84,/t'j-/..l

may need

THE LAlV OF EVIDENCE.

Chap. X.]

make

regarded as equivalent to an exemplification

not admissible unless

is

it

is

it,

same Cause and Court, but

the

14$

it

in

other Causes or Courts

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

particulars in Courts of Justice, provided they are respectively

manner prescribed by such statutes.*


Whenever, by virtue of any such provision, any such certificate or certified copy as aforesaid is receivable in proof of
any particular in any Court of Justice, it is admissible as evidence if it purports to be authenticated in the manner preauthenticated in the

'

[Gr. Ev.

i.

507

Wh.

Ev.

i.

$ 104, 105

Kellogg

v.

Kellogg, 6 Barb.

These are called "office copies." (Id.) But certified copies


authorized by statute (or "office copies" in the broader sense of the
term see preceding article) are now commonly used in their place, beii6, 130.

ing admissible in
*

E.

U.

8
s.

&

9 Vict.

all

domestic courts.]

c. 113,

preamble.

Many

1440 and following sections.

S.

Rev.

St.

943-947, 957-962

such statutes are specified

See, too, R. N. P. 114-5.

in T.

[See, e.g.,

%^ 882-900; N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. $$921-924,928-941,


A'ortki/mberland Co. v. Zh)imerman, 75 Pa. St. 26

Post V. Supervisors, 105 U. S. 667; Gethin v. Walker, 59 Cal. 502; or


Chamberlin v.
such copies may be used by virtue of immemorial usage.
Ball, 15 Gray, 352.
But it is sometimes provided, as in New York, that
the

common

law methods of proof

statutory methods.

Code

may be

used, as well as the special

Civ. Pro. 962.

Certificates are not admissible in evidence unless authorized by law,


and then only as to matters which the officer is required or authorized to
certify.
Water Cotnm'rs v. Lansing, 45 N. Y. 19 Parr v. Greenbush, 72
N. Y. 463
Wayland v. Ware, 109 Mass. 248 jfay v. East Livermorc,
56 Me. 107.]
;

A DIGEST OF

146

[Part

11.

scribed by law without proof of any stamp, seal, or signature

required for

its

authentication or of the official character of the

person who appears

to

Whenever any book

have signed
or other

it.'

document

nature as to be admissible in evidence on

from the proper custody, and no statute

is

of such a public

its

mere production

exists

which renders

contents provable by means of a copy, any copy thereof or

its

extract therefrom

vided

by the

extract
trusted.'

Ibid.,

'

admissible in proof of

is

contents,' pro-

its

purport to be signed and certified as a true copy or

it

officer

to

whose custody the original

is

in-

s.

I.

believe the above to be the effect of the provision, but

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

v. Croll, 5 Hill, 573


Keichline v. Keichline, 54 Pa. St. 75
Barnett, 4 Blackf 369.
Such copies or certificates are, however, generally deemed only presumptive ox prima facie evidence.
Id.;

87

St.

Harris

v.

Code Civ. Pro. $ 921-924, 928, 936.]


The words " provided it be proved to be an examined copy

see N. Y.
''

tract or,"

or ex-

occur in the Act, but are here omitted because their effect

is

given in article 75.


3

14

&

15 Vict.

c.

99,

tained this rule as a

s.

14.

common
Warner

[Some American
law principle.

decisions have main-

Gr. Ev.

i.

485

U. S.

v.

Hardy, 6 Md. 525 but see Seldcti v.


Canal Co., 29 N. Y. 634, 638. But the use of certified copies of public
documents is now so generally authorized by statute or rules of practice
that this question as to the common law doctrine has become of little
Perche/nan, 7 Pet. 51

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

plying at a reasonable time for the same, upon payment of a reasonable


sum for the same, not exceeding four pence for every folio of ninety
words.

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

of the United States, shall be proved or admitted in any other


court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk,
and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, together

with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, that the said attestation is in

[*

rule that

proper
same.

when

officer

U.

S.

For the original

article,

the use of certified copies

due form.^

the said

see Note L. ]
is

authorized by statute, the

must give such a copy on payment of


Rev.

And

his legal fees for the

St. 213, 460, 461, 828, 892, 4194,

4195

N. Y. Code

Civ. Pro. ^ 961.]


'
[The acts of Congress herein stated

were enacted under the authorfull faith and credit


shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may, by general laws,
prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall
be proved, and the effect thereof." U. S. Const., Art. iv. i.]
ity

of the constitutional provision declaring that "

[As to the construction of this provision, see Gr. Ev.

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
;

an associate judge ( Van Siorch v. Griffni, 71 Pa. St. 240 Hatcher v.


Rocheleau, 18 N. Y. 86)
and must be that the attestation is in due form
{_i.e., in the form required in the State whence the record comes)
if he
certifies, not this fact but some other, the certificate is insufficient.
Craig
;

v. Brown, i Pet. C. C. 352


Pepin v. Lachetimeyer, 45 N. Y. 27, 32 see
Biirnelly. lVe/d,76N. Y. 103; Ransom v. Wheeler, 12 Abb. Pr. 139. This
statute does not apply to the Federal courts, but their records, when cer;

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

apply to courts of inferior jurisdiction, as justices' courts.

The modu

A DIGEST OF

[Part

II'.

records and judicial proceedings, so authenticated, shall have

such faith and credit given to them in every court within the
United States as they have by law or usage in the courts of the
State from which they are taken.'

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

records and exemplifications of books, which

kept in any public

country,

by

office of

the attestation of the keeper of the said records or

books, and the seal of his

office

annexed,

if

there be a seal,

together with a certificate of the presiding justice of the court


of the county, parish, or district, in which said office

may be

kept, or of the governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor


or keeper

of the great seal

of the

proper

officers.

State or Territory, or

due form, and by the


given by the presidbe further authenticated by the

country, that the said attestation

is

in

If the said certificate is

ing justice of a court,

it

shall

clerk or prothonotary of the

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

such governor, secretary, chancellor or keeper of the great


seal, it shall be under the great seal of the State, Territory, or
country aforesaid in which it is made. And the said records

and exemplifications, so authenticated, shall have such faith


and credit given to them in every court and office within the
United States as they have by law or usage

in

the courts or

country as aforesaid, from

offices of the State, Territory, or

which they are taken.'


But these provisions do not preclude the several States from
of proving their dockets and judgments
the several States, or by

common

is

law.

that prescribed by the laws of


See N. Y. Code Civ. Pro.

948-951 Gr. Ev. i. 505.]


'
[U. S. Rev. St. $ 905 as to the effect of such records, see ante, Art.
;

47, note.]

2f.U, S. Rev. St. ^ 906

Bump's Fed.

Pro., p. 618.]

THE LA\V OF EVIDENCE.

Chap. X.]

modes

establishing other

records of other States.]

149

own

of proving in their

courts the

'

Article

81.*

[officially printed copies.]


[The Revised Statutes of the United States, printed under
government printing office and embracing the statutes of the United States
general and permanent in their nature, in force on December
and consolidated, and including also the
I, 1873, as revised
amendatory acts passed by Congress between that date and
the year 1878, shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts of the United States and of the several
States and Territories, but shall not preclude reference to, nor
control, in case of any discrepancy, the effect of any original
And
act as passed by Congress since December i, 1873.

the direction of the Secretary of State at the

copies of the acts of Congress, printed

as

aforesaid at the

close of each session of Congress, shall

be

legal evidence of

the laws
It is

and

treaties therein contained, in said courts.'

common

for State statutes to provide that the statute-

law of that State, and of other States and Territories, and of


the United States,

may be

read in evidence in

its

courts from

a printed book, paper, or other publication, duly published

under

official

authority and direction.]

Note L.]
Brainardv. Fowler, 119

[* For the original article, see


'

[KiTtynan

v. Coivles^

103 Mass. 283

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.]
;

[U. S. Rev. St.

supplement

to the

15 Ct. of CI. 80)

(ed.

1878), Appendi.x,

Revised Statutes

pp.

1090- 1092

(21 Stat. L. 308

see

so as to the

Wright v.

the acts of Congress were formerly published

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,

[See Mass. Pub. St., c. 169,


extending the same rule

^
to

N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. $$ 932,


69, 71
printed copies of any proclamation,
;

A DIGEST OF

so

Article

[Part

II.

82.*

[proof of the statutes of any state or territory.]


[The acts of the legislature of any State or Territory, or of
any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
shall be authenticated by having the seals of such State, Territory, or country affixed thereto, and shall then be admitted
in evidence in every other court within the United States.'
But this provision does not preclude the several States from
establishing other modes of proving in their own courts the
"
written law of other States.]

Article

83.*

[proclamations, acts of state, legislative journals, ETC.]

[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-

lative journals, printed

For the original article, see Note L.]


by the executive power of any other State
In some States where no statutes exist authorizing the
or country.
statute-law of other States to be read from a printed volume, this has yet
been allowed by the courts. Gr. Ev.
The common-law
%% 480, 489.
mode of proof is by exemplification under the great seal, or by examined
copy, and this may still be used. (Id.) As to the cases in which statutes
[*

edict, decree, or ordinance,

i.

are judicially noticed, see Art. 58

(i),

ante ; see also Art. 49, note 2.]

[U. S. Rev. St. 905 Bump's Fed. Pro., p. 566


80 Pa. St. 208
U. S. V. Amedy, 11 Wheat. 392.]
'

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

Executive proclamations and acts of state may be


proved by an officially printed copy.'
Extracts from the journals of the Senate of the United
States, or of the House of Representatives, and from the execuinals.'

Senate when the injunction of secrecy

tive journal of the

is

re-

moved, certified by the secretary of the Senate or by the clerk


of the House of Representatives, shall be admitted as evidence
in the courts of the United States, and shall have the same
force and effect as the originals would have, if produced and
authenticated in court.]'

Article

84.*

[foreign written laws, acts of state, records, etc.]


[Foreign written laws, acts of state, and judicial records

may be proved by an

exemplification of a copy under the great


by a copy proved to be a true copy by
a witness who has examined and compared it with the original,
or by a certificate of an officer properly authorized by law to
give a copy, which certificate must itself be duly authenticated.'*
Moreover, in some jurisdictions, a- foreign written law may be
proved by the statute book containing it, officially published
seal of the state, or

[* For the original article, see Note L.]


'

[Gr. Ev.

i.

479

Watkins

v.

Hclman, 16

Pet. 25

(U. S.) 334 Gregg v. Forsyth, 24 Id. 179


613; Post V. Supervisors, 105 U. S. 667.]
19

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.

Walker, 3 Foster, 471.]

A DIGEST OF

152

by

the

government which made the law,

out the testimony of experts.]


'

[This

is

provided

Maine Rev.

in

some

St., c. 82,

109

times expert testimony

is

either with or with-

by statute (Mass. Pub.


N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. $ 942

States

but see Hynes

II.

'

ante), but is declared in Eiin'n v. Smith, 14

mon-law doctrine

[Part

v.

How. (U.

St.

c.

169, 73

Art. 49, note 2,

comSome-

S.) 401, as a

McDcr^nott, 82 N. Y.

41, 56.

received without a printed copy of the law

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

Art. 82, ante.

Special State statutes are also in force, establishing


foreign records, etc.

not generally

made

N. Y. Code Civ. Pro.

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.

presumption as to date of a document.

When

any document bearing a date has been proved, it is


presumed to have been made on the day on which it bears
date,' and if more documents than one bear date on the same
day, they are presumed to have been executed in the order
necessary to effect the object for which they were executed,^ but
independent proof of the correctness of the date will be required if the circumstances are such that collusion as to the
date might be practised, and would, if practised, injure any
person, or defeat the objects of any law.'
Illustrations.

An

instrument admitting a debt, and dated before the act of bankruptcy, is produced by a bankrupt's assignees, to prove the petitioning
(a)

'

Wh. Ev. ii. % 977 Livingston v. Arnoux, 56 N. Y.


i. 40, n.
Smith v. Porter, 10 Gray, 66 Pringle v. Pringle, 59 Pa. St.
so a deed is presumed to have been delivered on the day of its date

[Gr. Ev.

507, 519

281

{People V. Snyder, 41 N. Y. 397)


but this is not true of forged instruments Remington Co. v. O' Dougherty, 81 N. Y. 474. The presumption
;

as to all instruments

may be

rebutted by proof of the real date of execu-

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

a general principle that two instruments of the same date,

between the same


parts of the

parties, and relating to the same subject matter, form


same agreement or transaction. Mott v.- Richtmyer, S7 N.

Y. 49. 65.]
3

Ph. Ev. 482-3

14 Wall. 570.]

T. E.

s.

137

Best,

s.

403

[see Philpoiv. Gruninger,

A DIGEST OF

154

[Part

Further evidence of the date of the transaction

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

bankruptcy and the adjudication.'


damages on the ground of adultery letters are prohusband and wife, dated before the alleged adultery,

between the

{b)

act of

In a petition for

duced between the


and showing that they were then on
of the date

is

Further evidence

affectionate terms.

required to prevent collusion to the prejudice of the per-

son petitioned against.*

Article

86.

presumption as to stamp of a document.^

When

any document

not produced after due notice to

is

produce, and after being called


duly stamped,* unless
for

some time

after

it

its

for,

be shown

presumed to have been


have remained unstamped

it is

to

execution.^

Article

87.

presumption as to sealing and delivery of deeds.

When

any document purporting to be and stamped as a


is proved to be or to have been signed and

deed, appears or

W.
s

Anderson

v.

Wesiot, 6 Bing. N. C. 302

Sinclair

v.

Baggallay, 4

M. &

318.

Houlston

v.

Smith, 2 C.

&

P. 24

[Gr. Ev.

i.

$ 102,

ii.

57

see Art.

II, Illustration {k), ante.'\


3 [The general abolition in this country of the laws requiring the use of
stamps upon written instruments renders this article of little or no importance here. Some analogous decisions of interest under the former
law requiring revenue stamps are Va?i Rensellaer v. Vickery, 3 Lans. 57
Long V. Spencer, 78 Pa. St. 303 for a case in which stamps were used as
seals, see Van Bokkelen v. Taylor, 62 N. Y. 105.]
* Closmadeuc v. Carrel, 18 C. B. 44.
In this case the growth of the rule
is traced, and other cases are referred to, in the judgment of Cresswell, J.
* Marine Investment Co, V. liayiside, L. R. 5 E. & I. App. 624.
;

THE

Chap. XI.]
duly attested,

LAW

presumed

it is

OF EVIDENCE.

155

have been sealed and deliv-

to

ered, although no impression of a seal appears thereon.'

Hall V. Bainbridge, 12 Q. B. 699-710. Re Sandilands, L. R. 6 C. P.


[These cases, so far as they support this article, are based upon
the English rule, that neither an impression upon wax or other tenacious
substance, nor a scroll or other mark, is necessary to constitute a seal.
But in this country the general rule is that no deed or other specialty is
complete without a seal in one or the other of these forms. If, therefore,
an instrument has no seal upon it, in the form recognized as valid in the
particular State, the fact that it purports to be sealed, and is attested as
'

411.

make

Chilion v. People, 66 111. 501


Thompson, 49 Mo. 188 Taylor v.
Corlies v. Van iXote, 16 N. J. L. 324.
Glaser, 2 S. & R. 431
But where
a deed is proved by the public records, and no seal has been recorded,
like circumstances as to the purport of the deed, etc., will raise the presumption of a seal upon the original. Flowery Co. v. Bonanza Co., 16
Nev. 302 Starkweather v. Martiti, 28 Mich. 471 cf. Geary v. Kansas, 61
Mo. 378 contra, Switzcr v. Knapps, 10 la. 72. If a seal is omitted by
mfstake, equity will cause the omission to be supplied or will disregard
Harding v. Jeivell, 73 Me. 426 Montville v. Haughton, 7 Ct. 543
it.
Rutland v. Paige, 24 Vt. 181.
If an instrument, when given in evidence, bears a seal, this is presumed to be the seal of the party signing {Mill Dam Co. v. Hovey, 21
Pick. 417, 428; Trustees v. McKechnie, 90 N. Y. 618)
and upon proof of
the signature, it may be presumed that the instrument was regularly
sealed and delivered, especially if there be a recital stating the fact of
sealing such recital is, however, by the weight of authority, held unnecessary. Merritt v. Cornell, 1 E. D. Sm. 335 Miller v. Binder, 28 Pa.
Trasker v. Everhart, 3 G. & J.
St. 489 Bradford v. Randall, 5 Pick. 496
234 Force v. Craig, 7 N. J. L. 272 A?tthony v. Harrison, 14 Hun, 200,
But the pre74 N. Y. 613 but see Clegg v. Lemessurier, 15 Gratt. 108.
sumption is rebuttable. Koehler v. Black River Co., 2 Black, 715. Still
the fact that an instrument bears a seal and also pvirports to be sealed is
evidence for the jury that it was sealed when signed, though the obligor
denies this. Brolley v. Lapham, 13 Gray, 294 State v. Peck, 53 Me. 284,
such,

is

State

V.

not sufficient to

Humbird, 54 Md. 327

it

a deed.

State

v.

286.

So when a deed with

the regular evidence of

found

in the

hands of the grantee,

its

execution upon

presumed

its

face

have been duly delivered ( Wardv. Lciuis, 4 Pick. 518


Story v. Bishop, 4 E. D. Sm. 423)
so if it is upon record duly acknowledged and attested, Lawrence v.
is

it is

to

A DIGEST OF

156

Article

[Part

II.

88.

presumption as to documents thirty years old.


purporting or proved to be thirty years
produced from any custody which the judge in the particular case considers proper, it is presumed that the signature
and every other part of such document which purports to be in
the handwriting of any particular person is in that person's

Where any document

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

purports to be executed and attested

it

need not be proved, even

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.

$^ 194-199, 703, 732; Gr. Ev. i. %% 21, 142-144, 570;


Winn V. Paterson, 9 Pet. 663 Cahill v. Palmer, 45 N. Y. 478 Schaiff
Berry v. Raddin, 11 Allen, 579; Goodwin v.
V. Keener, 64 Pa. St. 376
220.

i.

The age

yack, 62 Me. 414.


testator's death.

Stari7ig

v.

of a will under this rule


Boiuen, 6 Barb. 109.

is

It

reckoned from the


has been a mooted

custody, that

document were a conveyance of land, it would


age and its production from the proper
there had been possession of the land under it and in accord-

ance with

terms.

question, whether,

be necessary
its

if

the

to prove, besides its

The

better opinion

is

that evidence of possession

not strictly necessary, but other corroborative evidence

Whitman

to establish the genuineness of the instrument.

73

111.

109;

v.

is

received

Heneberry,

Walker, 67 Pa. St. 185 see Boston v. Richardson,


Clark v. Owens, 18 N. Y. 434 Enders v. Steenber^h, 2

Walker

105 Mass. 351

may be

v.

But evidence of possession is the


best means of corroboration, and should be produced when practicable.
Unless there be some satisfactory corrobWillson V. Belts, 4 Den. 202.
its age alone
oration, the execution of the document must be proved
yackson v. Luquere, 5 Cow. 221
is not enough to authenticate it.
Martin v. Rector, 24 Hun, 27.]
2 {Jackson V. Christman, 4 Wend. 277
McReynolds v. Lonc7iberer,

Abb. Dec. 31

see Gr. Ev.

i.

144, n.

57 Pa. St. 13.1

THE

Chap. XI.]

Documents

LAW OF

EVIDENCE.

157

are said to be in proper custody

if

they are in

the place in which, and under the care of the person with

whom, they would

naturally be
but no custody is improper
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.

No person producing any document which upon its face


appears to have been altered in a material part can claim
under

it

the enforcement of any right created

alteration was

made

by

it,

unless the

before the completion of the document or

with the consent of the party to be charged under

or his

it

representative in interest.^

This rule extends to cases in which the alteration was made


by a stranger, whilst the document was in the custody of the
person producing it, but without his knowledge or leave.'
[See cases in notes i and 2, supraj^
Angle v. Life Ins. Co., 92 U.
[Gr. Ev. i. 565
Drum, 133 Mass. 566 Hunt v. Gray, 35 N. J. L. 227.
'

tion

by a party

330; Drum v.
material altera-

though innocently made (Booth v.


la. 545
Craighead^. McLoney,
the case of a contract, a recovery maybe had

after execution avoids,

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

on the original consideration


teration

be fraudulent.

V.

Life Ins. Co.

supra.

Alterations in a deed will not divest the

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

material, avoid the covenants.

title

Gr. Ev.

i.

$ 265

Ind. 99.]
3

Pigot's Case, 11 Rep. 47

Davidson

v. Cooper.,

11

M. & W.

778

13

A DIGEST OF

158

[Part

II.

Alterations and interlineations appearing on the face of a deed

absence of all evidence relating to them, presumed


have been made before the deed was completed.'

are, in the
to

M. & W. 343 Aldous v. Cornwell, L. R. 3 Q. B. 573. This qualifies one


The judgment reviews a great numof the resolutions in Pigot's Case.
;

ber of authorities on the subject. [This doctrine is asserted in Marcy v.


