UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES SCHOOL OF LAW LIBRARY ^ v-/Cz^sn-«.^t>< %:iiw SELECT CASES ON THE LAW OF EVIDENCE ^ Si- 9. -«--'//. ' »-'«<. y .— t ' SELECT CASES ON THE LAW OF EVIDENCE COMPILED AND EDITED BY JOHN HENRY WIGMORE PROFESSOR OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE IN NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL SECOND EDITION b;osto>j little, brown, and company 1913 Copyright, 1906, WIS, By John H. Wigmoee. All rights reserved ^ PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION In this second edition a number of radical changes have been made. (1) The preliminary statements of fact, as found in the original reports, have been included. (2) The arguments of counsel, whenever published in the original reports, have been included, in salient extracts. (3) Some history of each principal rule, as well as some modern critical comment on it, has been given a place, by short extracts printed in smaller type. (4) The total number of cases and extracts has been increased by more than one fifth ; the total number of pages has been increased by more than one half. (5) Perhaps one half of the former cases have been replaced by different cases. (6) The distribution of the cases, in time and locality, has been changed. About one fourth are English, and three fourths are American. Of the American cases, two fifths are dated since 1895, one quarter since 1904, and one tenth since 1908. The attempt has been to represent all the masters of judicial opinion-writing, of whom so many have in recent years arisen to give distinction to our Supreme Courts. (7) Statutes are represented in thirty-eight passages. Illustra- tive dialogues from trials are represented in fifty-eight passages. (8) In the Appendices are placed two sets of practical exer- cises. Experience has shown that, after a scientific study of the individual rules, the student still needs (and can profitably seek in a law-school course) two sorts of practical exercise. (1) He needs to study and discuss problems which range indefinitely over the whole mass of the rules and conceal within themselves multiple possibil- ities. Thus only can he meet the rules under the guise in which they really present themselves at a trial. (2) He needs to do some- thing himself, by way of making or opposing an offer of evidence, as VI PREFACE he would be doing it at an actual trial. Thus only can he test whether he has grasped the rule as something to be used, not merely to be learned. The use of this volume, as planned by the compiler for his own classes, is to furnish materials for the study and teaching of the Rules of Evidence strictly so called, i.e., the rules of law for Admissibility, as determined by the Court. This is the orthodox subject of the traditional law-school course in Evidence. But there is another and equally important part of the advocate's task of proving a case of facts, viz., the process of reasoning upon the evidence to persuade the jury, — the process of Proof. The weight of the evidence — each separate piece of it, groups of such pieces, and the whole mass — - must be analyzed and reasoned upon, so as to make the jury believe or disbelieve the facts alleged and disputed. This is something quite different from the artificial rules of Admissibility, as applied by the Judge. It is, in truth, the culminating process of the whole trial. It involves the main art of reasoning to the truth about human affairs in litigation. Yet it has never been systematically studied in law schools. It ought to be. There is plenty of science in it; and there are abun- dant materials for study. It involves logic, psychology, and the general science of human nature. To ignore this great part of the advocate's work is unnatural. Should we not do something to cultivate this part of the field? A collection of materials, texts, illustrations, and problems, has been made for this purpose in a separate volume, entitled "The Principles of Judicial Proof, as contained in Logic, Psychology, and General Experience, and illustrated in Judicial Trials." That volume, it is believed, can best be used first, before the present one, — in either a separate or an introductory course. Its materials are the natural ones for a student to begin on. They rep- resent what the layman always conceives as the chief thing in a trial, viz., the reasoning to the jury on the persuasive effect of the admitted evidence. They serve to train the student to analyze and correct his loose lay notions of proof, to dissect the logic of circum- stances, to estimate the credit of witnesses, and to weigh the total effect of a mass of mixed evidence. Moreover, by first working upon that volume, and thus becoming acquainted with the various sorts of evidence, he gains this additional advantage, viz., that when he then proceeds to study the artificial rules of Admissibility, the materials to which those rules apply are already familiar to him. PREFACE VU He is thus spared that oppressive sense of strangeness and futihty which usually attends him in his first (and even later) wrestlings with those rules; and he can make rapid progress with them. Thus, as a help to the more efficient study of the rules of Admissibility, the prior study of the Principles of Judicial Proof is much to be desired. That volume, and the present one, are constructed independ- ently, and either can be used without the other. But the Compiler is convinced that a future generation will see the present rules of Admissibility much simplified and their importance reduced; while the field for the systematic study of the principles of Proof will be recognized and its field enlarged, — as it ought to be. In that view, he has tried to help forward the arrival of the coming science. J. H. W. Northwestern University Law School, Chicago, March 4, 1913. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION PAGE 1. History 1 2. Definitions 8 BOOK I RULES OF ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE PART I. RULES OF AUXILIARY PROBATIVE POLICY TITLE I. ELIMINATIVE RULES SUB-TITLE I. RULES EXCLUDING AUTOPTIC PROFERENCE (REAL EVIDENCE) 3. James Ings' Trial (England, 1820) 14 4. David Paul Brown, "The Forum" 15 5. State V. Moore (Kansas, 1909) 16 6. L. C.J. Mansfield, "Rules for Views" 18 7. Springer v. Chicago (Illinois, 1891) 19 SUB-TITLE IL RULES EXCLUDING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Topic I. Moral Character as Evidence Sub-topic A. Accused's Character as Evidence of an Act 9. Thomas Brewster's Trial (England, 1663) 23 10. William Turner's Trial (England, 1817) 23 11. Cancemi v. People (New York, 1858) 24 12. State V. Surry (Washington, 1900) 26 13. Regina v. Rowton (England, 1865) . . . • 27 14. State V. Lapage (New Hampshire, 1876) 29 15. William Trickett, "Character-Evidence in Criminal Cases" ... 30 Sub-topic B. Character as Evidence of an Act in Other Cases 16. Ruan v. Perry (New York, 1805) 31 17. Gough V. St. John (New York, 1837) 33 18. Wright V. McKee (Vermont, 1864) 33 19. Tenney v. Tuttle (Massachusetts, 1861) 34 20. Fonda v. St. Paul C. R. Co. (Minnesota, 1898) 35 21. Hein ». Holdridge (Minnesota, 1900) 37 22. McClure v. State Banking Co. (Georgia, 1909) 40 23. The Queen v. Ryan (England, 1846) 41 24. Franklin v. State (Alabama, 1856) 42 25. Williams v. Fambro (Georgia, 1860) 44 26. State v. Kennade (Missouri, 1894) 46 27. People v. Lamar (California, 1906) 47 X CONTENTS PAGE Sub-topic C. Character as an Issue in Civil Cases 28. Buford v. M'Luny (South Carolina, 1818) 48 29. William Trickett, "Character-Evidence in Civil Cases" .... 50 30. Cleghorn v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co. (New York, 1874) .... 51 Topic 2. Conduct as Evidence of a Human Quality or Condition Sub-topic A. Conduct as Evidence of Accused's Moral Character 31. Robert Hawkins' Trial (England, 1669) 52 32. John Campbell, "Lives of the Chief Justices of England" .... 53 33. Alexander Davison's Trial (England, 1808) 54 34. People v. White (New York, 1835) 54 35. People v. Stout (New York, 1858) 56 36. State v. Lapage (New Hampshire, 1876) 56 37. People v. Shay (New York, 1895) 57 38. William Trickett, "Character-Evidence in Criminal Cases" ... 58 39. The Baroness de Valley's Assassination (France, 1896) 58 40. The Lebaudy Case (France, 1896) 60 41. Hall V. Commonwealth (Kentucky, 1899) 62 Sub-topic B. Conduct as E\aDENCE of Accused's Intent, Knowledge, Motive 42. Hathaway's Trial (England, 1702) 64 43. Vaughan's Trial (England, 1696) 65 44. Regina v. Dossett (England, 1846) 65 45. Bottomley v. United States (Federal Supreme Court, 1840) .... 66 46. State v. Lapage (New Hampshire, 1876) 69 47. Commonwealth v. Robinson (Massachusetts, 1888) 74 48. People v. Marrin (New York, 1912) 79 Sub-topic C. Conduct as Evidence of Character in Other Cases 49. Morris v. East Haven (Connecticut, 1874) 85 50. Fonda v. St. Paul C. R. Co. (Minnesota, 1898) 87 51. McQuiggan v. Ladd (Vermoilt, 1906) 87 52. State v. Greene (North Carolina, 1910) 90 53. Noyes v. Boston & M. R. Co. (Massachusetts, 1912) 92 54. Clarke v. Periam (England, 1741) 96 55. Miller v. Curtis (Massachusetts, 1893) 98 56. Cunningham v. Austin & N. W. R. Co. (Texas, 1895) 100 57. Fonda v. St. Paul, C. R. Co. (Minnesota, 1898) 103 58. Pittsburgh R. Co. v. Thomas (U. S. 1909) 104 Sub-topic D. Conduct as Evidence of Knowledge, Intent, Plan, Habit, etc., in Civil Cases 59. Delphi v. Lowery (Indiana, 1881) 106 60. Morrow v. St. Paul City R. Co. (Minnesota, 1898) 108 61. Spenceley ». DeWillott (England, 1806) Ill 62. Howe V. Thayer (Massachusetts, 1835) 112 63. Aiken I'. Kennison (Vermont, 1886) 114 64. Bock V. Wall (Massachusetts, 1911) 116 CONTENTS XI Topic 3. Specific Events or Acts as Evidence of a Condition or Cause, etc., in External Inanimate Nature PAGE 65. Collins v. Dorchester (Massachusetts, 1850) 117 66. Darling v. Westmoreland (New Hampshu-e, 1872) 118 67. Morse v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. (Minnesota, 1883) .... 121 68. Matter of Thompson (New York, 1891) 123 69. Bemis v. Temple (Massachusetts, 1894) 126 70. Central Vermont R. Co. v. Soper (Federal, 1894) 129 71. Fishman v. Consumers' Brewing Co. (New Jersey, 1909) .... 131 72. Alcott V. Public Service Corp. (New Jersey, 1909) 133 SUB-TITLE III. RULES EXCLUDING TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Topic I. Rules Defining Qualifications of Witnesses 75. Simon