Dun lap, 5 Lans. 365; but generally in this country it is held that unauthorized alterations by a stranger, even though material, do not affect

document {Drum

v. D)-u!?i, 133 Mass. 566


Robertson
Gray, 35 N. J. L. 227 Bigelow v. StilWaritig v. Smyth, 2 Barb. Ch. 119), and the fact that
phens, 35 Vt. 521
the document is in the party's custody at the time seems to make no

the validity of the

Hay, 91 Pa.

V.

242

St.

Hu7it

v.

difference.

(Id.)

an alteration.

The

stranger's act

Gr. Ev.

i.

is

called a " spoliation," rather than

$ 566.]

[The American rule differs from the


though there is much diversity of doctrine in the
different States. It is generally agreed, however, that if a material alteration appear upon the face of a document, and be suspicious in its character and beneficial to the party claiming the enforcement of a right under
the document, the burden of proof is upon such party to show that the
1

Doe

V.

English

in

alteration

Catomore, 16 Q. B. 745.

many

States,

was made before or at the time of execution, or


and if evidence be adduced

sons proper or excusable

is

for other rea-

to explain

any

submitted to the jury, who are to determine as a


question of fact, when, by whom, and for what reasons the alteration was
IVaring \. Smyth, 2
made. Smith v. AIcGowan, 3 Barb. 404 (deed)
U. S. v. Linn, 1 How. (U. S.) 104
Barb. Ch. 119 (bond and mortgage)

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)

Crossmau, 95 N. Y. 145, 153.


In some States, however, it is held that if the party who is bound to explain a suspicious alteration offers no evidence for the purpose, the document may be rejected by the court as inadmissible in evidence (this is
the English rule oi Knight v. Clements, 8 A. & E. 215); Burgwin v. Bishop,
see Crossjnan

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

Alterations and interlineations appearing on the face of a

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

in all cases of alteration, with or

without explanatory evidence aliunde,

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.

[ll'etmore v. Carry/, 5 Redf.


i Sim. (N. S.) 136.
Williams, 80 Ky. 661 contra, Wikoff's Case, 15 Pa. St.
Charles v. Huber, 78 Pa.
281 see Van Buren v. Cockburn, 14 Barb. 118
St. 448.
As to the effect of alterations after execution, see Quinn v.
'

544

Rudall,

Quinn^
lott^

T.

Knight
'

&

C. 437

123 Mass. 102

R.

v.

v.

Eschbach

v.

Collins, 6r

Haynes v Haynes, 33 O.

Clements^ 8 A.

Gordon, Dears. 592

&
;

E. 215
[see

Md. 478

[see p. 158, note

yordan

v.

Bigclow v.

(7/7-

St. 598.]
i,

siipra.\

Stewart, 23 Pa.

St. 244,]

A DIGEST OF

i6o

with the consent of the party charged,


his interest or varied his obligations in

An

alteration

which

no way

in

[Part

II.

it would have affected


any way whatever.'

affects the rights of the parties

or the legal effect of the instrument,

is

immaterial.'

[Craighead y. McLoney^ 99 Pa. St. 211 Booth v. Powcn, 56 N. Y. 22


Wood v. Steele, 6 Wall. 0. Whether an
v. England, 58 la. 314
Id.; Belfast Bk.
alteration is material or not, is a question for the court.
Keens' Excr., 75 Va. 424.]
V. Harriman^ 68 Me. 522
2 This appears to be the result of many cases referred to in T. E. ss.
1619-20 see also the judgments in Da-ndson v. Cooper and Aldotis v.
Cornwell, referred to above. [Immaterial alterations by a party or stranger do not avoid an instrument (Casoni v. yerome, 58 N. Y. 315 Shitler
Cushing v.
Robertson v. Hay, 91 Pa. St. 242
V. Gillette, 12 Hun, 278
Field, 70 Me. 50; Ames v. Colburn, 11 Gray, 390), unless, perhaps, when
they are made by a party with fraudulent intent, but this is doubtful see
Gr. Ev. i. 568 Daniel, Neg. Inst. ii. ^ 1416 Comm. v. Ernigrant Sav. Bk.,
'

Adair

If blank spaces are left in a negotiable bill or note so that it


98 Mass. 12.
is incomplete, any bona fide holder may fill them up, and the instrument
Rcdlich v.
will be valid in the hands of an innocent purchaser for value.

Angle v. Life Ins. Co., 92 U. S. 330 Abbott v. Rose,


Doll^ 54 N. Y. 234
Garrard \. Lewis, 10 Q. B. D. 30. But unwritten spaces in
62 Me. 194
a complete note or bill cannot be so filled. McGrath v. Clark, 56 N. Y.
;

Cronkhite v. Ncbeker, 81 Ind. 319


34 Brtice v. Westcott, 3 Barb. 374
Greenfield Sav. Bk. v. Stowell, 123 Mass. 196. But there are cases to the
As to filling blanks in
contrary, which are collected in this last decision.
deeds, see Washb. R. P. iii. 240-243 (4th ed.); Bell v. Kennedy., 100 Pa.
;

St. 215.]

LAW

THE

Chap. XII.]

OF EVIDENCE.

CHAPTER

XII.

OF THE EXCLUSION OF ORAL BY DOCUMENTARY


EVIDENCE, AND OF THE MODIFICATION AND
INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENTARY BY ORAL
EVIDENCE.
Article

90.*

evidence of terms of contracts, grants, and other


dispositions of property reduced to a documentARY FORM.

When

any judgment of any Court or any other judicial or

official

proceeding, or any contract or grant, or any other dis-

position of property, has

ment

been reduced

to the

or series of documents, no evidence

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

which secondary evidence

is

document be contradicted,

except the docu-

contents in cases in

admissible under the provisions

Nor may

hereinbefore contained.'

its

the contents of any such

added

altered,

to, or

varied by oral

evidence.''

*See Note XXXII.


1

the

same

{b).

[But contemporaneous writings between


same subject-matter, are admissible in
Wilson v. Randall, 67 N. Y. 338.]

parties, relating to the

evidence.
'

and

Illustrations {a)

Gr. Ev.

[Gr. Ev.

glish courts

i.

is

i.

% 283

This rule of the En$ 275-282 Wh. Ev. ii. 920-927.


well established in this country.
Mott v. Richtmycr, 57

N. Y. 49; Martin

v.

Cole, 104

U. S. 30

Black

v.

Bachclder, 120 Mass.

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

Mat-titi v. Berens, 6j Pa. St. 459

Naiimberg

v.

331.

same

as in respect to other instruments.

Parol evidence

is

not received

A DIGEST OF

[Part

II.

Provided that any of the following matters may be proved


(i) Fraud, intimidation, illegahty, want of due execution,
want of capacity in any contracting party, the fact that it is
wrongly dated,' want or failure of consideration, or mistake
in fact or law, or any other matter which, if proved, would
produce any effect upon the validity of any document, or of
any part of it, or which would entitle any person to any judgment, decree, or order relating thereto."
of the testator's oral declarations of intention, except in the special cases

Williams v. Freeman, 83 N. Y. 561 Warren


Gregg, 116 Mass. 304 Mackie v. Story, 93 U. S. 589
Wallize v. WalWaldro?i v. Waldron, 45 Mich. 350]
lite, 55 Pa. St. 242
stated in the next article.
V.

Reffell V. Reffell^ L.

Mass. 355

Barnet

Barb. 333, 64 N. Y. 642.]


other formal particulars.
"

Illustration

{c)

R.

P.

&

D. 139

Abbott, 53 Vt. 120

v.

[Skat/ghnessy

Germania Bk.

Mr. .Starkie extends

this to

v.

Lewis, 130

v. Distler,

mistakes

in

67

some

3 Star. Ev. 787-8.

[Gr. Ev.

i.

$ 284, 285

Erwin, 66 N. Y. 649

Wh.

Ev.

j$ 930-935, 1009,

ii.

Trambly v. Ricard, 130 Mass. 259


Rowandv. Finney, 96 Pa. St. 192 Paine v. Upton, 87 N. Y. 327 (fraud,
accident, and mistake) Haughwotit v. Garrison^ 69 N. Y. 339 (usury)
Sherman v. Wilder, 106 Mass. 537 (illegality) Anthony v. Harrison, 14
Hun, 198, 74 N. Y. 613 Eaton v. Eaton, 35 N. J. L. 290 (want of consideration)
so parol evidence is admissible to show the real consideration of a contract or deed, though different from that expressed {Hebbard
V. Hanghian, 70 N. Y. 54
Baldwin v. Doze, 130 Mass. 416 Holmes'
Appeal, 79 Pa. St. 279 Biirnham v. Dorr, 72 Me. 198) to show a deed
to be a mortgage (Morris v. Budlong, 78 N. Y. 543
Hassam v. Barrett,
IIS Mass. 256 Logue' s Appeal, 104 Pa. St. 136 Peiigh v. Davis, 96 U. S.
332 this is only true in equity in most States) to show a bill of sale of
goods to be a chattel mortgage {Smith v. Bcattie, 31 N. Y. 542 Morgan's Assignees v. Shtim, 15 Wall. 105 Booth v. Robinson, 55 Md. 419
1054

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

show the true relations of the

Lcrnedv.

yoties, 9 Allen, 419)

parties signing an instrument as

between

themselves, as that they are co-sureties though they signed as makers,

and vice versa, etc. [Mansfield v. Edwards, 136 Mass. 15 Paul v. Rider,
58 N. H. 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

existence of any separate oral agreement as to any

matter on which a document


sistent with its terms,

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

under any such contract, grant, or disposition of property.*


(4) The existence of any distinct subsequent oral agreement
to rescind or modify any such contract, grant, or disposition
of property, provided that such agreement is not invalid under
the Statute of Frauds, or otherwise.^
temporaneous writings expresses the real intention of the parties {Pay son
V. Lamson, 134 Mass. 593)
so receipts may be varied by parol {Hildreth
;

O'Brien, 10 Allen, 104 Hotchkiss v. Moshcr, 48 N. Y. 478


Church, 65 Pa. St. 9 Suial/i v. Frazier, 35 N. J. Eq. 326)

V.

are

many

Russell

v.

and there

other like cases.]

{d), {<'), and (tr)


[Gr. Ev. i. % 284 a; yuilliard v.
N. Y. 529; Willis v. Hulbert, 117 Mass. 151; Naumbergs.
Young, 44 N. J. L. 331
Green v. Randall, 51 Vt. 67 Bradstreet v. Rich,
72 Me. 233 Bradshaw v. Combs, 102 III. 428 but see A/ast v. Perace, 58
la. 579
thus an independent collateral agreement may be shown by
parol.
Van Brunt v. Day, 81 N. Y. 251.]
2 Illustrations (/") and
{yuilliard v. Chaffee, 92 N. Y. 529, 535
(g)
Wilson V. Powers, 131 Mass. 539 O/tazua, etc. R. Co. v. Hall, i Bradw.
612
Wendlinger v. Smith, 75 Va. 309 Westman v. Krumweide, 30 Minn.

Illustrations

'

Chaffee, 92

313

Michcls

v.

Olmstcad, 14 F. R. 219.

Some

of the cases limit this

under seal, but others apply it to deeds as well.


Id.; see Brackett v. Barney, 28 N. Y. 333.
But other conditions cannot be engrafted upon a writing by parol evidence ( Wilson V. Dcen, 74 N. Y. 531 Allen v. Furbish, 4 Gray, 504
Hohworth v. Koch, 26 O. St. 33) in Pennsylvania, however, a less stringent rule prevails, and such evidence is received.
Greenawalt v. Kohne,
cf. Bonney v. Morrill, 57 Me. 368.]
85 Pa. St. 369
rule to instruments not

Illustration {li); [Gr. Ev.

N. Y. 478
Ins. Co.,
V.

Meech

v.

i.

Buffalo, 29

^$ 302-304; Hotner v. I/ife Ins. Co., 67


Kennebec Co. v. Augusta
198, 218

N. Y.

6 Gray, 204, 207; Pratt's

Sowerby, 37

Md. 410

AdmVs

U. S., 22 Wall. 496 Allen


generally the subsequent agreement requires a
v.

A DIGEST OF

i64

[Part

II.

Any usage

or custom by which incidents not expressly


any contract are annexed to contracts of that
unless the annexing of such incident to such condescription
tract would be repugnant to or inconsistent with the express
(5)

mentioned

in
;

terms of the contract.'


Oral evidence of a transaction
a documentary

that

memorandum was
tract, or

not excluded by the fact

is

memorandum

of

it

was made,

such

if

not intended to have legal effect as a con-

other disposition of property.'

Oral evidence of the existence of a legal relation is not


excluded by the fact that it has been created by a document,

when
ship

the fact to be proved

itself,

is

the existence of the relation-

and not the terms on which

was established or

it

carried on.^

is

new

consideration {Courtenay

erty, 79 Pa. St. 46

Stewart

v.

Me. 156; Alalone v. Dough36 N. Y. 388, 392), but this is in

Fuller, 65

v. Ketcltas,

some cases held unnecessary. Burt v. Saxto?!, i Hun, 551 Brown v.


Everhard, 52 Wis. 205. As to the modification of a contract under seal,
see Canal Co. v. Ray, loi U. S. 522
Coe v. Hobby, 72 N. Y. 141
Quigley
V. De Haas, 98 Pa. St. 292.
The authorities are conflicting as to whether a contract within the
Statute of Frauds can be varied by a subsequent parol agreement. Cinnmings V. Arnold, 3 Met. 486 Negley v. Jcffers, 28 O. St. 90 Hill v.
Blake, 97 N. Y. 216
Organ v. Stewart, 60 N. Y. 413, 419 Swaine v.
Seainens, 9 Wall 254, 272 Packer v. Steward, 34 Vt. 127, 130 see Kribs
V. yones, 44 Md. 396
Long v. Hartwell, 34 N. J. L. 116 Reed on St.
of Frauds, ii. % 473.]
'
Wigglesworth v. Dallison, and note thereto, S. L. C. 598-628 [Gr.
Ev. i. $ 294, 295
Walls v. Bailey, 49 N. Y. 464 Barnard v. Kellogg,
10 Wall. 383 Page v. Cole, 120 Mass. 37 Burger v. Farmers' Ins. Co.
;

71 Pa. St. 422.]


*

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

was not indorsed

'

THE

Chap. XII.]

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

165

The fact that a person holds a public office need not be


proved by the production of his written or scaled appointment
thereto, if he is shown to have acted on it.'
Illustrations.
{a)

A policy

London."

to

The

of insurance

The goods

is

effected on goods " in ships from

are shipped in a particular ship, which

Surinam
is lost.

was orally excepted from the policy

fact that that particular ship

cannot be proved. ^
{d)
it

An

estate called Gotton

Farm is conveyed by

as consisting of the particulars described in the

a deed which describes


division of a sched-

first

and delineated in a plan on the margin of the schedule.


Evidence cannot be given to show that a close not mentioned in the
schedule or delineated in the plan was always treated as part of Gotton
Farm, and was intended to be conveyed by the deed.
{c) A institutes a suit against B for the specific performance of a contract, and also prays that the contract may be reformed as to one of its
provisions, as that provision was inserted in it by mistake.
A may prove that such a mistake was made as would entitle him to
have the contract reformed.*
{d) A lets land to B, and they agree that a lease shall be given by A
ule

to B.

Before the lease

is

given,

tells

promises to destroy the rabbits.

that

he

will not sign

does promise.

The

unless

it

lease

is

after-

wards granted, and reserves sporting rights to A, but does not mention

{Bank V. Kennedy, 17 Wall. 19) the fact that interest is included in a


and many like
promissory note ( Clifton v. Litchfield, 106 Mass. 34)
Excrs of Shoenber^er v. Hackman, 37 Pa. St. 87 Bower v. Hoffcases.
;

man, 23 Md. 253 Klein v. Russell, 19 Wall. 433.]


See authorities collected in i Ph. Ev. 449-50 T. E. s. 139 [Gr. Ev.
Com7n. v. Kane, 108 Mass. 423 Colfon v. Beardsley, 38 Barl).
i. $ij 83, 92
Colder v. Dressier, 105 111. 419, 428
29 Lucier v. Pierce^ 60 N. H. 13
of. Chapman Township v. Herrold, 58 Pa. St. 106.]
^Weston V. Eames, i Tau. 115.
5 Barton v. Dawes, 10 C. B. 261-265.
Story's Equity Jurisprudence, chap, v., ss. 153-162
[Gr. Ev. i. 296
a; Hoioland v. Blake^ 97 U. S. 624 Stockbridge Co. v. Hudson Co., 102
Mass. 45 Bryce v. Lorillard Ins. Co., 55 N. Y. 240 N. &^ W. Branch
R. Co. V. Swank, 105 Pa. St. 555 but equity will not reform a will.
Sherwood \. Sherwood, 45 Wis. 35.]
;

'

A DIGEST OF

66

B may prove

the destruction of the rabbits.

[Part

II.

A's verbal agreement as to

the rabbits.'

A& B

B shall take up an acceptance of A's, and


and B shall make a written agreement for the sale of
B does not take up the acceptance. A may
certain furniture by A to B.
prove the verbal agreement that he should do so.^
(ec) [A makes an oral assignment to B for a valid consideration of a
portion of a debt due to A by a bank, and at the same time gives to B a
check to enable him to draw the amount assigned. The check is not the
contract between the parties and does not render parol evidence of the
agreement inadmissible.] ^
(/) A & B enter into a written agreement for the sale of an interest in
a patent, and at the same time agree verbally that the agreement shall
C does not approve. The
not come into force unless C approves of it.
party interested may show this.''
(?)

agree verbally that

that thereupon

(^) A, a farmer, agrees in writing to transfer to B, another farmer, a


farm which A holds of C. It is verbally agreed that the agreement is to
be conditional on C's consent. B sues A for not transferring the farm.
A may prove the condition as to C's consent and the fact that he does

not consent.
{h)

good
the

in writing to sell B 14 lots of freehold land and make a


each of them. Afterwards B consents to take one lot though
bad. Apart from the Statute of Frauds this agreement might

agrees
to

title

title is

be proved.'
(/)

B
B

sells

also gives

and verbally warrants him quiet in harness.


" Bought of A a horse for 7/.

a horse,

a paper in these words

6d."

zs.

B may prove
'

Morgan

the verbal warranty.'

R. 6 Ex. 70 and see Angell v. Duke^ L. R.


Dooley, 119 Mass. 296; Lriuis v. Seabtiry, 74
Dobson, 78 N. Y. 74. The first English case infra

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.

IVallis V. Littell, 11 C. B. (N. S.) 369.

Goss

'

L. 331.]

& B. 370; [cf. Fannce


Gamble, 4 Barb. 146.]

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.

Life Ins. Co., loi

Wiggin

v.

Goodrich, 63

389.]

Allen

Dunham

v.
v.

Pink, 4 M. & W. 140


Barnes, 9 Allen, 352.]

[Filkins

v.

Whyland, 24 N. Y. 338

THE

Chap. XII.]

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

167

(j\ TTie question is, whether A gained a settlement by occupying and


paying rent for a tenement. The facts of occupation and payment of
rent may be proved by oral evidence, although the contract is in
writing.'

Article

91.*

what evidence may be given for the interpretation


of documents,
Putting a construction upon a document

(i)

taining the

meaning of the

means

made upon

signs or words

ascerit,

and

their relation to facts.

In order

(2)

to ascertain

the

meaning of the

the

meaning of

illegible or

not

commonly

signs

may be

words made upon a document, oral evidence

and

given of

intelligible charac-

and provincial expressions, of abbreviations, and of common words which, from


the context, appear to have been used in a peculiar sense
but evidence may not be given to show that common words,
the meaning of which is plain, and which do not appear from
the context to have been used in a peculiar sense, were in fact
obsolete, technical, local,

ters, of foreign,

'

so used.'
If the

(3)

words of a document are so defective or ambigu-

ous as to be unmeaning, no evidence can be given to show

what the author of the document intended

ment

to facts,

'

[Illustrations {a)

71

Hull, 7 B.

&

Pa. St. 170;

Ins.

which

it

refers, or

C. 611.
{b) {c)

N. Y. 453; Loom

Water town

to

See Note XXXIII.

R.

V.

may be proved

every fact

Co.,

to say.''

In order to ascertain the relation of the words of a docu-

(4)

[Gr. Ev.

i.

$ij

280, 292

Higgins, 105 U.

Co. v.

S.

Nelson

Sun

v.

Ins.

580; Houghton

v.

Mass. 300; Mercer Co. v. McKee's Adm'r, 77


Douglas, 48 Ct. 116; Walrath v. Whittekind, 26

Co., 131

Hatch

v.

Kan. 482.]
5

Illustration

(</)

Prather, 23 Wall. 492


<

V.

Illustrations (^)

Odiorne

and (/)

Albee, 50 la. 429.]

Dinsmore, 55 N. Y. 200; Moran v.


Marine Ins. Co., loi Mass. 551.]
Palmer
[see Heald v. Heald, 56 Md. 303

[Colletider

v.

v.

A DIGEST OF

68

may probably have been

intended

any person or thing mentioned

in

[Part

to refer,' or

Such

it.''

which

II.

identifies

facts are hereinaf-

circumstances of the case.'


words of a document have a proper legal meaning, and also a less proper meaning, they must be deemed to
have their proper legal meaning, unless such a construction
would be unmeaning in reference to the circumstances of the
case, in which case they may be interpreted according to their
less proper meaning.''
(6) If the document has one distinct meaning in reference
to the circumstances of the case, it must be construed accordingly, and evidence to show that the author intended to express
ter called the
(5)

If the

some other meaning is not admissible.'*


(7) If the document applies in part but not with accuracy or
'

See

"

Illustration

all

the illustrations.

(^)

[Gr. Ev.

i.

$ 286-290

Coleman

v.

Manhattan

Co.,

94 N. Y. 229; Cleverly v. Cleverly, 124 Mass. 314; Morris's Appeal,


Evidence of "sur88 Pa. St. 368; Chambers v. IVatso/i, 60 la. 339.
rounding circumstances " is received, to put the court in the position of
the parties at the time

when

the instrument

was drawn.

Appeal, 31 Ct. 183 Fields. Munson, 47 N. Y. 221.


of the doctrine, see Brawley v. U. S., 96 U. S. 168

As

U. S. 23.
strument

Such evidence
is

clear without

is

Veazie

v.

Bond's

Reed v. Ins. Co., 95


meaning of the inForsaith, 76 Me. 172 Rapalye v.

not received

it.

Id.

to the limitations

when

the

Rapalye, 27 Barb. 610.


That proof may be given that the maker of the instrument habitually
applied a nickname or peculiar designation used therein to a particular person or thing, see Boggs v. Taylor, 26 O. St. 604 Ryerss v. Wheeler, 22 Wend.
;

Lanning v. Francis, 35 N. J. Eq. 397 see Illustrations (^) and {gg).'\


3 As to proving facts showing the knowledge of the writer, and for an
instance of a document which is not admissible for that purpose, see
150

Adie

v.

Clark, L. R. 3 Ch. D. 134, 142.

Illustration {h)

3 Barb. Ch. 466

cf.

[Mowatt

DeKay

v.

v.

Caroio, 7 Pai. 328

Crower

v.

Pinckney,

Irving, 5 Den. 646.]

\_American Bible Soc. v. Pratt, 9 Allen, 109 Best v.


(/)
55 Pa. St. 409 Drew v. Swift, 46 N. Y. 204 yackson v. Sill,
Cotton v. Smithwick, 66 Me. 360; Sherwood v. Sherwood,
II Johns. 201
^

Illustration

Hammond,

45 Wis. 357

Fitzpatrick

v.

Fitzpatrick, 36

la.

674

Ktirtz

v.

Hibner, 55

THE

Chap. XII.]

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

169

not completely to the circumstances of the case, the Court

may draw

inferences from those circumstances as to the

ing of the document, whether there

one thing or person


scription

may

whom

to

more than one,

or to which the inaccurate de-

made by

the author of the

document

intentions in reference to the matter to which the


relates,

and

mean-

or only

In such cases no evidence can be given

apply.

of statements

is

may be

though evidence

to his habitual use

as to his

document

given as to his circumstances,

of language or

names

for particular

persons or things.'
If the

(8)

language of the document, though plain in itself,


more objects than one, evidence may

applies equally well to

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

which the document

relates.'

The meaning of plain language in a will must be followed,


make the will void. Van Nostrandv. Moore, 52 N. Y. 12.]

{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.

Lorillard Ins. Co., 55 N. Y. 240

otherwise

void for uncertainty.

it is

Id.

Fitzpatrick

v.

Fitzpatrick, 36 la. 674.]


Illustrations () {o)
[Gr. Ev. i. 289, 290, 297, 298
St. Luke's Home
Ass^n.for Females, $2. N. Y. 191, 198; Trustees v. Colegrovc, i, Hun,
Griscom v. Evens, supra Bodman v. Amer. Tract. Soc. 9 Allen,
362
447 Porter's Appeal, 94 Pa. St. 332 Morgan v. Burrows, 45 Wis. 211.
These are called cases of " latent ambiguity," or better of " equivoca*

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-

ing circumstances," without proof of

or.T.1 statements of intention.


PutMass. 58 .4yers v. Weed, 16 Ct. 291 Til/on v. Amer.
Bible Soc, 60 N. H. 377
Tyler v. Fickett, 73 Me. 410 Sargent s. Adams,
3 Gray, 72.]

nam

v.

Bond., 100

A DIGEST OF

I70

[Part

II.

(9) If the document is of such a nature that the Court will


presume that it was executed with any other than its apparent
intention, evidence may be given to show that it was in fact

executed with

its

apparent intention.'

Illustrations.
(a)

lease contains a covenant as to " ten thousand " rabbits.

evidence to show that a thousand meant,

in relation to

Oral

rabbits, 1200,

is

admissible.'
(/')

ble

A
to

sells to

show

"

that a

170 bales of gambier."

"bale" of gambier

is

Oral evidence is admissia package compressed and

weighing 2 cwt.^

" all the

marble in the yard, the tools in


Evidence to show whether
" mod " meant models, moulds, or modelling-tools, and to show what
bankers are, may be given.''
((/) Evidence may not be given to show that the word "boats," in a
policy of insurance, means "boats not slung on the outside of the ship
\c)

A, a sculptor, leaves to

mod

the shop, bankers,

tools for carving."

on the quarter." *
{e) A leaves an estate
Eight years afterward
lar persons.

to

K, L, M,

etc.,

by a

will

dated before 1838.

declares that by these letters he

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
;

N. Y. 103, 107 Bank v. Fordyce, 9 Pa. St. 275 cf. Phillips v.


Mc Combs, 53 N. Y. 494.]
2 Smith v.
Wilson, 3 B. & Ad. 728
[see Soulier v. Kellerman, 18 Mo.
But except in special Cases like these,
509 Brown v. Brown, 8 Met. 576.
Butler v. Gale, 27 Vt.
the meaning of ordinary words cannot be varied.
inson, 82

739; Mann v. Mann., 14 Johns, i.]


3 Gorrissen \.Perrin, 2 C. B. (N. S.) 681
[see Miller v. Stevens, ico
Confederate Note Case, 19 Wall. 548
Mass. 518 (meaning of " barrels ")
Carey v. Bright, 58 Pa. St. 70 (of " collieries " ) Dana
(of " dollars " )
;

Fiedler, 12

v.

N. Y.

40.]

Sim. 24 reversed on another ground in 2 R. &


This last decision is severely criticised in Wigram on Wills, 140,
see Rycrss v. Wheeler, 22 Wend. 148, 153.]
187 (O'Hara's ed.)
' Blackett v. Royal Exchange Co., 2 C. &
J. 24^}.

M.

{^Goblet V. Beechy, 3

624.

THE

Chap. XII.]

was

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

in the habit of calling a particular

171

M would

person

have been ad-

missible.'

(/)

leaves a legacy to

intended to be

filled is

Evidence

to

show how the blank was

not admissible.

(^) Property was conveyed

support of" Godly


Evidence may be given to show
the time known by that name.^

in trust in 1704 for the

preachers of Christ's holy Gospel."

what class of ministers were


^^S^

at

leaves a legacy in his will to "

[^

The Home

of the Friendless in

New

York." There is no institution of that name, but the legacy is


claimed by the " American Female Guardian Society." Evidence may
be given that this society has been commonly designated by the name
used in the will, both by its officers and friends and by the testator, and
that

upon

circulars

its

been used.]

and business signs a name almost

identical has

leaves property to his " children."

If he has both legitimate and


whole of the property will go to the legitimate
children.
If he has only illegitimate children, the property may go to
them, if he cannot have intended to give it to unborn legitimate chil(//)

illegitimate children, the

dren.*
(?)

testator leaves all his estates in the county of

He had no

of Limerick to A.

Limerick and

city

estates in the coimty of Limerick, but

he
had estates in the county of Clare, of which the will did not dispose.
Evidence cannot be given to show that the words "of Clare " had been
erased from the draft by mistake, and so omitted from the will as executed.

"

A leaves

a legacy to " Mrs. and Miss Bowden." No such persons


were living at the time when the legacy was made, but Mrs. Washburne,
whose maiden name had been Bowden, was living, and had a daughter.
(y)

Clayton

'

Bay Us

"^

IVaUize
441
3

Lord Niigcnt,

v.

v.

Shore

v.

Crocker, 5

Wilson, 9 C.

v.

N. Y. 243, 259

[Le/evre

'

Wig. Ext. Ev. pp.

v.

Pa. St. 479

Hun,

see 205-6.

V.

587.]

F. 365, 565-6; [see Robertson

Brozver

18

v.

N. Y.

v.

Bullions,

11

143.]

see Sutton v. Bowkcr, 5''Gray, 416.J


and note of cases. \Appel v. Bycrs, 98
Bowers, i Abb. Dec. 214 see Gclston v. Shields,

Lefevre, 59 N. Y. 434

154, 78

^Miller
>Iet. 188

&

Hun,

Goddard\. Foster, 17 Wall.

16

M. & W. 200
;

Crocker

cf.

13

A. G., 2 Atk. 239; [see Crooks v. Whitford, 47 Mich. 283;


Wallize, 55 Pa. St. 242 Lefevre v. Lefevre, 59 N. Y. 434,

v.

and

19,

275.]

Travcrs, 8 Bing. 244

Dunhaniy. Averill, 45

[see Tucker V. Seamen's

Ct. 61.]

Aid Soc,

A DIGEST OF

172

and the testatrix used


was admitted.'

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.

cumstances of the family, but not the testator's declarations of-Jntention,


may be proved in order to show which of the two was intended.*
B has
(/) A devises property to Elizabeth, the natural daughter of B.
a natural son John, and a legitimate daughter Elizabeth. The Court
may infer from the circumstances under which the natural child was
born, and from the testator's relationship to the putative father, that he

meant

provide for John.'

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]

leaves a legacy to his niece, Elizabeth Stringer.

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

given to show which of the two

George Gords he meant.

of Brighton, Esquire, the father," one


appointed " Percival
Evidence of surrounding circumstances may be given
to show who was meant, and (probably) evidence of statements of inten(o)

of his executors.
tion.

(p)

'

Lee

Doe

189, 4

to B, assigning the

each legacy, one being given in his will, the other in a


The Court presumes that they are not meant to be cumulative.

codicil.

same amount

leaves two legacies of the

same motive

V.

for

Pain, 4 Hare, 251-3


Hiscocks, 5

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.

[see Smith v. Smith,

Wright, 61 How. Pr. 286.]


* Doe V. Needs, 2 M. & W. 129.
* In the goods of de Rosaz^ L. R. 2 P. D,

Pai. 291

De

6,

G.

&

J.

Galluf

v,

THE

Chap. XI I.J
but the legatee

may

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

173

show, either by proof of surrounding circumstances,

or of declarations by the testator, that they were.'

Article

which articles

cases to
Articles 90

92.*

and

90

and 91 apply only

91

do not apply.

documents, and
and only to cases in which
dependent upon the terms of
to parties to

their representatives in interest,

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

ing the existence of any document, prove any fact which he

is

and any party to any document


interest of any such party may prove

otherwise entitled to prove

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

whether A, a pauper, is settled in the parish of


Cheadle. A deed of conveyance to which A was a party is produced,
purporting to convey land to A for a valuable consideration. The parish
appealing against the order was allowed to call A as a witness to prove
that no consideration passed. ^
(b) The question is, whether A obtained money from B under false pre(<?)

question

is,

* See Note XXXIV.


Hurst v. Leach, 5 Madd. 351, 360-1. The rule
in this case was vindicated, and a number of other cases both before and
after it were elaborately considered by Lord St. Leonards, when Chancellor of Ireland, in Halls. Hall, i Dru. & War. 94, 111-133.
See, too,
'

Per Leach, V.

yenner

in

Hinch, L. R. 5 P. D. 106.
i.
$ 279; Lowell Mfg.

v.

2[Gr.

C,

Ev.

Co. v. Safeguard Ins. Co., 88 N. Y.


Huidekopers, 17 Wall. 384 Brown v. Cambridge, 3 Allen,
Wilson v. Sullivan, 58 N. H. 260 Burnham v. Dorr, 72 Me. 198 ;
474
Needles v. Ham/an, 11 Bradw. 303 Burns v. Tho7npson, 91 Ind. 146.]

591

Stitt

V.

R.

V.

Cheadle, 3 B.

& Ad.

833.

A DIGEST OF

174

tences.

The money was obtained

as a

[Part

premium

for executing a

II.

deed

of

partnership, which deed stated a consideration other than the one which

constituted the false pretence.


tence, although he executed the

B may

give evidence of the false pre-

deed mis-stating the consideration

premium.^
'

R.

V.

Adamson, 2 Moody,

286.

for the

THE

Chap, XIII.J

LAW OF EVIDENCE,

PART

175

III.

PRODUCTION AND EFFECT OF


EVIDENCE.
CHAPTER

BURDEN OF
Article

XIII.*

PROOF.
93.!

he who affirms must prove.

Whoever

any Court to give judgment as to any legal


dependent on the existence or non-existence
of facts which he asserts or denies to exist, must prove that
those facts do or do not exist.'
desires

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.

See Note XXXVI.

Ph. Ev. 552 T. E. (from Greenleaf), s. 337


Best, ss. 265-6 Starkie,
585-6; [Gr. Ev. i. $ 74; Wh. Ev. i. $ 353-357-]
" [In respect to trials for crime this rule is well-settled (Miles v. U. S.,

O' Coitnell v. People, 87 N. Y. 377


A'evlin v. Comm., 98
103 U. S. 304
Pa. St. 322; see " reasonable doubt" defined in People v. Finley, 38
;

Mich. 482 State v. Gann, 72 Mo. 374


U. S. v. Wright, 16 F. R. 112)
it is a general rule in civil cases that only a preponderance of evi;

but

A DIGEST OF

176

[Part

III.

The burden of proving that any person has been guihy of a


crime or wrongful act is on the person who asserts it, whether
the commission of such act is or is not directly in issue in the
action.'
Illustrations.
(a)

down

B on

sues

a policy of

fire

insurance.

B must prove

the house insured.

being prosecuted for arson.


[b) A sues B for damage done

pleads that

his plea as fully as

if

A burnt
A were

ship by inflammable matter

to A's

dence is required to sustain a verdict. SeyioUv.JV. Y., etc. R. Co.,g^


N. Y. 562 Robinson v. Randall, 82 111. 521.
There is much conflict of opinion in this country as to which of these
rules applies in civil cases, where the commission of a crime is in issue.
Thus in actions for libel or slander, where the defendant justifies a charge
of crime, proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required in Corbley v. Wilson,
Tucker v. Call, 45 Ind. 31
71 111. 209 Merk v. Gelzhaeuser, 50 Cal. 631
Williams v. Gunnels, 66 Ga. 521 cf. jfohnson
Polston V. See, 54 Mo. 291
but only a preponderance of evidence in
V. A^'r. Ins. Co.
25 Hun, 253
Bell V. Mc Guinness, 40 O. St. 204 Ellis v. Buzzell, 60 Me. 209 Folsom v.
Brawn, 25 N. H. 114 Peoples v. Evening News, 51 Mich. 11. In insurance cases, similar to Illustration {a), the great weight of authority is
against the English rule, and requires only a preponderance of evidence.
Blaeser v. Milwaukee Ins. Co., 37 Wis. 31 Katie v. Hibernia Ins. Co., 39
N. J. L. 697 Rothschild w. Amer. Ins. Co., 62 Mo. 356 Behrcns v. Germania Ins. Co., 58 la. 26 Johtison v. A.g'r. Ins. Co., 25 Hun, 251, and see
95 N. Y. 569 Schmidt V. TV. Y., etc. Ins. Co., I Gray, 529, see 15 Gray,
413; Farmers' Ins. Co. v. Garrett, 42 Mich. 289, 292; see Hills v. GoodAnd in many other civil cases involving a charge of
year, 4 Lea, 233.
Roberge v. Burncrime, the rule of preponderance has been applied.
ham, 124 Mass. 277 Kendigw. Overhulscr, 58 la. 19S Aloresonx. NorthWeston v. Gravlin, 49 Vt. 507 jfones v.
western Ins. Co., 29 Minn. 107
Greaves, 26 O. St. 2 Munson v. Atwood, 30 Ct. 102 Bullard v. Credifor a valuable article as to the burden of proof in crimtors, 56 Cal. 6co
inal cases, see 17 Am. Law Rev. 892.1
Whitney Arms Co. v. Barlow, 63 N. Y. 34
[Gr. Ev. i. ^^ 35, 78-80
Davis V. Davis, 123 Mass. 590 Baker v. Fehr, 97 Pa. St. 70.]
Thtirtell v. Beaumont, 1 Bing.
[generally denied in this coun339
try
see note 2, supra, and 10 Am. Law Rev. 642, 17 Am. Law Reg. N.
;

S. 302.]

loaded thereon by

absence of notice.'
(c) The question

whom

LAW OF^ EVIDENCE.

THE

Chap. XIII.]

without notice to A's captain.

in 1819

is,

whether

she was married in 1813.

is

177

must prove

settled in the parish of a

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.

on whom the general burden of proof


The burden

lies.

of proof in any proceeding lies at

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

which raise a presumption

facts

'

whom

Williams

v.

East India

Co., 3

in his favor.

Ea. 102, 198-9;

[cf.

B. &= A.

Co.

J?.

v.

Shanly, 107 Mass. 568.]

A" v.

this, in

Twyning, 2

a general

continuance of

B.

way

&

A. 386.

Bishop,

life.

M. & D.

In re Nesbit, N. Y. Daily Reg.

Bradw. 57

Squire

ray, 6 Or. 17

Dixon

v.

i.

v.

$ 74-82

said that the law, in cases like

Mar.

453, 6th ed.

i.

12,

1885

Gr. Ev.

see Harris

v.

Kelly

Hyde Park
ss.

Drew,

12 Allen, 107

35

v.

Mur-

431
cf R. v.
la.

Canton, 130 Mass. 505.]


& 748 Best, s. 268.
Haggc, 8 la. 163
Wilder v. Cowles, 100

338-9

Veiths v.

v.

i.

Harris, 8

46 Ind. 459, see 86 Ind. 75 Murray


In re Edwards, 58

Feilcn, 58 Cal. 218

Mich. 84

18

Q. B. D. 366
T. E.

Ph. Ev. 552

[Gr. Ev.

v. State,

People

People,

Wills/lire, 6
3

[It is

prefers the presumption of innocence to that of the

v.

Starkie, 586-7

Mass. 487, 490 Baker v. Fekr, 97 Pa. St. 70 Heinernann v. Heard, 62


N. Y. 448. Usually the plaintiff has the burden, for he must establish
his cause of action when it is denied
and this is true, though it may re;

quire proof of negative propositions.

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

appears upon the pleadings that

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

that the indorsement

was

for value,

the party interested in denying this

open and close the

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.

Kimball, 24 Pick. 366; State v. Patterson, 45 Vt. 308;


People, 87 N. Y. t,-]-]).
But after he has given evidence,

V.

O' Connell v.

which, in the absence of further proof, would be sufficient to entitle him


to recover, the other party may then give evidence in rebuttal or defence,
whereupon the former may need to furnish additional evidence to complete the requisite proof of his allegations.

And

this

successive adduc-

ing by each party of evidence in support of his side of the case


often called the " shifting of the burden."

46 N. Y. 271

Ogletree

v. State,

Lamb

28 Ala. 693.

v.

Camden,

is

etc.

what is
R. Co.,

Sometimes the party hold-

ing the affirmative upon the issue can establish a sufficient prima facie
case by showing the mere occurrence of acts which raise a presumption

Mullen v. St. John, 57 N. Y. 567; Phila., etc. R. Co. v.


Anderson, 94 Pa. St. 351 Burnham v. Allen, i Gray, 496. But ordinarily he must give sufficient evidence to prove all the material allegations
of his case, regard being had to the different degrees of proof required
Marshall v. Davies, 78 N. Y. 414 Fed. St.
in civil and criminal cases.
etc. R. Co. V. Gibson, 96 Pa. St. 83; Comm. v. McKie, i Gray, 61.]
in his favor.

>

Mills

V.

Barber,

M. & W. 425

Courney v. Macfarlane, 97 Pa. St. 361


cf. Smith V. Sac Co., 11 Wall. 139.]

[Harder
;

v.

Estabrook

Worrall, 69 N. Y. 370

Allen, 412

v.

Boyle,

" I Russ. Cri.


[Some American cases hold that the
33 and 2, 337.
recent possession of stolen goods raises a le,^al presumption of guilt.
;

Chap. XIII.]

(c)

is

marriage,

LAW

THE

proves that

179

On proof by the prosecution of the first


time he was a minor. This throws on the

indicted for bigamy.


.^

OF EVIDENCE.

at the

prosecution the burden of proving the consent of A's parents.'


(cc) [A sues B for malicious prosecution and B pleads a denial.

must prove malice, and the want of probable cause, though the
^

a negative.]
(cd) [A

is

indicted for a crime

and pleads not

guilty.

The burden

then gives evidence to show that he was insane

The prosecution may

when

the act

is

He

iipon the prosecution to prove that he committed the act charged.

mitted.

latter is

was com-

then give evidence to prove that he was

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.*

Wafers v. People, 104 111. 544. Others hold


Ar/Zy, 73 ^^o- 608
only raises a presumption oi fact, and is therefore only evidence
State v. Hodge, 50
of guilt for the jury and does not shift the burden.
Sfafe

that

V.

it

N. H. 510; Stover v. People, 56 N. Y. 315; Comm. v. McGorty, 114


Mass. 299 Ingalh v. State, 48 Wis. 647 see State v. Shaffer, 49 la. 290
,

People

Swiiiford, 57 Cal. 86
R. V. Butler, i R. & R. 61.

'

V.

Wh.

Cr. Ev. ^ 758 (gth ed.).]

Townsend, 97 N. Y. 590; Goodw French, 115 Mass. 201.]


88 N. Y. 81; State v. Bartlctt, 43 N. H. 224;
But in most of
Chase v. People, 40 111. 352
Gitetigy. State, 66 Ind. 94.
the States it is the rule that the defendant, to be acquitted, must prove

[Marks

v.

^{^IValker v. People,

by a preponderance of evidence. Coyle v. Comm. 100 Pa.


Comm. v. Eddy, 7 Gray, 583 Graves v. State, 45 N. J. L. 203
and 347 State v. Redemeier, 71 Mo. 173 State v. Heinrich, 62 la. 414
People V. Wilson, 49 Cal. 13 Bond v. State, 23 O. St. 349 Baccigaliipo

his insanity
St.

573

Comm., 33 Gratt. 807

V.

As

Boswell

State, 63 Ala. 307.

v.

a like difference of opinion that


Walters v. State, 39 O.
Comm. v. Choate, 105 Mass. 451 Harvard v. State, 50 Ind. 190
215
Watson v. Comm., 95 Pa. St. 418 that preponderating evidence is reto the

defence of

reasonable doubt
St.

is

alibi,

there

is

sufficient for acquittal, see

cf.

quired, see State

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.

Story, Eq. Juris.,

K. 113.
17

163]

A DIGEST OF

i8o

{e)

shown

It is

that a

hedge stands on A's

ing that the ditch adjacent to

is

it

[Part

land.

not A's also

is

III.

The burden of provon the person who de-

nies that the ditch belongs to A.'

(/)

that he

who

owner

denies

(^)

in fee simple,

would go

and the burden of proof

is

is

on the person

it.'

finds a jewel

mounted

B keeps it, and refuses


The burden of proving

The presumption

proves that he received the rent of land.

is

in the

socket

to

that
is

in

a socket, and gives

produce
is

it

on

it

to

it

to

look

at.

notice, but returns the socket.

not as valuable a stone of the kind as

on B.^

B on a policy of insurance, and shows that the vessel insured


and that after a reasonable time no tidings of her have been
received, but that her loss has been rumored.
The burden of proving
that she has not foundered is on B.^
(h)

went

sues

to sea,

Article

96.

burden of proof as to particular

fact.

The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that


person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless
it is provided by any law that the burden of proving that fact
shall lie

on any particular person

*
;

may

but the burden

in the

course of a case be shifted from one side to the other, and in


considering the amount of evidence necessary to shift the bur-

den of proof, the Court has regard to the opportunities of


knowledge with respect to the fact to be proved which may be
possessed by the parties respectively.*
'

Guy V. West, Selw. N. P. 1297.


Doe v. Coulthred, 7 A. & E. 235

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

[see Gordon v. Bowne, 2 Johns. 150.]


v. Reed, 6 B.
C. 19
For instances of such provisions see T. E. ss. 345-6 [Haskms v.
IVarren, 115 Mass. 515 thus the defendant must prove the grounds of
defence which he sets up, as usury, fraud, etc. Haiighwout v. Garrison,
69 N. Y. 339; Dodd V. Gloucester Ins. Co., 127 Mass. 151; Gay v. Parpart, 106 U. S. 679.]
^

Koster

S:

'

\Harris

v.

White, 81 N. Y. 532, 548

Dederich

v.

McAllister, 49 How.

THE

Chap. XIII.]

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

i8i

Illustrations.

A prosecutes B

and wishes the Court to believe that B


[a)
admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission.
B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elseHe must prove it.*
where.

[A sues B

for theft,

The burden of proving


need not prove the absence on his
own part of contributory negligence such negligence of A is to be proved
by B as matter of defence.] ^
(3) A, a shipowner, sues B, an underwriter, on a policy of insurance on
a ship. B alleges that A knew of and concealed from B material facts.
B must give enough evidence to throw upon A the burden of disproving
his knowledge
but slight evidence will suffice for this purpose.
(f
In actions for penalties under the old game laws, though the plaintiff had to aver that the defendant was not duly qualified, and was obliged
to give general evidence that he was not, the burden of proving any
definite qualification was on the defendant.*
{aa)

for

negligence causing damage.

upon A, but

B's negligence rests

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
;

v. Nyce, 34 Hun, 298


Cotnm
Mass. Pub. St. c. 214, s. 12.]

People

license.

(Pa.) 399

'

[See

{^Indianapolis,

Brownbridge,

Brews.

p. 179, n. 3.]

Pa. St. 275

P. R.

v.

Co., 58

etc.

R. Co.

Horst, 93 U. S. 291 Mallory v. Griffey, 85


Nichols, 33 N. J. L. 434
State v. B. 6MacDougall v. Central R. Co., 63 Cal. 431

y. Exp. Co.

A^.

Md. 482;

v.

v.

Mo. 219 but in some States A must


prove B's negligence and that he was not himself negligent. Hale v. Smith,
Biesching

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.
;

Alderson, B., 663-6


*

more

[cf.

Claflin

Meyer, 75 N. Y. 260.]

v.

Ph. Ev. 556, and cases there quoted.


The illustration
particularly on R. v. Jarvis, in a note to R. v. Stone,

where Lord Mansfield's language appears


[See Potter v. Deyo, 19 Wend. 361 Bliss
;

to
v.

is

founded

Ea. 639,

imply what is stated above.


Brainerd, 41 N. H. 256.]

A DIGEST OF

i82

Article

[Part

III.

97.

burden of proving fact to be proved to make


evidence admissible.

The burden

of proving any fact necessary to be proved in

order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact

on the person who wishes

is

to give

such evidence.

Illustrations.
(a)

A
life

wishes to prove a dying declaration by B.

must prove B's death, and the

when he made

fact that

he had given up

all

hope

{d) A wishes to prove, by secondary evidence, the contents of a


document.
A must prove that the document has been lost.^

'

[See Art.

of

the statement.'

26, ante.}

[See Art

lost

71, attte.}

Chap. XIV.]

THE

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

CHAPTER

183

XIV.

ON PRESUMPTIONS AND ESTOPPELS*


Article

98.

presumption of legitimacy.

The

any person was born during the continuance


man, or within
such a time after the dissolution thereof and before the celebration of another valid marriage, that his mother's husband
could have been his father, is conclusive proof that he is the
legitimate child of his mother's husband, unless it can be
shown
either that his mother and her husband had no access to each
other at any time when he could have been begotten, regard
being had both to the date of the birth and to the physical condition of the husband,
or that the circumstances of their access (if any) were such
as to render it highly improbable that sexual intercourse took
place between them when it occurred.'
Neither the mother nor the husband is a competent witness
as to the fact of their having or not having had sexual intercourse with each other, nor are any declarations by them upon
fact that

of a valid marriage between his mother and any

* See Note XXXV.


[The presumption of legitimacy, it is said, " can only be rebutted by
the most satisfactory and convincing proof that the husband was not the
father of the child," or, as a number of the cases express it, " by proof
beyond a reasonable doubt." Cross v. Cross, 3 Pai. 139 Van Aernam
HemV. Van Aernam, I Barb. Ch. 375
Phillips v. Allen, 2 Allen, 453
tnenway v. Towner, i Id. 209 Egbert v. Greenwalt, 44 Mich. 245 State
1

V.

Retnaine, 58

Hawes

v.

la.

46; Patterson

Drae^er, 23 Ch. D. 173

v.

Gaines, 6

N. Y. Rev.

How. (U.

St.

i.

642.]

S.) 550; see

A DIGEST OF

84

that subject

deemed

of the woman's child

to

be relevant

[Part

facts

when

III.

the legitimacy

whether the mother or her


husband can be called as a witness or not, provided that in
in question,

is

applications for affiliation orders

husband

the non-access of the


child could have

person by

to the

when proof has been given of


at any time when his wife's

been begotten, the wife may give evidence as


whom it was begotten.'

Article

99.

presumption of death from seven years' absence.

person shown not to have been heard of for seven years by

those

(if

any)

heard of him,

who
is

if he had been alive would naturally have


presumed to be dead, unless the circumstances

of the case are such as to account for his not being heard of

without assuming his death


the time

when he

but there is no presumption as


and the burden of proving his death
upon the person who asserts it."
;

died,

any particular time

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,.

R. 2 App. Cas. 487.

The

principle

is

stated to the

same

effect

LAW OF

THE

Chap. XIV.]

EVIDENCE.

185

There is no presumption as to the age at which a person died


is shown to have been alive at a given time, or as to the
order in which two or more persons died who are shown to
have died in the same accident, shipwreck, or battle.'

who

Article

100.

presumption of lost grant.'

When

has been shown that any person has, for a long pe-

it

riod of time, exercised

any proprietary right which might have

by grant or license from the Crown or from


a private person, and the exercise of which might and naturally
would have been prevented by the persons interested if it had
not had a lawful origin, there is a presumption that such right
had a lawful origin and that it was created by a proper instrument which has been lost.^
had a lawful

origin

Re

as in the text in
41

Davie

v.

Corbishley' s Trusts, L. R. 14 Ch. D. 846.

Briggs, 97 U. S. 628

Keller

v.

worth

v.

Cooper

V. Cooper,

Stuck, 4 Redf. 294

Hyde Park

Wentworth, 71 Me. 72

[Gr. Ev.

i.

O' Gara v. Eisenlohr, 38 N. Y. 296

Canton, 130 Mass. 505 WentKeech v. Rittehart, 10 Pa. St. 240


v.

86 Ind. 75 State v. Henke, 58 la. 457 Hoyt v. Newbold,


People v. Feilen, 58 Cal. 218, 224
Whiting v. Nicoll, 46
;

45 N. J. L. 219
111. 230
the last two cases maintain a rule somewhat different from the
;

English.]
'

IVingv. Aiigrave, 8 H. L. C. 183, 198

[Gr. Ev.

i.

$ 29, 30

23 Kan. 276

Coyc

v.

Newell

and see authorities

in last note.

Nichols, 75 N. Y. 78 Russell v. Hallctt,


Leach, 8 Met. 371 see Fuller v. Linzec, 135 Mass.
v.

468.]
^

The

subject of the doctrine of lost grants

is

much considered

in

Angus

Dalton, L. R. 3 Q. B. D. 84. This case is now (Feb. 1881) before the


House of Lords. [It has since been decided and is reported in 6 App.

V.

see Lehigh R.
Warren, 82 N. Y. 265.]

Cas. 740

[Gr. Ev.

Co. v.

McFarlan, 43 N.

J.

L. 605

yackson

v.

McCall, 10 Johns. 377

Lunn, 3 Johns. Cas. 109; Carter

v.

Fishing

'

i.

smith's Lessee

%^ 46, 47
v.

Johnston, 92 U. S. 343.

in this country there

It is

Co., 77

Pa.

St.

Ward

v.

Jackson v.
310; Oak-

said in this last case that

can seldom be occasion to presume a grant from the

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

session of lands which A's father

The undisturbed occupation for thirty-nine


Crown to A's father.'

years raises a presumption

of a grant from the


{b)

was erected more than no years before 1861 in


Cumberland (not being navigable at that place),
more than sixty years before 1861 in the manner in

fishing mill-dam

the River Derwent, in

and was used for


which it was used
proprietors whose
a right to erect
(c)

This raises a presumption that all the upper


were injuriously affected by the dam had granted

in 1861.

rights

it.^

builds a windmill near B's land in 1829, and enjoys a free current

it over B's land as of right, and without interruption till i860.


This enjoyment raises no presumption of a grant by B of a right to such
a current of air, as it would not be natural for B to interrupt it.^
{d ) No length of enjoyment (by means of a deep well) of water percolating through underground undefined passages, raises a presumption of
a grant from the owners of the ground under which the water so perco-

of air to

lates of

a right to the water. ^

government, except

in cases of very ancient possessions

running back to

colonial days, since, from the beginning of the century, a record has

been

preserved of all such grants]


* Goodtitle v. Baldwin, 11
Ea. 488. The presumption was rebutted in
this case by an e.xpress provision of 20 Ch. II. c. 3, avoiding grants of the
Forest of Dean. See also Doe d. Devine v. Wilson.^ 10 Moo. P. C. 502.
2 Leconfield v. Lonsdale, L. R. 5 C. P. 657.
3 Webb V. Bi7d, 13 C. B. (N. S.) 841.
[As to the reasons upon which
this and the following decision are to be supported, see Dalton v. Ati^iis,
6 App. Cas. 796, 798, 824. As the English doctrine that a right to
light

and

air

can be gained by prescription

country, the decision in Webb

Parker

v.

Foote, 19

Wend.

309

v.

is

generally discarded in this

Bird would apply a

Gilmore

fortiori.

See

Driscoll, 122 Mass. 199.]

v.

Chasemore v. Richards, 7 H. L. C. 349 [Ckafficld v. Wilson, 28 Vt.


Wilson v. Neiv Bedford, 108 Mass. 265 Frazier v. Brown, 12 O. St.
Wheatly v. Baugh, 25 Pa. St. 528
294 Roath v. Driscoll, 20 Ct. 533
Ellis V. Duncan, 21 Barb. 230, 29 N, Y. 466 see Phelps v. Nowlen, 72 N,
*

49

Y. 39]

;t

LAW OF

THE

Chap. XI V.J

Article

EVIDENCE.

187

ioi.*

presumption of regularity and of deeds to complete


TITLE.

When

any judicial or

manner

in a

official act is

substantially regular,

requisites for

validity

its

it

shown to have been done


is presumed that formal

were complied

with.'

When

a person in possession of any property is shown to be


entitled to the beneficial ownership thereof, there is a presumption that

every instrument has been executed which

legal duty of his

* See Note XXXVII, and Macdougall


of the effect of this
'

v.

Q. B. D. (C. C. R.
presumption.

Crcsswell, L. R.

V.

Purriei\ 3 Bligh, N. C. 433.


446, is a recent illustration

State v. Potter, 52 Vt. 33 Cornet


[ Wood V. Morehouse, 45 N. Y. 368
McMurray' s Heirs v. Erie, 59 Pa. St. 223
Williams, 20 Wall. 226
;

V.

Pells

V.

Webquish, 129 Mass. 469

presumed

It is

that public officers

their lawful authority

powers,

etc.

38, n., 40, n.


i.

was the

="

title.'

R.

it

trustees to execute in order to perfect his

$ 20
''

587
'

Id.;

As

Hilton

v.

Brownell v. Palmer, 22 Ct. 107, 119.


perform their duty and do not exceed
;

also that corporations act within their lawful

Pr ingle

Woolworth, 9c N. Y. 502, 510 Gr. Ev.


$$
presumptions from lapse of time, see Gr. Ev.
Bender, 69 N. Y. 75.]
v.

i.

to similar

Hammond V.

Cooke, 6 Bing. 174, 179; [Jackson v. Cole, 4 Cow.


yackson v. Moore, 13 Johns. 513 Perry on Trusts, i. % 349, 3d ed.]
[Other important presumptions are (i) That a previously existing

Doe

A.

personal relation or state of things continues to exist, as

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

the truth of that thing.'

When any person under a legal duty to any other person to


conduct himself with reasonable caution in the transaction of
any business neglects that duty, and when the person to whom
the duty is owing alters his position for the worse because he is
misled as to the conduct of the negligent person by a fraud, of
which such neglect

mate

is in

the natural course of things the proxi-

cause, the negligent person

* See Note
ylustin v. Holland^ 69 N. Y. 571)

not permitted to deny that

is

XXXVIIL

that a bill or note found after circula-

hands of the maker has been paid {Garlockw. Geortner, 7


that a person having
Connelly v. McKean, 64 Pa. St. 113)
the possession of property is the owner. Rawlcy v. Brown, 71 N. Y. 85
Vining v. Baker, 53 Me. 544. These are disputable presumptions, and
(Id.)
are often called presumptions of fact,
his
(3) That a man intends the natural and probable consequences of
FUkins V. People, 69 N. Y. loi Lanahan v. Comm. 84 Pa. St. 80.
acts.
(4) That a wife committing a crime (except treason, murder, and perhaps robbery), in the presence of her husband, acts under his coercion.
This and the last presumption are disputable. People v. Ryland, 97 N.
tion in the

Wend.

198

Y. 126; State
>

[Andrews

Shee, 13 R.

V.
v.

ytna

I.

535

Ins. Co., 85

Co?nm.

v.

N. Y. 334

Gormley, 133 Mass. 580.]


Viele v. Jackson, 82 N. Y.

32; Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U. S. 578 Morgan v. Railroad Co., 96 Id.


716; Carroll V. M. &> R. R. Corp., iii Mass. i; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v,
;

Morris, 31 N.

J.

Eq. 583

Slocumb

v.

Railroad

Co.,

57

la. 675.]

THE

Chap. XIV.]

LAW OF

EVIDENCE.

he acted in the manner in which the other person was led by


such fraud to believe him to act.'
Illustrations.

B's possession, which is taken in


(iz) A, the owner of machinery in
execution by C, abstains from claiming it for some months, and converses
with C's attorney without referring to his claim, and by these means impresses C with the belief that the machinery is B's. C sells the machinery.
A is estopped from denying that it is B's."
the
(h) A, a retiring partner of B, gives no notice to the customers of
firm that he is no longer B's partner. In an action by a customer, he can-

not deny that he is B's partner.^


The imprisonment was
(f) A sues B for a wrongful imprisonment.
wrongful, if B had a certain original warrant ; rightful, if he had only a

B had in fact a copy. He led A to believe that he had the original,


though not with the intention that A should act otherwise than he actually
B may show that he had only a copy and not the
did, nor did A so act.

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

being satisfied with this, says


bankrupt. A cannot, in
an action by C to recover the barley, deny that h^ holds for C on the
ground that, for want of specific appropriation, no property passed to B.*
(() A signs blank cheques and gives them to his wife to fill up as she

informs A,

who

nothing further to

wants money.

room

assents to the transfer.

as to delivery.

A's wife

fills

B becomes

up a cheque

for ;^5o

for the insertion of figures before the "

is left

of words before the " fifty."

She then gives

it

is.

so carelessly that

50" and

for the insertion

to a clerk of A's to get

it

{^Putnam v. Sullivan, 4 Mass. 45 Chapman v. Rose, 56 N. Y. 137 ;


v. Fhalor, 72 Ind. 533
Ross v. Doland, 29 O. St. 473 Shirts v.
Overjohn, 60 Mo. 305 cf. A'ance v. Lary, 5 Ala. 370 Caulkins v. Whisler,
1

Ruddell

29

la. 495.]

Pickard v. Sears, 6 A. & E. 469, 474 [see Thompson v. Blanchard, 4


N. Y. 303 Fall Riv. Bk. v. Duffinton, 97 Mass. 500.]
' (Per Parke, B.) Freeman v. Cocke, 2 Ex. 661
[see Austitt v. Holland,
Lovejoy v. Spafford, 93 U. S. 430.]
69 N. Y. 571
2

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,

[This case has been criticised


see Darnardv.
i (13th ed.)

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.

against the banker.'

(/")

carelessly leaves his door unlocked,

He

stolen.

is

not estopped from denying the

chaser from the

thief.

whereby his goods are


of an innocent pur-

title

Article

103.

estoppel of tenant and licensee.

No

tenant,

and no person claiming through any tenant, of any

land or hereditament of which he has been let into possession,


or for which he has paid rent, is, till he has given up possession, permitted to

when

deny

landlord had, at the time

the

that

the tenant was let into possession or paid the rent, a

such land or hereditament ' and no person who came


upon any land by the license of the person in possession
thereof, is, whilst he remains on it, permitted to deny that
;

title to

such person had a

title

such possession at the time when

to

such license was given."

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.

Stowell, 123 Mass. 196

McGrath

Lehman

v.

Central R. Co.^ 12 F. R,

Clark, 56 N. Y. 34 Holmes v. Trumper, 22 Mich. 427;


Yocnm v. Smith, 63 111. 321 see p. 160,
Leas v. Wells, loi Pa. St. 57
;

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

much discussed in yordcn v. Money, 5 H. &


Bank N, America, 75 N. Y. 547; Lowery

[Cf. People V.

Pegg,

The

T. R. 760 (note)

&
;

E. 307

&

C. 181.

on the sub-

C. 209-16, 234-5.
v.

Telegraph Co.,

Smyth, 4 M. & S. 347 Doe v.


Prevot v.
White, 25 N. Y. 462
Gage v. Camp-

Doe

v.

{Stott v. Rutherford, 92 U. S. 107

Lawrence, 51 N. Y. 219 Whalin v.


131 Mass. 566; Washb. R. P.
555-569, 4th ed.]
^ Doe V. Baytup, 3 A. & E. 188
\Glynn v. George, 20 N. H. 114
V. Buttetfield, 97 Mass. 105.]
;

bell,

i.

Towns

Chap. XIV.]

THE

LAW OF
Article

EVIDENCE.

'

191

104.

estoppel of acceptor of bill of exchange.

No

acceptor of a

of exchange

bill

is

permitted to deny the

signature of the drawer or his capacity to draw, or

payable

is

to the

if

the bill

order of the drawer, his capacity to endorse

may deny the fact of the endorsement


be drawn by procuration, the authority of the
agent, by whom it purports to be drawn, to draw in the name
of the principal," though he may deny his authority to endorse
it.'
If the bill is accepted in blank, the acceptor may not deny
the fact that the drawer endorsed it.''
the

bill,

nor

if

though he

the

bill

Article

105.

ESTOPPEL OF bailee, AGENT, AND LICENSEE.

No

bailee, agent, or licensee

bailor, principal, or licensor,

trusted to any of

is

by

permitted to deny that the

whom

them respectively, was

any goods were engoods

entitled to those

time when they were so entrusted.*


Provided that any such bailee, agent, or licensee, may show
that he was compelled to deliver up any such goods to some
person who had a right to them as against his bailor, princiat the

pal, or licensor, or that his bailor, principal, or licensor,


fully

and without notice

wrongob-

to the bailee, agent, or licensee,

Garland V. Jacpmh, L. R. 8 Ex. 216; \White\. Continental Nat. Bk.,


64 N. Y. 316 Hoffrnan v. Bank of Milwaukee, 12 Wall. 181
National
Bank Bangs, 106 Mass. 441.]
'

-ii.

2
'

v. Coleman, 4 M. & G. 209.


Robinson v. Yarrow, 7 Tau. 455.
L. i^ S. W. Bank v. IVentivortk, L. R. 5 Ex. D.

Sanderson

article,
<>

Daniel, Neg. Inst.,

v.

[See as to

this

v. Murphy, 14 Mich. 392


Osgood v. Nichols, 5 Gray, 420
Noyes, 76 Me. 590 Jackson v. Allen, 120 Mass. 64, 79.]

[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

the holder holds."

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.)
;

Western Trans. Co. v. Barber, 56 N. Y.


[ The Idaho, 93 U. S. 575
544; Kings. Richards, 6 Whart. 418.]
2 18 & 19 Vict. c. Ill, s. 3.
[But it is held that a ship-owner is not es-

618.

topped by the signature of a bill of lading by the master from showing


goods or some of them were never actually put on board. Brown
V. Powell Co. L. R. 10 C. P. 562
see McLean v. Fleming, L. R. 2 Sc.
App. 128.
The law of this country is not governed by statutes like the above.
that the

The

general rules here in force are stated in Sears v. Wiiigate, 3 Allen,


" (1) The receipt in a bill of lading is open to explanation between
the master and the shipper of the goods.
(2) The master is estopped, as
against a consignee who is not a party to the contract and as against an
103:

assignee of the

bill

of lading,

when

either has taken

it

for a valuable con-

acknowledgments which it contains, to


deny the truth of the statements to which he has given credit by his sigsideration

upon

the faith of the

nature, so far as those statements relate to matters which are or ought to

be within
its

his

knowledge.

(3)

When

the master

is

acting within the lim-

of his authority, the owners are estopped in like

but

it is

manner

with him

not within the general scope of the master's authority to sign

LAW

THE

Chap. XV.]

OF EVIDENCE.

19J

CHAPTER XV.
OF THE COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES*
Article

who may
All

106.

testify.

persons are competent to testify in

cases except as

all

hereinafter excepted.'

* See Note XXXIX.


bills

of lading for any goods not actually received on board."

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;

'

successor in interest), against the executor, administrator, or survivor of

a deceased person, or the committee of a lunatic (or the successor in interest of such decedent or lunatic), concerning a personal transaction or

communication between the witness and the decedent or lunatic. Such


testimony is, however, receivable if the executor, etc., is examined in his
own behalf, or the testimony of the decedent or lunatic concerning the
same transaction, etc., is given in evidence. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. $ 829.
Thus in an action by an attorney against the executor of a deceased per-

A DIGEST OF

194

Article

[Part

III.

107.

what witnesses are incompetent.'

A witness

is

incompetent

if in

the opinion of the judge he

is

prevented by extreme youth, disease affecting his mind, or


any other cause of the same kind, from recollecting the matter on which he is to testify, from understanding the questions
put to him, from giving rational answers to those questions, or

from knowing that he ought to speak the truth.*


A witness unable to speak or hear is not incompetent, but
may give his evidence by writing or by signs, or in any other
manner in which he can make it intelligible but such writing
;

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,

neither party shall testify against the other as to transactions with

the decedent, unless called to testify thereto

Bank, 102 U.
98 Pa. St. 6

Mich. 65

As

S. 163.
;

Wh.

Wells

Ev.

i.

v.

by

the opposite party or re-

858 Potter v. National


law of other States, see Hainish v. Herr,
Downey v. Andrus, 43
Wells, 33 N. J. Eq. 4

quired to do so by the court.

U.

S.

Rev.

St. ^

to the

466-477. J
witness under sentence of death was said to be in-

See Note XL. A


competent in R. V. Webb, 11 Cox, 133, sed qufsre.
2 [As to children, see Gr. Ev. i.
367 Comrn. v. Miillins, 2 Allen, 295
Day V. Day, 56 N. H. 316 Draper v. Draper, 68 111. 17 Carter v. State,
63 Ala. 52; McGuire v. People, 44 Mich. 286 State v. Levy, 23 Minn.
104 State v. Scanlan, 58 Mo. 204 yones v. People, 6 Park. Cr. 126 as
Livingston v. Kreisted, 10
to persons of unsound mind, Gr. Ev. i. 365
Johns. 362; Holcomb v. Holcomb, 28 Ct. 177 Coleman v. Comm., 25 Gratt.
865 Kendall v. May, 10 Allen, 59 as to intoxicated persons, to whom the
same rules apply, Hartford v. Palmer, 16 Johns. 143 Gould v. Crawford^ 2 Pa. St. 89. Even lunatics have been allowed to testify, if of suffiPeople v. N. V. Hospital, 3 Abb. N. C. 229 Dist.
cient understanding.
of Col. v. Armes, 107 U. S. 519 see 34 N. J. Eq. 427.]
'

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

THE

Chap. XV.]

195

must be written and such signs made in open Court.'


dence so given is deemed to be oral evidence.'

Article

competency

in

Evi-

108.*

criminal cases.

In criminal cases the accused person and his or her wife or


husband, and every person and the wife or husband of every
person jointly indicted with him, is incompetent to testify.'
Provided that in any criminal proceeding against a husband
or wife for any bodily injury or violence inflicted upon his or
*
'

[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
;

N. H. 219 Arnd v. Atnling, 53 Md. 192 Clinton v. State, 33 O. St. 27.


But this disqualification has been removed in many States or rendered
;

Wh. Ev. i. $^ 395, 396 Bush v.


Gr. Ev. i. ^^ 368-371
Comfn., 80 Ky. 244.
But in some States, where atheism no longer disqualifies, it may nevertheless be shown to affect the witness's credit.

less stringent.

Stanbro v. Hopkins, 28 Barb. 265 Searcy v. Miller, 57 la. 613. It is the


general rule, however, that the witness must not himself be examined as
;

(See

to his religious belief.

all

the cases.)

Infamous persons, i.e., persons convicted of treason, felony, or the


crimen falsi, are also incompetent witnesses at common law in the State
of their conviction.
The crimen falsi includes, in general, offenses
tending to pervert the administration of justice through falsehood and
fraud, as e.g., perjury, forgery, bribery of witnesses, etc.

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-

generally held, does not disqualify.

Sims, 75 N. Y. 466.

though

it

But

may be proved

in

many

States,

to affect credibil-

213; see Art. lyi, post, note.]


="

i.

N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. $ 832 Mass. Pub. St., c.


McGloin, 91 N. Y. 241
U. S. v. Biebusch, I F. R.

$ 397
v.

Gr. Ev.

Copley, 67 Pa. St. 386

v.

other States,

$ 376-378

infamy no longer

Schuylkill Co.

State v. Randolph, 24 Ct. 363.


This disability
a reversal of the judgment or by pardon. Convic-

lor v. State, 62 Ala. 164

tion

Payne, L. R.

C. C. R. 349,

and R.

v.

Thompson,

Id. 377.

A DIGEST OF

196

[Part

her wife or husband, such wife or husband

compellable to

testify.'

III.

competent and

is

Article

109.

[husband and wife in civil cases


[In civil cases the lawful

CASES OF ADULTERY.]

husband or

wife of a party, or of a

person whose interests are directly involved in the

suit, is

an

Reeve v. Wood, 5 B. & S. 364. Treason has been also supposed to


form an exemption. See T. E. s. 1273. [These general rules of the
common law are still in force in the different States, unless abolished or
modified by statute. Gr. Ev. i. 1$ 330, 334-346, 362 Wh. Cr. Ev. %^
But if a co-defendant be discharged from the record, as
390-402, 427.
by the entry of a 7ioUe prosequi, or by an acquittal, etc. he may be a
'

witness against, and in

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

were one or two other exceptions be-

Gr. Ev.

sides that stated in the text.

i.
342, 344.
the laws of Congress

witness in his

own

and

in

Mass. Pub. St., c. 169, ^ 18, par. 3


Cr. Pro. 393
Chambers
436; see Comm. v. Scott, 123 Mass. 239
;

many

States,

though the qualishall not create any

behalf,

fication is generally added that his failure to testify


presumption against him. Act of Congress, Mar. 16, 1878

N. Y. Code

Wh.

Cr. Ev. $ 428People, 105 111, 409 ;

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.

Cr. Ev. 445


Linsday v. People, 63 N. Y. 143 State
125 but not otherwise, Kehoe v. Comm., 85 Pa. St. 127.

v.

each other (People v, Dowluig, 84 N. Y. 478


Comm. v.
Brown, 130 Mass. 279 State v. Barrows.^ 76 Me. 401 Wh. Cr. Ev.
445); or the husband or wife of the defendant may be a witness, except to
N. Y. Pen. Code, % 715. But
disclose confidential communications.
generally husbands and wives of defendants are not compellable to be

for or against

witnesses in criminal cases.


Cr. Ev. %% 400-403

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

following proceedings at law are not criminal within

this article,

public highways, or

Trials

of indictments for the non-repair of

bridges, or for nuisances to any public highway,

THE

Chap. XV.]

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

197

incompetent witness by the common law.' And even after the


marriage is dissolved by the death of either party or by divorce, neither party thereto can testify as to the facts learned
through the confidence of the marital relation, but may as to
other facts. ^ These rules apply to proceedings instituted in

consequence of adultery^ as well as

river or bridge (40

pose of trying

&

41 Vict.

c.

of the Exchequer Division of the


104,

s.

14)

only (Id.)

civil rights

to other civil cases.]

proceedings instituted for the purproceedings on the Revenue side

High Court

of Justice (28

&

29 Vict.

c.

34)"'

I.abarce v. Wood, 54 Vt. 452 Keep v. Griggs,


[Gr. Ev. i. j^ 334-346
Bradw. 511. But in collateral proceedings, not immediately affecting
their mutual interest, the testimony of husband or wife might be received, though tending to criminate the other.
Gr. Ev. i. % 342 sqq post,
'

12

Art. 120, note.]

[Ralcliff V. Wales,

Hill,

Robb's Appeal^ 98 Pa. St. 501


Guiteau,

V.

Tucker, 51
^

is

Mackey, 498

111.

63 Dickerman v. Graves, 6 Gush. 308


Wotlrich v. Freeman, 71 N. Y. 601 U. S.
;

Bishop,

M. & D.

ii.

$723; but see

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."

" In proceedings instituted in consequence of adultery, the parties

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

between herself and her husband without

his consent.

Code

Civ. Pro.

A DIGEST OF

198

[Part

III.

Article no.

COMMUNICATIONS DURING MARRIAGE.

No husband
made

to

is

him by

compellable to disclose any communication

his wife during the marriage,

compellable to disclose any communication


husband during the marriage.'

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.''
'

See Note XLII.

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.

In other cases they

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.

La7!gtree, 64 Cal. 256

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.]

' R. V. Gazard, 8 C. & P. 595.


cannot be a witness on the same

[A judge sitting alone to try a cause


nor when he sits with others and

trial

THE

Chap. XV. 1

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

199

It seems that a barrister cannot be compelled to testify as


what he said in court in his character of a barrister."

his

to

presence is necessary to a duly organized court, can he properly testify


cause on trial. Dabney v. Mitchell, 66 Ala. 495 People v. Miller, 2

in the

Park. Cr. 197

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.

to other judicial officers, as referees, etc.

V. Morss, 11 Barb. 510; see Gr. Ev. i. ^^ 249, 364.


A judge's testimony as to the grounds of a former decision rendered by him has also
been excluded. Agan v. Hey, 30 Hun, 591 but see Supples v. Cannon,
Taylors. Larkin, 12 Mo. 103.
44 Ct. 430
A justice may be a witness to verify his minutes in proving the testimony of a witness in a former case tried before him (Huffy. Bennett,
Zitike v. Goldbergs 38 Wis. 216; Welcome v.
4 Sandf. 120, 6 N. Y. 337
Batchelder, 23 Me. 85 Schall v. Miller, 5 Whart. 156) or in proving the
proceedings before him or the judgment rendered {Pollock v. Hoag, 4

Morss

Boomer v. f.aine, 10 Wend. 526 McGrath v. Seagrai'e,


E. D. Sm. 473
but his entries, not
2 Allen, 443
Hibbs v. Blair, 14 Pa. St. 413)
so verified, are not good evidence. Schafer v. Schafer, 93 Ind. 586,
;

So a

may

justice

(Heyward's Case,

Highberger

v.

testify
i

upon what papers process was issued by him

Sandf. 701),

Stiffler,

21

or

Md. 238

as
;

to

various collateral matters.

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.

explanation of their award, or as to collateral facts.

Wh.

Ev.

i.

599; Converse

v. Colton,

49 Pa.

St.

Gr. Ev.

ii.

78

346; Halls. Huse, 10

Gray, 99.]

Curry v. Walter, i Esp. 456. [.\ person is a competent witness in a


but the practice is not
in which he is acting as attorney or counsel
approved and should only be resorted to in case of necessity. Gr. Ev.

$ 364 Little v. McKeon, i Sandf. 607; Follansbee v. Walker, 72 Pa. St.


228; Potter V. Ware, 1 Cush. 519; Branson v. Caruthers, 49 Cal. 374;
A/organ v. Roberts, 38 111. 65.]
'

case

A DIGEST OF
Article

[Part

III.

112.

evidence as to affairs of state.

No

one can be compelled to give evidence relating to any


communications between public
officers upon public affairs, except with the permission of the
affairs of State, or as to official

officer at the

head of the department concerned,' or

to give

evidence of what took place in either House of Parliament,


without the leave of the House, though he may state that a particular person acted as Speaker.*

Article

113.

information as to commission of offences.


In cases in which the government is immediately concerned
no witness can be compelled to answer any question, the
answer to which would tend to discover the names of persons
by or to whom information was given as to the commission
of offences.

In ordinary criminal prosecutions it is for the judge to decide


whether the permission of any such question would or would
not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be injuri-

ous to the administration of justice.^


Beatson v. Skene, 5 H. & N. 838. [So in this country, the President,
the governors of the several States, and their cabinet officers, are not
bound to produce papers or disclose information committed to them, in a
'

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

doubtful whether a grand

give evidence as to what passed between the jury-

last

case maintains that the assent of the government

quired before a witness can disclose such information, and R.


son

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.

Leavitt, 107 Mass. 453


Dalrymple v.
Pike, 65 Me. iii
Hutchinson v. Con;

Williams, 63 N. Y. 361; State v.


Coal Co., 36 N. J. L. 24. It is a general rule that the testimony of
Bridgewater v.
jurors is not admissible to impeach their own verdict.
;

sinners'

Plymouth, 97 Mass. 382


Williams v. Montgomery, 60 N. Y. 648 Meade
V. Smith, 16 Ct. 346
People v. Doyell, 48 Gal. 85 Brown v. Cole, 45 la.
;

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

Hunt, 59 Cal. 430 Clement v. Spear, 56 Vt. 401 Hutchinson v.


Consumers' Coal Co., supra); or in denial or explanation of acts and

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

identity of the subject matter in different actions,

when

closed by the record (Stapleton

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

show what testimony was given on a former

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

Bailey, 12 Kan. 539.

v.

juror

which he is acting as juror.


Dohring, 59 N. Y. 374, 378.

V.

may be a
Howser

v.

witness

upon

same

the

Comm., 51 Pa.

St.

332;

T. E. s. 863. [It is the general rule in this country,


grand juror cannot give such testimony. Gr. Ev.
Wli.
252
Ev. i. $ 6or
People v. Hulbut, 4 Den. 133
State v. Fassett, 16 Ct. 458
N. Y. Code Cr. Pro. % 265; Mass. Pub. St., c. 213, $ 13. But grand
jurors, it is now generally held, may testify whether a particular person
did or did not give evidence before them {Comm. v. /////, 11 Cush. 137)
or who was the prosecutor {Huidekoper v. Cotton, 3 Watts, 56); or in im' I

Ph. Ev. 140

that a

i.

A DIGEST OF
men

in

the discharge of their duties.

whether a grand juror


said

may

[Part

It

also

is

III.

doubtful

give evidence as to what any witness

when examined before

the grand jury.

Article

115.*

professional communications.

No

legal adviser

permitted, whether during or after the

is

termination of his employment as such, unless with his client's


express consent, to disclose any communication, oral or docu-

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

as such legal adviser,

his client, during, in the course,

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.

jVc^ro Charles, 2 Cr. C. C. 76

Bishop

It is also held in some States that in a


$$ 857, 858 (3d ed.).
direct proceeding to set aside or quash an indictment, the testimony of

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

See 16 Am. Dec.

supra); but the cases are in conflict on this point.

Some

States apply a

of grand jurors.
to?t,

more

Clanton

281.

liberal rule as to admitting the

evidence

App. 139

Farririg-

v. State,

13 Te.x.

cf.

U.

S. v.

supra.]

576-594 N. Y. Code Civ. Pro.


237-246 Wh. Ev. i.
Frisbie, 80 N. Y. 394; Root v. Wright, 84 Id. 72; Htgbee
Conn. Life Ins. Co. v. Schaefer, 94 U. S. 457
Dresser, 103 Mass. 523
[Gr. Ev.

$ 83s
V.

still

Bacon

i.

v.

THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.

Chap. XV.]

This article does not extend to


(i) Any such communication as aforesaid

203

made

in further-

ance of any criminal purpose


(2) Any fact observed by any legal adviser, in the course of
his employment as such, showing that any crime or fraud has
been committed since the commencement of his employment,
whether his attention was directed to such fact by or on behalf
'

of his client or not

^
;

Any fact with which such

(3)

became acquainted
The expression "legal

legal adviser

otherwise than in his character as such.^

Burnham Y. Roberts, 70 111. 19 Earle v. Grout, 46 Vt. 113


Longfellow, 32 Me. 494
Cross v. Riggins, 50 Mo. 335.
waiver may in some cases be implied, as well as express.
;

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
;

As soon as a legal adviser takes part in preparing for a crime,


he ceases to act as a lawyer and becomes a criminal a conspirator or
business.

may be. [People v. Blakely, 4


Wis. 274. The English decisions supra

accessory, as the case

Dudley

fraud

Beck, 3
within this exception
v.

Ch. 528, 598

Hun,
2

cf.

Higbec

v.

but see Bank of Utica

v.

Dresser, 103 Mass. 523

Park. Cr. 176

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

Jones, 58 N. H. 328), or his residence


(.-llden V. Goddard, y^ Me. 345), or his signature {Broivn v. Je^vett, 120
Mass. 215) or that in collecting a claim he acted for his client {Mulford
of his client l^Harrima?i

v.

y.

Mi4ller,

Abb. Dec. 330)

or that he has the client's papers in his

A DIGEST OF

204

adviser" includes barristers and

between them and

interpreters

solicitors,' their

their clients.

clude officers of a corporation through

has elected to

make

[Part

whom

It

III.

clerks/ and

does not in-

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

hands (see Art. 119) so as to communications which are not of a private


nature, or which have ceased to be private (Sttow v. Gould, 74 Me. 540),
and many like matters. See p. 205, n. i,post; Comm. v. Goddard, 14
;

Gray, 402

Crosby

v.

Berger, 11 Pai. 377.


to counsel by one party to a controversy while

A communication made
the others are present

not privileged from disclosure in a subsequent

is

between such parties themselves.

suit

Gulick

Gulkk, 38 N.

v.

J.

Eq.

Lorenz, 45 N. Y. 51 see Root v. Wright, 84 N. Y. 72.]


'
Wilson v. Has tall, 4 T. R. 753. As to interpreters, lb. 756. [All
attorneys and counsellors are included in this country.]
2 Taylor v. Foster, 2 C. & P. 195
Foote v. Hayne, I C. & P. 545. Quaere,

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.

against the prosecutor

205

the original case for malicious prosecu-

in

tion.'
{J>)

retains B, an attorney, to prosecute

(whose property he had

fraudulently acquired) for murder, and says, "It is not proper for me to
appear in the prosecution for fear of its hurting me in the cause coming
on between myself and him but I do not care if I give ;if 10,000 to get
;

him hanged, for then I shall be easy


munication is not privileged.'^

my

in

Article

and estate."

title

This com-

116.

confidential communications with legal advisers.

No one can be compelled to disclose to the Court any communication between himself and his legal adviser, which his
legal adviser could not disclose without his permission, although
it may have been made before any dispute arose as to the matter referred to.'

Article

117.*

clergymen and medical men.


Medical men and (probably) clergymen may be compelled
*

Brown

See Note XLIV.

& N.

[This case was so decided because


736.
was not information communicated by the client, but
knowledge which counsel acquired by his own observation. For a like
rule, see Patten v. Moor, 29 N. H. 163
Daniel v Daniel 39 Pa. St. 191
Hebbard v. Haughian, 70 N. Y. 54.]
'

Foster, I H.

v.

the fact in question

Anneslcy

v.

Anglesea, 17

S.

T. 1223-4.

Afinetw. Morgan, L. R. 8 Ch. App. 361, reviewing


adopting the explanation given in Pearse v. Pcarse, i
3

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,

[This rule applies though par-

Hcmenway v.

Smitk, 28 Vt. 701

Bigler

Bark-

v. Reyher, 43 Ind. 112


Duttcnhofcr v.
White, 19 Kan. 445
Carnes v. Piatt, 15 Abb.
Pr. (N. S.) 337.
But in Massachusetts it is held that a party who offers
himself as a witness at a trial cannot refuse to disclose his conversations

V.

State, 34

O.

St.

la.

91

with his counsel.


client

may waive

392

State

v.

Inhab. of

IVobum

v.

Henshaw, loi Mass.

the privilege, see Passmore

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.

production of title-deeds of witness not a party.

No

who

witness

produce

is

not a party to a suit can be compelled to

any property,* or any document the


to criminate him, or expose

his title-deeds to

production of which might tend


[This

'

in a

is

the general rule of the common law (Gr. Ev. i. 247).


But
of the States of this country, a different rule has been es-

number

tablished by statute.

New

In

be allowed

shall not

York,

e.^.,

it is

a confession

to disclose

provided that a clergyman

made

sional character in the course of discipline enjoined


tice of his religious

Wend.

body (N.

Y.

Code

Civ. Pro.

ij

833

him

to

by
;

in his profes-

the rules or prac-

see People v. Gates,

and that a person duly authorized to practice physic or


surgery shall not be allowed to disclose any information which he acquired in attending a patient in a professional capacity, and which was
necessary to enable him to act in that capacity (Code Civ. Pro. 834). But
this privilege may be waived by the person confessing or the patient. This
rule as to physicians applies to " information " obtained by them by their
own observation or the statements of others, as well as to communications
from the patient himself. Edington v. Life Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 185 GratS. P. Gartside v. Conn. Ins. Co., 76
tan V. Life Ins. Co., 80 N. Y. 281
Mo. 446 Briggs v. Briggs, 20 Mich. 34. But it does not prevent a physician from testifying upon a trial for murder as to the condition of the
person injured whom he attended before death ensued {Pierson v. People,
13

311)

79 N. Y. 424) nor in probate proceedings does it exclude the testimony


of physicians to show the condition of the decedent as bearing upon his
testamentary capacity, his representatives waiving the privilege. Fraser v.
;

v. ^tna Life Ins. Co. 99 N. Y. 56.


Similar statutes have been passed in Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana,
See Conti. Ins. Co. v. Union
Iowa, Missouri, California, Oregon, etc.

yennison, 42 Mich. 206; but see Westover

Guptillv, Verback, 58 la. 98 as to clergymen,


58 Ind. 182.]
2 Pickering v. Noyes, i B. & C. 263
Adams v. Lloyd, 3 H. & N. 351.
[It is a rule of chancery practice that a party shall not be compelled to
make discovery of his title deeds when they simply support his own

Trust

Co., 112 U. S.

see Gillooley

250

v. State,

title,

but only

when they support

rule applies to other documents.

the

title

of his adversary

Engle, 3 Gr. Ch. (N. J.) 271


?ame rule is applied in some States under

V.

and a similar

Story, Eq. Jur., ii., 1490


Thompson
Cullison v. Bossom, 1 Md. Ch. 95.
The
;

modern

statutes allowing

him

to

LAW OF

THE

Chap. XV.]

any penalty or forfeiture


produce a document

to refuse to

production

its

EVIDENCE.

may

has a lien upon

expose him

but a witness

'

207

is

not entitled

in his possession only

to

civil

because
action/ or because he

it.'

and inspection of documents. Meak'mgs v. Cromwell, i


Andrews v. Townshend, i6 J. & Sp. 162; Mass. Pub. St.,

the discovery

Sandf. 698;
167,

c.

56

s.

Wilson

14 (ed. 1878)

s.

v.

Webber, 2 Gray, 558 N. H. Gen. Laws,


v. Porter, i Cush. 170.
;

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.
;

subpoenaed to produce lease and inventory)), if they do


not tend to criminate him or expose him to a penalty or forfeiture. But
226, 352 (party

may relieve him from the obligation of giving them in evidence


(though he must bring them into court), if this would be prejudicial to

the court

and

his rights

Ev.

i.

$ 246

interests

of this the court

is

12 Abb.

Mitchell's Case,

to

Pr.

judge upon inspection


249, 259

(Gr.

In re O' Toole,

Tucker, 39 Bull v. Loveland, 10 Pick. 9 so now as to 2i party, Bonesteel


V. Lynde, 8 How. Pr. 226, 233
Champlin v. Stoddart, 17 W. D. 76 of.
Cross V. jfohnson, 30 Ark. 396)
and perhaps the rule in equity supra
would be applied upon a subpcena both in law and equity.]
Whitaker v. Izod^ 2 Tau. 115 \Byass v. Sullivan, 21 How. Pr. 50;
so as to discovery by z.party, Johnson v. Donaldson, 18 Blatch. 287.]
s Doe V. Date,
[Wh. Ev. i. 537 Bull v. Love3 Q. B. 609, 618
;

'

land, ID Pick. 9.]


3

&

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

doubted whether production may not be refused on the ground of a


lien as against the party requiring the production.
This is suggested
in Brassington v. Brassington^ and was acted upon by Lord Denman
in Kemp v. King^ 2 Mo. & Ro. 437
but it seems to be opposed to
Hunter v. Leathley, in which a broker who had a lien on a policy for
premiums advanced was compelled to produce it in an action against
the underwriter by the assured who had created the lien.
See Ley v.
Barloiu (Judgt. of Parke, B.) I E.\. 801.
[See Morley v. Green, 11 Pai.
240; Bull v. Loveland, 10 Pick. 9.]
<[Mr. Stephen ends Art. 118 as follows
"No bank is compellable to
produce the books of such bank, except in the case provided for in Art.
See note XLIX.]
(42 & 43 Vict. c. 11)."
37.
;

A DIGEST OF

2o8

Article

[Part

III.

119.

production of documents which another person,


having possession, could refuse to produce.

No

mortgagee can be compelled to propurpose of identification) documents in


his possession as such, which his client, cestui que trust, or
mortgagor would be entitled to refuse to produce if they were
in his possession
nor can any one who is entitled to refuse to
produce a document be compelled to give oral evidence of its
solicitor,' trustee, or

duce (except

for the

contents.'
Volant

'

V.

Soyer, 13 C. B. 231

Phelps

v.

Prerv, 3 E.

&

B. 431.

Davies v. Waters, 9 M. & W. 608 Fezo v. Gufpy, 13 Beav. 454.


[Formerly when a party to a suit could not be required to give evidence,
his legal adviser could likewise not be compelled to produce in evidence
a deed or other document entrusted to him by his client, nor to disclose
Notice to produce might be given him (see Art. 72, ante),
its contents.
and he might be examined as to the existence of the paper, and as to its
being in his possession, so as to enable the other party to give secondary
evidence of its contents (Gr. Ev. i. ^ 241 Mitchell's Case, 12 Abb. Pr.
Coveney v. Tannahill, i Hill, '^^ Diirkee v. Leland, 4 Vt. 612
249, 258
Anon., 8 Mass. 370; Lessee of Rhodes v. Selin, 4 Wash. C. C. 715) and
the same rule was applied to the agent of a party, as, e.g., an officer of a
2

corporation.

Bank of

Utica

v.

Hillard, 5 Cow. 419 Westcott v. Atlantic


it has been the rule that a party
;

In equity, however,
3 Met. 282.
might, in some cases, be required to
Co.

make discovery of his deeds and


papers (see Art. 118, note 2), and, therefore, that his attorney would be
bound to produce them, if they were in the latter's possession. IVakeman
v. Bailey, 3 Barb. Ch. 482.
And now that by modern statutes parties
may be subpoenaed (see Art. 72, ante]., it is in like manner declared that
whatever papers a party must produce, his attorney must produce if he
has them. Mitcheirs Case, supra; Andrews v. Ohio, etc. R. Co., 14 Ind.
cf. Moats v.Rymer, 18 W. Va. 642.
A
169 Steeds. Cruise, 70 Ga. 168
client cannot combine with his attorney to keep papers from being produced by putting them in the latter's possession. People v. Sheriff, 29
But papers which are professional communications are still
Barb. 622.
Mallory v. Benjamin, 9 How. Pr.
protected. Mitchell's Case, supra
419; Hubbell V. Jndd Oil Co., 19 Alb. L. J. 97 and see Art. 118, note 2
cf. Pulford's Appeal, 48 Ct. 247.
The agents of a telegraph company are bound to produce telegraphic
messages upon a subpcena duces tecum. Ex parte Broivn, 72 Mo. 83 State v.
Litchfield, 58 Me. 267 U. S. v. Hunter, 15 F. R. 712 see p. 140. n. I, ante.\
;

Chap. XV.]

THE

LAW OF EVIDENCE.
Article

209

120.

witness not to be compelled to criminate himself.

No one

bound

is

to

answer any question

if

the answer thereto

would, in the opinion of the judge, have a tendency to expose


the witness

husband of the witness)

(or the wife or

'

to

any

Wh. Ev. ij 533V. Boyes, i B. & S. 330


[Gr. Ev. i. $$ 451-453
N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. $ 837 Henry v. Salina Bk., 2 Den. 155, I N.
Y. 83; Comm. v. Nichols, 114 Mass. 285; Phelin \. Kenderdinc^ 20 Pa. St.
354; State V. Lonsdale, 48 Wis. 348. The privilege is that of the witness
and not of the party to the suit, and may be waived by the witness (Cloyes
Comm. v. Shaw, 4 Cush. 594 Roady v. Fiiieg^an,
V. Thayer, 3 Hill, 564
and ceases to exist if the
43 Md. 490 State v. Wcntworth^ 65 Me. 234)
criminal prosecution is barred by the Statute of Limitations or otherwise
(Wh. Ev.
$ 540; People v. Kelley, 24 N. Y. 74), or if the testimony
cannot by statute be used against him {U. S. v. McCarthy, 18 F. R. 87
Kendrick v. Comm., 78 Va. 490). The privilege is not always to be allowed
when claimed, but only when it appears to the court from the nature of
the examination that the witness is exposed to danger by the inquiry
made but this appearing, he need not show how the answer will crimiYoungs v. Youngs, 5
nate him. In re Reynolds, L. R. 20 Ch. D. 294
Redf. 505 see Lamb v. A funster, 10 Q. B. D. no. If the witness discloses without objection part of a transaction criminating him, it is the
general American rule that he must disclose the whole {Comm. v. Pratt,
126 Mass. 462 People v. Freshour, 55 Cal. 375
Ceburn v. Odell, 10 Foster, 540; State V. Fay, 43 la. 651
see Youngs v. Youngs, supra), unless
the partial disclosure is made under innocent mistake {Mayo v. Mayo,
But in England a partial statement does not forfeit the
119 Mass. 290).
privilege.
R. v. Garbett, I Den. C. C. 236. Testimony given under compulsion of the court, contrary to the privilege, cannot be used against the
'

541

R.

i.

i.

Horstman v. Kaufman, 97 Pa. St. 147 see Art. 23, ante.


a party voluntarily becomes a witness and testifies as to any

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.

crime charged against him,

A DIGEST OF

2IO

[Part

III.

criminal charge, or to any penalty or forfeiture which the judge


regards as reasonably likely to be preferred or sued for but
no one is excused from answering any question only because
;

the answer

may

debt, or

otherwise liable to any

is

stance of the

establish or tend to establish that he owes a

Crown

civil suit, either at the in-

any other person.^

or of

Article

121.

corroboration, when required.'

When

the only proof against a person charged with a crimi-

nal offence

the evidence of an accomplice, uncorroborated

is

R. V. All Saints, Worcester^ 6 M. & S. 194. These cases show that


even under the old law which made the parties and their husbands and
wives incompetent witnesses, a wife was not incompetent to prove matter
which might tend to criminate her husband. R. v. divider assumes that
she was, and was to that extent overruled. As to the later law, see R. v.
Halliday, Bell, 257.
The cases, however, do not decide that if the wife
claimed the privilege of not answering she would be compelled to do so,
and to some extent they suggest that she would not. [To the same effect
see State v. Bridgtnan, 49 Vt. 202 Royal
is State v. Briggs, 9 R. I. 361
State v. Wilson, 31 N. J. L. 77
Ins. Co. V. IVoble, 5 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 54
Keep v.
Comtn. v. Sparks, 7 Allen, 534
State V. Welch, 26 Me. 30
G>'ig&''< 12 Bradw. 511
p. 197, n. i, ante.'\
See R. v. Scott, 25 L. J. M. C. 128, 7 C. C. C.
46 Geo. III. c. i^.
639

>

164,

and -subsequent cases as

R. 6 Ch. D. 230

[Gr. Ev.

i.

to

452

bankrupts, and Ex parte Scholfield, L.


N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. 837 In re Kip,
;

Dull v. Loveland, 10 Pick. 9 Lowney v. Perham, 20 Me. 235. J


^ [Mr. Stephen begins this article with the following special statutory
" No plaintiff in any action for breach of promrules of the English law
ise of marriage can recover a verdict, unless his or her testimony is corroborated by some other material evidence in support of such promise.
{Queer e, is he bound to produce a document
32 & 33 Vict. c. 68 s. 2.
criminating himself; see Webb v. East, 5 Ex. D. 23 and 109).
" No order against any person alleged to be the father of a bastard
child can be made by any justices, or confirmed on appeal by any Court
of Quarter Session, unless the evidence of the mother of the said basI Pai.

601

tard child

is

corroborated

in

some material

particular to the satisfaction

LAW OF

THE

Chap. XV.]

any material particular,

in

the jury that

EVIDENCE.

the duty of the judge to

it is

of the said justices or Court respectively.


c. 6,

s.

warn

unsafe to convict any person upon such evi-

it is

dence, though they have a legal right to do

Vict.

211

&

so.'

9 Vict.

c. 10, s.

35

&

2i^

4."

Generally in

this

country the common-law rule applies in these cases


See as to breach of promise, Homati v.
is required.

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
:

special rule in Massachusetts, see Mass. Pub. St.,

c.

85,

s.

16

ILnues

v.

Gustin, 2 Allen, 402.

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.

325; so in Iowa as to abduction, rape,

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)

Lyon, 62 Barb. 138


v.

Evans, 41 Cal. 103

Summer bell v. Summerbcll, 37 N.


N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. 5 i753-

For other cases, see next


>

Ph. Ev. 93-101

J.

Eq. 603

Evans

T. E.

article.]
ss.

887-91

3 Russ. Cri. 600-611.

[Gr. Ev.

i.

Watson v. Comm. 95 Pa. St. 418


State V. Allen, 57 la 431
U. S. v. Biebusch, i McCrary, 42 State \. LitchBut the cases differ as to the nature and e.xtent of the
field, 58 Me. 267.
corroboration required. (Id. Gr. Ev. i. $ 381. ) In New York it must tend
to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime.
Code Cr.
Pro. % 399
S. P. Comm. v. Hohnes, \2rj Mass. 424
see Hester v. Comm.,
It is said to be a rule of practice to warn the Jury, not a
85 Pa. St. 139.
rule of law {Comm. v. Larrabee, 99 Mass. 413), and discretionary with
the court.
Ingalls v. State, 48 Wis. 647.
As to persons who, like detectives, are only apparent accomplices and
need no corroboration, see Gr. Ev. i. 382; Campbell v. Comm., 84 Pa.
45, 380-382

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.

In trials for high treason, or misprision of treason, no one


can be indicted, tried, or attainted (unless he pleads guilty) except upon the oath of two lawful witnesses, either both of them

same overt act,

to the
to

or one of

them

to

one and another of them


If two or more dis-

another overt act of the same treason.'

tinct treasons of divers

heads or kinds are alleged

one

in

in-

dictment, one witness produced to prove one of the said trea-

sons and another witness produced to prove another of the

deemed to be two witnesses to the


same treason within the meaning of this article.'^
If upon a trial for perjury the only evidence against the desaid treasons are not to be

fendant

is

the oath of one witness contradicting the oath on

which perjury
witness

is

who has

assigned, and

if

no circumstances are proved

and knowingly sworn

wilfully

falsely as to a material

point tnay be disregarded by the jury unless corroborated.

Smith

v.

Forbes, 14 Bradw. 477


People v.
O' Rourke v. G'Rowke, 43 Mich. 58
Soto, 59 Cal. 367 Moett v. People^ 85 N. Y. 373 Lcmmon v. Aloore, 94 Ind.
;

But

40.

it is

not a rule of law that they must so disregard


;

"no person

Id.

it.

97 Mass. 405 Pennsylvania Co. v. Conlan, loi


son V. Galbraith, 12 Lea, 129.]
' [The
law of this country is somewhat different, the U.
V. Billings,

111.

S.

Comm.

93

Fier-

Constitu-

be convicted of treason unless on


the testimony of two witnesses to the sa7ne overt act, or on confession in
open court." Art. 3, s. 3. A similar provision is found in many of the
tion providing that

shall

State constitutions as to treason against the State.


2
2

&

8 Will. III. c. 3, ss. 2, 4

[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

compassing or imagining the Queen's death, in which the overt act or


overt acts of such treason alleged in the indictment are assassination or
killing of the Queen, or any direct attempt against her life, or any direct
attempt against her person, whereby her life may be endangered, or her
person suffer bodily harm, or to misprision of such treason. 39 & 40 Geo.
III. c.

93."]

Chap. XV.]

THE

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

which corroborate such witness, the defendant


be acciuittcd.' ^

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

usage of business may be esRobinson v. U. S. 13 Wall.


Jones v. Hoejy, 128 Mass. 585

that a

tablished by the testimony of one witness.

363

Bissell v. Campbell, 54 N. Y. 353

Adams

v.

Pittsburgh Ins. Co., 95 Pa.

St. 348.]


A DIGEST OF

214

CHAPTER

[Part

III.

XVI.

OF TAKING ORAL EVIDENCE, AND OF THE


EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES.
Article

123.

evidence to be upon oath, except in certain cases.

All

any proceeding must be given upon


any person called as a witness refuses or is unwilling to be sworn from alleged conscientious motives, the
judge before whom the evidence is to be taken may, upon being
satisfied of the sincerity of such objection, permit such person,
instead of being sworn, to make his or her solemn affirmation
and declaration in the following words
" I, A B, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly affirm and declare
that the taking of any oath is according to my religious belief
unlawful, and I do also solemnly, sincerely, and truly affirm
and declare," &c.'
^ If any person called to give evidence in any Court of Justice,
oral evidence given in

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
;

above include all cases. The statutes are referred to in T. E. s. 1254


R. N. P. 175-6.
[Provisions similar to those set forth in this article have
been generally adopted in this country by statute. Thus it is provided
in the U. S. Revised Statutes {^ i) that " the requirement of an 'oath'
shall be deemed complied with by making affirmation in judicial form."
So in New York, a solemn declaration or affirmation, in the following
form, is administered to a person who declares that he has conscientious
" You do solemnly, sincerely, and truly,
scruples against taking an oath
declare and affirm," etc. Code Civ. Pro. % 847.
Other States have like
provisions.
Under such laws a wilful false oath or affirmation consti;

tutes perjury.

Id.

% 851

U. S. Rev.

St. % 5392.]


LAW

THE

Chap. XVI.]

OF EVIDENCE.

215

a civil or criminal proceeding, objects to take an


objected to as incompetent to take such an oath,
such person must, if the presiding judge is satisfied that the
taking of an oath would have no binding effect on his con-

whether

oath, or

in

is

make the following promise and declaration


solemnly promise and declare that the evidence given by
to the Court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing

science,

"

me

but the truth."

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.

whom they may

be administered.

Oaths are binding which are administered

in

such form and

with such ceremonies as the person sworn declares to be binding.'

Every person now or hereafter having power by law or by


consent of parties to hear, receive, and examine evidence,

empowered

to

administer an oath to

all

is

such witnesses as are

lawfully called before him.^

&

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

States, these general rules,

St., c. 169,
'

14

&

more

or less modified, are pre-

See N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. %^ 845-851

scribed by statute.

Mass. Pub.

^ 13-18.]

15 Vict.

c.

99,

s.

16.

[Similar statutes are generally in force in

A DIGEST OF

2i6

Article

[Part

III.

125.

how oral evidence may

be taken.

may be taken (according to the law relating


and criminal procedure)
In open court upon a final or preliminary hearing
Oral evidence

'

to civil

'^

Or out of court for future use


{a) upon affidavit,
{b) under a commission/
this

country.

Civ. Pro. 843


'

As

to civil

in court

See U. S. Rev. St. loi, 183, 474, 1778, etc.; N. Y. Code


Mass. Pub. St., c. 169,
7, 12.]
procedure, see Order XXXVII to Judicature Act of 1875

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

before a magistrate into the circumstances of a charge against an accused

person, and the prisoner


against him.
^ 188-221.

may be examined,

as well as witnesses for

and

Bishop, Cr. Pro. ^$ 225-239, 3d ed.; N. Y. Code Cr. Pro.


So in civil cases, statutes in some States provide for the

examination before trial of the parties to a cause, or of other persons


whose testimony is material and necessary, and may otherwise be lost
(see N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. 870-886 Mass. Pub. St., c. 167, ss. 49-60)
but the examination of a party before trial is not permissible in actions at
law in the U. S. courts. Ex parte Fisk, 113 U. S. 713.]
2 The law as to commissions to take evidence is as follows
The root of
Section 40 of this Act provides for the issue of a
it is 13 Geo. III. c. 63.
commission to the Supreme Court of Calcutta (which was first established by that Act) and the corresponding authorities at Madras and
Bombay to take evidence in cases of charges of misdemeanor brought
against Governors, etc., in India in the Court of Queen's Bench.
S. 42
applies to parliamentary proceedings, and s. 44 to civil cases in India.
These provisions have been extended to all the colonies by i Will. IV. c.
22, and so far as they relate to civil proceedings to the world at large.
3
& 4 Vict. c. 105, gives a similar power to the Courts at Dublin.
[There are statutes in the several States of this country, providing for the
issuing of commissions by a court or judge, by which commissioners are
appointed to take the depositions of witnesses in other States or countries,
;

for ysc in the particular State issuing the copimission,

The courts

of the

Chap. XVI.]
U)

'

THE

LAW

OF EVIDENCE.

217

before any officer of the Court or any other person or

persons, appointed for that purpose by the Court or a


judge [under due legal authority, or designated by
"
statute, or selected by agreement of the parties.]
Oral evidence taken in open court must be taken according

foreign jurisdiction will usually aid such commissioners in obtaining the

desired testimony, by compelling witnesses to

come

before them, etc.,

upon principles of comity, or in accordance with their own local


statutes making this their duty.
Another mode of obtaining such evidence is by the issuing of " letters rogatory," which are in the form of a
either

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]

somewhat changed from the original, and the next


wholly omitted here, since they relate to the special
provisions of English statutes.
Their original form is as follows
" (c) before any officer of the Court or any other person or persons
appointed for that purpose by the Court or a judge under the Judicature
'

one

[This paragraph

is

in the original is

Act, 1875, Order

XXXVII,

4.

"Oral evidence taken upon a preliminary hearing may,

&

&

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.

chapter relating to the examina-

this

tion of witnesses.
'

the

Oral evidence taken under a commission must be taken in


manner prescribed by the terms of the commission.

[c) must be taken in the same


were taken in open court but the examiner
has no right to decide on the validity of objections taken to
particular questions, but must record the questions, the fact
that they were objected to, and the answers given.'
^ Oral evidence given
on affidavit must be confined to such

Oral evidence taken under

manner

as

if it

is able of his own knowledge to prove,


except on interlocutory motions, on which statements as to his
belief and the grounds thereof may be admitted.'^
The costs

facts as the witness

'

by

tions shall

rules of court

Rules of the Federal Courts N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. $ 900-909. It


a general rule that such regulations must be carefully and precisely

868
Is

[The mode of taking depositions is often prescribed by


it is sometimes provided that such regulabe annexed to the deposition. See U. S. Rev. St. $ 863-

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

that a referee appointed to take evidence

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.]

Judicature Act, 1875, Order XXXVII, 4.


s[So in New York and some other States, affidavits upon interlocutory
motions may contain statements upon information and belief, but the
sources of such information and the grounds of such belief should also
be stated, and the reasons why the affidavit of a person having knowledge
of the matter cannot be procured should usually appear. Howe Co. v.
Pierson v. Freeman, tj Id. 589 Bennett v. EdPettibone, 74 N. Y. 68
4

wards, 27 Hun, 352

Stak

v. FQ<)te^

83 N. C. 102

Mitchell

v. Pitts,

61

THE

Chap. X\IJ

LAW OF

EVIDENCE.

219

of every affidavit unnecessarily setting forth matters of hearsay


or argumentative matter, or copies of or extracts from docu-

ments, must be paid by the party

When

filing

them.'

a deposition, or the return to a commission, or an

evidence taken before an examiner, is used in any


evidence of the matter stated therein, the party

affidavit, or

court

as

But

Ala. 219.

affidavits

many

merely stating

been held

belief, or

information and belief,

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;

mand, 103 Mass. 318 Hazlcwood v. Hcminway, 3 T. & C. 787 Crowell


V. Western Reserve Bk., 3 O. St. 406; Hilly. Canfield, 63. Pa. St. 77;
Chambers v. Hunt., 2 Zab. 552.
Answers which are not responsive may be objected to by either party.
;

Lansing V. Coley, 13 Abb. Pr. 272; Greenman v. O'Connor, 25 Mich. 30;


Kingsbury v. Moses, 45 N. H. 222. And where a party uses a deposition
taken by his opponent, he makes it his own, and the adverse party may
then object to answers given to questions which he himself propounded.
Hatch v. Brown, 63 Me. 410.]

A DIGEST OF

220

against

whom

it is

may

read

[Part

III.

object to the reading of anything

therein contained on any ground on which he might have ob-

jected to

being stated by a witness examined

its

provided that no one

in

open

court,

any
any question asked by his own representative on the
execution of a commission to take evidence.

answer

entitled to object to the reading of

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,

*
'

[The court may,

See Note

XLV.

order witnesses to withdraw from


not hear each other's testimony. If any
may be observed upon to the jury to

in its discretion,

the court-room, so that they

may

witness disobeys the order, this

and he is punishable for contempt but the court


cannot refuse to allow him to be examined, unless his disobedience was
by the procurement, connivance, or other fault of the party calling him,
affect his credibility,

which case it may refuse or permit examination. This is now held by


weight of authority. Gr. Ev. i. 432 Dickson v. State, 39 O. St. 73
Davis V. Byrd, 94 Md. 525 Davenport v. Ogg, 15 Kan. 363 Hey's Case,
32 Gratt. 946 Hubbard v. Hubbard, 7 Or. 42 People v. Boscovitch, 20
Another method is to have an officer of the court remove the
Cal. 436.
in

witnesses.

party's failure to call a witness

who might be

called,

does not gener-

a presumption that his testimony would be unfavorable to such


Scovill v. Baldwin, 27 Ct. 316 Bleecker v. jfohnston, 69 N. Y.
party.
But where the witness's testimony would be of vital importance in
309.
ally raise

the case (as

e.g., if

he were the only eye-witness of the

able inference by the jury

is

warranted, especially

if

facts),

an unfavor-

the adverse party

has no legal right to call the witness. People v. Hovey, 92 N. Y. 554


State \. Rodman, 62 la. 456; Rice y. Co7nm., 102 Pa. St. 408; The Fred
;

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

concluded, the party who called the wit-

ness has a right to re-examine him.

The Court may

permit a witness to be recalled

in all cases

either for further examination in chief or for further cross-

examination, and

if

it

does so, the parties have the right of


and further re-examination respect-

further cross-examination
ively.*
If a

witness dies, or becomes incapable of being further

[See Art. 123. As forms of affirmation different from the English are
allowed in this country, this clause will need variation to adapt it to the
'

local State law.]

[In a few States of this country, a similar rule prevails,

and a witness

called to testify merely as to the formal execution of a written instru-

ment, or as to other preliminary matter, etc., may be cross-examined as


to all matters material to the issue.
Blackingtoti v. yohnson, 126 Mass.
21

Bcal

63 Ga. 423

Gray, 262 State v. Sayers, 58 Mo. 585 Litisley v.


v. Mcllwain, 16 S. C. 550
Barker v. Blount,

iXichols, 2

v.

Lovely, 26 Vt. 123

Kiblcr

contra in Missouri by statute as to the cross-examination of a

v. Turner, 76 Mo. 350.


But in most
adopted that the cross-examination must be limited to
matters stated upon the direct examination.
See next article Gr. Ev. i.

defendant

in

a criminal case, State

States the rule

is

^ 445-447
3

Wh.

Ev.

529.]

i.

Aikin v. Martin,
by a witness does not

[See note to 15 F. R. 726

verification of a signature
to see the

document or

offered in evidence.

[Shepard

v.

entitle the

to cross-examine the witness

The simple
adverse party

upon

it,

until

it

is

Stiles v. Allen, 5 Allen, 320.]

Potter, 4 Hill, 202

Continental Ins. Co.

11 Pai. 499.

v.

Williams

Delpench, 82 Pa.

St.

v.

225

Sergeant, 46 N. Y. 481

Comm.

v.

McGorty, 114

Mass. 299; State v. Rorabacher, 19 la. 154; Cumtnings v. Taylor, 24


Minn. 429 George v. Pitcher, 28 Gratt. 300. It is a general rule that the
order of proof is in the discretion of the trial court. Plainer v. Plainer,
78 N. Y. 90 Hess v. Wilcox, 58 la. 380.]
;

A DIGEST OF
examined

at

before he

became incapable

any stage of

[Part

III,

his examination, the evidence given


is

good.'

who was supposed to be


competent appears to be incompetent, his evidence may be
withdrawn from the jury, and the case may be left to their
If in the

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.

Whitehead, L. R. i C. C. R. 33. [Wh. Ev.


Lester v. McDowell, 18 Pa. St. 91 State

421, 422

327

But

Shurtlcff
if

v.

Willard, 19 Pick. 202

the incompetency of the witness

sworn, objection should be

made

v.

Gr. Ev. i.
393
Dantery, 48 Me.

Seeley v. Engell, 13 N. Y. 542.

known when he

is

then, or

i.

it

is called and
be deemed to
Quin v. IJoyd, 41 N.

will ordinarily

be waived. Motifort v. Rowland, 38 N. J. Eq. 181


Y. 349 Donelson v. Taylor, 8 Pick. 390; U'atsou v. Riskatnire, 45 la. 231
Atchison, etc. R. Co. v. Stanford, 12 Kan. 354 see Motley v. Head, 43
;

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.

to what matters cross-examination and re-examination must be directed.

The examination and cross-examination must relate to facts


deemed to be relevant thereto, but the

in issue or relevant or

cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which


the witness testified on his examination in chief.'

The re-examination must be

directed to the explanation of

and if new matter is,


by permission of the Court, introduced in re-examination, the
adverse party may further cross-examine upon that matter.'
matters referred to in cross-examination

'

[See Art. 126, note

But

2.

most of the States of

the rule in

it is

this

country that the cross-examination must be limited to the matters stated


in the examination in chief; if the party cross-examining inquires as to

new

matter, he

Wall. 702

makes

the witness so far his own.


Houghton v. yones, i
Oyer &^ Term. Court, 83 N. Y. 436 Hughes v.
104 Pa. St. 207 Hurlbut v. Meeker, 104 111. 541 Don-

People

Westmoreland

v.

Co.,

nelly V. Slate, 26

N.

J. L.

463

&

601

Aurora

v. Cobb.,

21 Ind. 492

Cokely

PeopU v. Miller, 33 C.1I.


Swayze, 30 La. Ann. 1323 see
preceding article. If the bounds of a proper cross-examination are not
exceeded, the witness is deemed to be continually that of the party introducing him but the extent to which such examination may go without
overstepping proper bounds is somewhat differently defined in different
States.
See Wilson v. Wagar, 26 Mich. 452 Haynes v. Ledyard, 33 Id.
319 Glenn v. Gleason, 61 la. 28 and cases supra.
V.

State, 4 la. 477

99; State

Austin

v.

State, 14 Ark. 555

Smith, 49 Ct. 376

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,

36 Wis. 429), but in others the

court may, in

trial

allow the re-examination to extend to other matters.


I

Allen, 277

Mich.

89.

If

Clark

v.

Vorce, 15

Wend.

193

see

part of a conversation be developed

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

which the witness

is

to testify,

must

not,

if

objected

the adverse party, be asked in an examination in chief,

or a re-examination, except with the permission of the Court,

but such questions

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-

and independent statements.


Beach, 87 N. Y. 508
IValsh v. Porterfield, 87 Pa. St. 376
Comm. V. Keyes, 11 Gray, 323 Oakland Ice Co. v. Maxcy, 74 Me. 294.
In some States it is held that if one party, without objection, introduces

tion already testified to, but not distinct

People

V.

irrelevant evidence, which

is

prejudicial to the other party, the latter

give evidence which goes directly to contradict

Me. 531 Alowry v. Smith, 9 Allen, 67


see Teag-ue v. Irwin, 134 Mass. 303.
;

Furbush

State

it.

v.

may

Withavi, 72

v.

Goodwin, 5 Post. 425

The party who opens a case

must, in general, introduce all the evidence


prove his side of the case before he closes then after his adversary's
evidence is given, he may give proof in reply or rebuttal. But it is in tlie
discretion of the court to permit evidence to be given in reply which
should properly have been given in chief. Marshall v. Davis, 78 N. Y.
414 Yoiings. Edwards, 72 Pa. St. 257 Strong v. Connelly 115 Mass. 575
Graham v. Davis, 4 O. St. 362 State v. Alford, 31 Ct. 40 Babcock v.
Babcock, 46 Mo. 243 but see Clayes v. Ferris, 10 Vt. 112.]
to

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

tion relates to items, dates, or

dinarily needs suggestion, or

attention plainly to the subject-matter of his testimony, etc.

Mather, 4 Wend. 229

Id.;

People

Benner, 64 Me. 267 Hickins v. People'


Doran v. Muller, 78 111. 342 U. S. v. Dickinson,
Ins. Co., 11 Post. 238
It is discretionary with the court whether such questions
2 McL. 325.
shall be permitted.
Vrootnan v. Griffiths, i Keyes, 53 Farmers' Ins. Co.
V. Bairy 87 Pa. St. 124
York v. Pease, 2 Gray, 282. As to what is a
V.

State

v.


THE

Chap. XVI.]

LAW OF
Article

EVIDENCE.

225

129.*

questions lawful in cross-examination.

When

a witness

is

cross-examined, he may, in addition to

the questions hereinbefore referred

to,

be asked any questions

which tend

To test his accuracy, veracity, or credibility


To shake his credit, by injuring his character.

(i)

(2)

or

Witnesses have been compelled to answer such questions,


though the matter suggested was irrelevant to the matter in
issue, and though the answer was disgraceful to the witness
but it is submitted that the Court has the right to exercise a
discretion in such cases, and to refuse to compel such questions to be answered when the truth of the matter suggested
would not in the opinion of the Court affect the credibility of
the witness as to the matter to which he is required to testify.
;

* See Note XLVI.


v. Mather, supra; Harvey v. Osborn, 55 Ind.
Walker v. Dnnspaugh, 20 N. Y. 170 People v. Parish, 4 Den. 153.
535
In those States where a party by cross-examining a witness as to new
matter makes the witness so far his own (see Art. 127, note i), he cannot
ask leading questions as to such new matter. People v. Oyer er> Term.
Harrison v. Rowan, 3 Wash. C. C. 580 contra,
Court, 83 N. Y. 436

leading question, see People


>

Moody
'

V.

[It is

Rowell, 17 Pick. 490 see Art. 126, note 2.]


a well-settled doctrine in this country that a witness
;

may be

cross-examined as to specific facts tending to disgrace or degrade him,


for the purpose of impairing his credibility, though these facts are purely

and

the

trial

main

also that the extent to which


be determined by the discretion of
court, which commits no error unless it abuses its discretion

irrelevant

such questions

collateral to the

may be

allowed

is

issue

to

may

claim the privilege of declining to answer, when the


court allows such questions, but that when answers are called for which
are material to the issue, there is no privilege. I.ohtnan v. People, i N.
that the witness

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'
;

People, 105 Mass. 163

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.

In the case provided for in article 120, a witness cannot be

compelled

to

answer such a question.


Illustrations.

A committed perjury in swearing that


he was R. T. B deposed that he made tattoo marks on the arm of R. T.
which at the time of the trial were not and never had been on the arm of
A. B was asked and was compelled to answer the question whether,
The question was whether

(a)

many

years after the alleged tattooing, and

sion on which he

one of his

many

years before the occa-

was examined, he committed adultery with the wife of

friends.'

A for stealing a horse, a witness B was asked on


cross-examination whether he did not live with a woman who kept a house
of ill-fame. The court against objection admitted the question, but in{b)

[On

the trial of

he could answer or not as he chose.] *


an assault, he became himself a witness and
was asked on cross-examination whether he had not committed an assault
upon another person at another time. This was objected to, but properly
allowed by the trial court within its discretion.]^

formed the witness


{c)

Co.

[Upon

62

la.

723

In

subject.

that

the trial of

A for

South Bend

New York

which tend
and questions as

Hardy., 98 Ind. 577, fully discussing the

when not

rule that the examination,


facts

v.

the exercise of discretion

impeach his moral character


having beer) indicted, arrested, accused, etc., for
when properly excepted to, held improper, since these

Hayward v. People,
when they become
111.

the

to his

wrongful acts are,

105

by

to discredit the witness or

facts are consistent with innocence.

V. State,

also limited

is

pertinent to the issue, must relate to

409

96

111.

People

witnesses.
;

Root

v.

People

Irving, 95 N. Y. 541

v.

These general

492.

cf.

rules apply also to parties

v. Casey,

72 N. Y. 393

Ha^nilton, 105 Mass. 22

Chambers

Bisscll

v.

Starr,

32 Mich. 299 see Illustrations.


So a witness may be cross-examined as to facts showing his favor to;

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.]

See summing-up of Cockburn, C. J., vol. ii. p. 719, etc.


Ward, 49 Ct. 429 see Real v. People, 42 N. Y. 270, 272 the
witness is not obliged to explain why he declines to answer. Merluzzi v.
^ [People v. Irving, 95 N. Y. 541.]
Gleeson, 59 Md. 214.]
'

'

R.

V.

Orton.

[State

v.

THE

Chap. XVI.]

'

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

227

of A for murder, he became 'himself a witness and


((/) [Upon the tria
was asked on cross-examination whether he had not once been arrested

an assault with intent to

for

The

kill.

court against objection admitted

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.

exclusion of evidence to contradict answers to


questions testing veracity.

When a witness under cross-examination has been asked and


has answered any question which is relevant to the inquiry
only in so far as

it

tends to shake his credit by injuring his

character, no evidence can be given to contradict him,' except


in the following cases

(i) If a witness

asked whether he has been previously

is

convicted of any felony or misdemeanor, and denies or does

'

[Ha>ioffy. State, 37 O. St. 178

People

see note
^

Mannings 48

V.

Cal. 335

S. P.

Lelaud\. Knaiith, 47 Mich. 508


v. Crapo, 76 N. Y. 288

contra, People

i, siipra.'\

[Free

v.

A. G.

V.

Buckinghatn, 59 N. H. 219.]

See, too, Palmer v. Trower, 8


Meeker, 85 N. Y. 618 People v.
Knapp, 42 Mich. 267 Elliott v. Boyles, 31 Pa. St. 65. It is a general rule
as to all collateral and irrelevant inquiries, whether relating to character
or not, that the answers given cannot be contradicted the cross-examining counsel is bound by the answers given the reason of the rule is that
3

Ex. 247.

Hitchcock,

[Gr.

Ev.

E.x. 91,

$ 449

i.

99-105.

Conley

v.

time

may

not be taken

130 Mass. 293; Hester

Mich. 267

Sloan

v.

State V. Benner, 64

see Illustrations (a)

up
v.

with immaterial issues.

Comm., 85 Pa.

Shiirtleffw. Parker,

139; Leavitt v. Stansell, 44


Moore v. People, 108 111. 484

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

or refuses to answer, evidence

may be

III.

given of

his previous conviction thereof.^


(2)

If a witness

asked any question tending to show that he


it by denying the facts suggested,

is

not impartial, and answers

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

point by other testimony. ]5

28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, s. 6.


[At common-law, conviction for crime must
be proved by the record thereof or by a duly authenticated copy, and not
by cross-examination (Gr. Ev. i. 375, 457 Newconib v. Griswold, 24
N. Y. 298) and this is still the general rule in this country. State v.
Lewis, 80 Mo. no.
So now, in some States, where conviction for crime
no longer disqualifies a witness, but may be proved to affect credibility
(see Art. 107, supra, note), proof must still be made by the record. Mass.
Pub. St., c. 169, 19; Comm. v. Gorhani^ 99 Mass. 420, Gen. Laws N.
H., c. 228, 27 (ed. 1878). But in other States, either the record may be
used, or the witness may be cross-examined as to his conviction (111. Rev.
St., c. 51, I (ed. 1883)
Neb. Code Civ. Pro. % 338 Driscoll v. People,
and in some States his answers upon such examination
47 Mich. 413)
may be contradicted. N. Y. Code Civ. Pro. 832 N. J. Rev., p. 378, i,
379. % 9; Wis. Rev. St., 4073 (ed. 1878).]
A. G. V. Hitchcock, i Ex. 91, pp. 100, 105 [Gr. Ev. i. ^ 450 Day v.
Siiciney, 14 Allen, 255
Schultz v. Third Av. R. Co., 89 N. Y. 242 Phenix V. Castner, 108 111. 207; Folsotn v. Brawn, 5 Fost. 114; Geary v.
'

"^

People, 22 Mich. 220

see Illustration

(r).]

53 N. Y. 164.]

\_Stokes V. People,

[Farniim

\_ColHns V. Stephenson, 8 Gray, 438.]

v.

Farniiin, 13 Gray, 508.]

THE LAW OF EVIDENCE.

Chap. XVI.]

Article

131.*

statements inconsistent with present testimony may


be proved.
Every witness under cross-examination in any proceeding,
or criminal, may be asked whether he has made any former statement relative to the subject-matter of the action and
civil

inconsistent with his present testimony, the circumstances of


the supposed statement being referred to sufficiently to desig-

nate the particular occasion, and

made such
fact make it.'

mit that he has


that he did in

if

he does not distinctly admay be given

a statement, proof

* See Note XLVII.


[A similar rule is in force here in most States. It only applies when
Gr. Ev.
the testimony to be contradicted is relevant to the issue.
% 462
Conrad v. Griffey, 16 How. (U. S.) 38 Hart v. Hudson River Bridge
Haley
Pittsburg-, etc. R. Co. v. Andrews, 39 Md. 329
Co. 84 N. Y. 56
Lawler v. McPheeters, 73 Ind. 577 Bock v. WeiV. State, 63 Ala. 83, 85
gant, 5 Bradw. 643 Dufresne v. Wcise, 46 Wis. 290 State v. Grant, 79
Mo. 113 Cole V. State, 6 Baxt. 239 People v. Devine., 44 Cal. 452 HorSheppard v. Yocum, 10 Or. 402 State v.
ton V. Ckadhourn.^ 31 Minn. 322
McLaughlin, 44 la. 82. The rule applies to parties, when they become
Kelsey v. Layne, 28 Kan. 218.
Usually the time and place of
witnesses.
the supposed statement and the persons to whom or in whose presence it
was made should be brought to the witness's attention in cross-examinbut it is sufficient if the particular occasion is
ing him (see cases stipra)
'

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

otherwise designated with reasonable certainty.

Bradw. 87

Pendleton

v.

i.

A DIGEST OF

230

The same course may be taken


amination in chief,
verse "

{i.e.

the judge

if

[Part

with a witness

by

hostile) to the party

upon

of opinion that he

is

whom

III.

his exis

"ad-

he was called, and

permits the question.'

witness, see Sloan v.

A''.

R. Co., 45 N. Y. 125

Y. C.

Fanners'

Ins.

Co.

Bair, 87 Pa. St. 124.

V.

In some States, however, a witness's contradictory statements can be


proved without thus calling his attention to them on cross-examination.
Wilkitis v. Babbershall, 32 Me. 184
Comtn. V. Hawkins, 3 Gray, 463
Cook v. Brown, 34 N. H. 460
Tomlinson v. Derby, 43 Ct. 562. But he
may be recalled to explain the alleged inconsistency. Gould v. Norfolk
Lead Co., 9 Cush. 338 Hedge v. Clapp, 22 Ct. 262 see Harrison s Ap;

peal, 48 Ct. 202.

In Pennsylvania,

witness

may be

it

consistent statements {Rothrock

Vermont

whether the

rests in the discretion of the trial court,

contradicted without being cross-examined as to the inGallahcr, 91 Pa. St. 108)

v.

and so

in

Glynn, 51 Vt. 577) .]


'
[This is by an English statute (see Note XLA'II, Appendix), but it is
a general rule of the common-law that a party cannot impeach his own witness,

(State

v.

by proving

either his general

bad character or

his

former statements

Wheeler, 97 Mass. 67), and this


Pollock v. Pollock, 71 N. Y.
Gr. Ev. i. 442
is still true in most States.
137; Cox v. Sayres, 55 Vt. 24; Stearns v. MercTiants'' Bk., 53 Pa. St. 490;
People v. yacobs, 49 Cal. 384. But he may prove the true facts of the

inconsistent with his testimony (^Adams

v.

case by other witnesses, though this

may incidentally

discredit the witness.

Gardner, 48 Md. 178


Dowdell V. Wilcox, 58 la. 199 Smith v. Ehanert, 43 Wis. 181 Pa. K.
The rule has even been applied to the
Co. v. Fortney, 90 Pa. St. 323.
case where a party makes a witness his own by cross-examining him as
Coulter

Amer. Exp.

V.

Co.,

56 N. Y. 585

Sewell

v.

to

new

&

Sp. 292

Fairchild v. Bascom, 35 Vt. 398 cf Green v Rice, i J.


Artzv. Railroad Co., 44 la. 284 see Art. 127, note i, supra.
But where the witness is one whom the law obliges the party to call, as
the subscribing witness to a deed or will, he may impeach him by showmatter.

ing contradictory statements {Thornton's F.xcrs.


Vt. 122

Hussey, 32 Me. 579


and so where the witness

Shorey

v.

v.

Thornton's Heirs, 39

but see Whitaker

v.

.Salisbury, 15

opposing party. Brubaker's Adm'r. v. Taylor, 76 Pa. St. 83


N. H. Gen. Laws, c. 228, 15
but see Green v. Rice, supra; Warren v. Gabriel, 51 Ala.
(ed. 1878)
Pick. 534)

also the

is

235.

Even

if

is surprised by testimony
cannot impeach the witness by

the party calling a witness

contrary to what was expected, he

still

THE

Chap. XVI.]

LAW OF EVIDENCE.

231

Illustration,

who was absent at sea, was read


The defendant then offered to prove by a
B, that the latter had had a number of conversations with A
months after the deposition was taken, in which A made state-

[a) [In

in

civil

action a deposition of A,

evidence by the plaintiff

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.

cross-examination as to previous statements in


WRITING.

A witness under cross-examination (or a witness whom the


judge under the provisions of article 131 has permitted to be
examined by the party who called him as to previous statements inconsistent with his present testimony) may be questioned as to previous statements

made by him

in writing, or

reduced into writing, relative to the subject-matter of the


cause without such writing being shown to him (or being proved
in the first instance); but if it is intended to contradict him by
the writing, his attention must, before such contradictory proof
can be given, be called to those parts of the writing which are
evidence of his bad character or inconsistent statements but he may examine the witness himself as to such statements, recalling them plainly
;

to his

mind, and thus make

it

apparent

to the court that the witness dis-

appoints him, and give the latter a chance to explain,


Garth, 51 Ala. 530 cf.
chants' Bk. 53 Pa. St. 490)
;

Id.; State v.

169, 2
'

Ryerson

\Stacy v.

v.

in

v.

so he

Knight, 43 Me.

There are statutes


impeach his witness.

if

possible, the ap-

Pearsall^ 53 N. Y. 230
Nemhr^cav v.
yohnson v. Leggett, 28 Kan. 591 ; Stearns v. Mer-

parent inconsistency {Bullard

some

may prove

the truth

by other evidence.

11, 134.

States, as in England, permitting a party to

Ind. Rev. St., % 507 (ed. 1881)


Abington, 102 Mass. 526.]

Graham, 14 N. Y. 492

S. P.

Runyan

v.

Mass. Pub.

St., c.

Price, 15 O. St.

1.]

A DIGEST OF

232

[Part

III.

to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.


The judge
may, at any time during the trial, require the document to be
produced for his inspection, and may thereupon make such

use of

it

for the

purposes of the

trial as

Article

he thinks

fit.'

133.

impeaching credit of witness.


credit of any witness may be impeached by the adverse
by the evidence of persons who swear that they, from
their knowledge of the witness, believe him to be unworthy of
credit upon his oath.'' Such persons may not upon their exami-

The

party,

&

and 28 Vict. c. 18, s. 5. I think the words


meaning of the sections, but in terms they
apply only to witnesses under cross-examination "Witnesses may be
cross-examined," etc. [The statutory rule of this article is not followed
'

17

18 Vict.

c.

125,

s.

24

in parenthesis represent the

but the former English rule, laid down in the Queen's


The witness must not be questioned as to the statein a letter or other writing, without showing it to him.
It should be exhibited to him, and he be asked whether he wrote it, and
if he assents, the writing should then itself be read in evidence as the
best evidence of its contents. Gr. Ev. i. $463-465 Morfordv. Peck, 46
in this country,

& 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.

he has opened his

until

577)

but the court

may

own

case {Romertze

v.

East River Bk., 49 N. Y.

vary this order of proof

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
;

Egan, 59 la. 636) in New York either


Wright v. Paige, 3
form is allowable {Dollner v. Lintz, 84 N. Y. 669
Keyes, 581) in California the question is as to truth, honesty, and integIn most States also the third
rity (^People V. Markhain, 64 Cal. 157).
question (as to belief on oath) is asked (f/. S. v. Van Sickle., 2 McL. 219
Lyman v. Philadelphia, 56 Pa. St. 488 Hamilton v. People, 29 Mich. 173,
Titus V. Ash, 4 Post. 319 Knight v. House, 29 Md. 194 Eason v.
184
Chapman, 21 111. 33 Wilson v. State, 3 Wis. 798 Hillis v. Wylie, 26 O.
in New York and Illinois it is perSt. S75, which see for other cases)
missible, but not necessary, (People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229
Wright v.
Paige, 3 Keyes, 581 Laclede Bk. v. Keeler, 109 111. 385 and see People
V. Tyler, 35 Cal. 553)
but in a few States it is not allowable.
Walton v.
State v. Rush, 77 Mo. 519 cf. King v. Rucktnan, 20 N.
State, 88 Ind. 9
Walton

V. State,

88 Ind. 9

State

v.

Eq. 316.

J.

When
Foster
ple

V.

v.

a party

is

a witness he

The

Wright

v.

like other witnesses.

Hanna, 98

Ind. 217

Peo-

Beck, 58 Cal. 212.


inquiry

may be

as to the

before or after the time of his


if

may be impeached

Newbrough, 58 N. Y. 481

Dollner

not too remote.

Abb. Dec. 263

Amidon

v.

v.

impeached

own

witness's reputation either

e.xamination, as

Lintz, 84 N. Y. 669

w-ell as at

Graham

v.

the time,
Chrystal,

Hosley, 54 Vt. 25.]

' 2 Ph. Ev.


[An impeaching witness may be
503-4 T. E. ss. 1324-5.
ross-examined as to his means of knowledge, the grounds of his unfavor;

A DIGEST OF

234

[Part

III.

such evidence may be given by the party by whom any


is called,' but when such evidence is given by the adverse party, the party who called the witness may give evidence
in reply to show that the witness is worthy of credit.

No

witness

Mather, 4 Wend. 229, 258


Gtilerette v. McBarber, 4 Cush. 107), or his own general
reputation may be attacked {Phillips v. Thorn, 84 Ind. 84 Starks v.
People, 5 Den. 106), or his contradictory statements proved {State v.
Lawlor, 28 Minn. 216). So a sustaining witness may be cross-examined.
Stape V. People, 85 N. Y. 390.]
able opinion, etc. (People

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]

[There are several modes of sustaining an impeached


is impeached, other witnesses may
be called from his community to show that such reputation is good, and
They are e.xam(in most States) that they would believe him on oath.
ined in much the same way as impeaching witnesses. Hamilton v. People,
^

2 Ph. Ev. 504.

witness

(i)

general reputation

If his

29 Mich. 173, 184 Sloan v. Edivards, 61 Md. 89 State v. Nelson, 58 la.


2o8 Comm. v. Ingraham, 7 Gray, 146 Morss v. Palmer, 15 Pa, St. 51
;

N. Y. 390 see Adams v. GreemvicA Ins. Co. 70 N. Y.


166.
The court may, in its discretion, limit the number of impeaching
and of sustaining witnesses. Bunnell v. Butler, z^d. 65 Bissell v. CorStape

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

ments (see Art.

is

131),

Chap. XVI.

LAW

THE

OF EVIDENCE,

Article

235

134.

offences against women.

When a man is prosecuted for


may be shown that the woman

rape or an attempt to ravish,

against whom the offence was


committed was of a generally immoral character, although she
is not cross-examined on the subject'
The woman may in
such a case be asked whether she has had connection with other
men, but her answer cannot be contradicted.' She may also
be asked whether she has had connection on other occasions
with the prisoner, and if she denies it she (probably) may be
it

contradicted.'

106

but see Davis

v. State,

received, in whatever

George
(3)

v.

It

way a

38 Md. 15) but in Virginia it seems to be


witness may be impeached or contradicted.
;

Pitcher, 28 Gratt. 299.

is

not in general permissible to support a witness by evidence

that he has

made former

Gr. Ev.

statements similar to his testimony.

i.

$469; Powers V. Cary, 64 Me. 10; Reed v. Spaulding, 42 N. H. 114;


Conrad \. Griffey, 11 How. (U. S. ) 480; Robb v. Hackley, 23 Wend. 50;
and cases infra. But when his testimony is charged to have been given
under the influence of some improper or interested motive, or to be a
recent fabrication, and in other like cases, it may be shown that he made
similar statements before the motive existed, or before there could have

been any inducement


V.

Blair, 68

111.

10 Gray, 485
see State
;

Herrick

to fabricate.

v.

Smith, 13 Hun, 446

Stolp

541 Hester v. Comm., 85 Pa. St. 139 Comm. v. fenkin^,


People v. Doyell, 48 Cal. 85 State v. Hendricks, 32 Kan.
;

Dennin, 32 Vt. 158. In some States such evidence seems


to be received whenever it is attempted to discredit a witness by proof
of his inconsistent statements. Dodd v. Moore, 92 Ind. 397 State v.
S59

v.

Grant, 79 Mo. 113 see Carter


' R. v. Clarke, 2 Star.
241.
;

v.

Carter, 79 Ind. 466.]

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

whether particular acts of connection with other


many States the right to prove such acts is denied, either by her own examination or by the evidence of witnesses
{Comm. V. Harris, 131 Mass. 336; State v. Forshncr, supra; Mc Combs v.
State, 8 O. St. 643
Richie v. State, 58 Ind. 355 State v. White, 35 Mo.
500 State v. Turner, I Houst. C. C. 76), but in some States such proof
is competent {State v. Heed, 39 Vt. 417, permitting it by cross-examination Benstine v. State, 2 Lea, 169, holding both modes of proof allowable, and so People v. Benson, 6 Cal. 221
cf. Strang v. People, 24

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.

the decisions are conilicting

Watry v. Ferber, 18 Wis. 501.


woman's bad character for

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

In actions for seduction, the

shown

(see Art. 57, note, ante), but she cannot

by the testimony

of the

yones, 62 Barb. 484

men

White

v.

themselves.

Murtland, 71

Gr. Ev.
111.

ii.

577

Ford

v.

250.

Upon an indictment for adulteiy^ the woman's bad


may be proved. Comm. v. Gray, 129 Mass. 474.

character for chas-

In bastardy proceedings, as the fact of paternity

is

tity

woman may be cross-examined

the period of gestation, but not as to

79

111.

409

Smith

v,

in

question, the

as to intercourse with other

Varyan, supra.]

any prior time.

men

Holcomb

v.

within

People^

LAW OR EVIDENCE.

THE

Chap. XVI.]

237

and had denied upon cross-examination the truth of the matter


suggested.'

Article

136.

refreshing. memory.

memory

witness may, while under examination, refresh his

any writing made by himself at the time of the


transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the judge considers it likely that the transaction was
at that time fresh in his memory.
The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any
other person, and read by the witness within the time aforesaid,
if when he read it he knew it to be correct.'
by referring

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

Laurence, 21 Cal. 368

cf.

Cotnm.

v.

Trice's

v,

Wylie,

Cooper, 5 Allen, 495.

V.

As to depositions, see Art. 131, ante, Illustration (a) Keran


Excrs, 75 Va. 690 Dabney v. Mitchell, 66 Ala. 495
IVallack
28 Kan. 138
Webster v. Mann, 56 Tex. 119.]
;

22 Ph. Ev.

480, etc.; T.

three cases of refreshing

E.

ss.

memory

[There are

1264-70; R. N. P. 194-5.
:

(i)

Where

the witness,

by referring

is enabled to actually recollect the facts and can testify in


from memory. The writing may be the original one made by
himself, while the facts were fresh in mind {Chamberliti v. Ossipee, 60 N.
H. 2'i2 Morrison v. Chap in, 97 Mass. 72 Selover v. Rexford' s Excr, 52
Pa. St. 308
Welcome v. Batchelder, 23 Me. 85 Russell v. Hudson River

to the writing,
reality

N. Y. 134 Mason v. Phelps, 48 Mich. 126 People v. Cotta, 49


Cal. 166), or a copy thereof (Hudnutt v. Comstock,, 50 Mich. 596
Chicago,
etc. R. Co. V. Adler, 56 111. 344
Huffw. Bennett, 6 N. Y. 339 Lawson v.
Glass, 6 Col. 134
so as to copy of copy, Folsom v. Apple River Co., 41
Wis. 602 or a copy in a newspaper, Comm. v. Ford, 130 Mass. 64 ClifR.

Co., 17

A DIGEST OF

238

An

may

expert

refresh his

[Part

memory by

III.

reference to profes-

sional treatises.'

Article

137.

right of adverse party as to writing used to refresh

MEMORY.

Any

writing referred to under article 136

ford V. Drake, 14 Bradw.

75),

or a writing

must be produced

made by another person.

Slate

Miller, 53 la. 209 Hill v. State, 17 Wis. 675


Cameron v. Blacktnan,
39 Mich. 108 Marcly v. Shidts, 29 N. Y. 346 Paige v. Carter, 64 Cal.
It is not the writing, but the recollection of the witness, that is the
489.
V.

evidence in the case. Comm.


N. Y. 145 and cases supra.

v. yeffs,

132 Mass. 5

Bigelow

v.

Hall, 91

Where

(2)

the witness, after referring to the writing, does not recol-

and yet remembers

lect the facts,

that

he made or saw the writing when

the facts were fresh in his mind, and 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

Art. 137, note.

An

analogous case

memory,
is

v.

Davis

then stated the facts correctly.

Downer
536
282; see Costello
la.

it

may have been made by himself {Dugan v.


Howard v. McDotumgh, jj N. Y. 592 Adae

is

where the

as items, dates, names,

allowed to use a

knows and

memorandum

testifies to

facts are

numerous

such as naturally escape the


details, etc..

and a witness

thereof as an aid in testifying, which he

have been correctly made.

Howard\. McDonough,

77 N. Y. 592; King V. Fabcr, 51 Pa. St. 387; Pinney v. Andrus, 41 Vt.


Lawson v. Glass, 6 Col. 134.
631
(3) Where the witness, after referring to the writing, neither recollects
;

remembers having seen it before, and yet from seeing his


handwriting therein (as in signature, contents, or both), is enabled to
Gr. Ev. i. $ 437 Martin v.
testify to its genuineness and correctness.
the facts, nor

Md. 398

Rogers, 8 Gray, 45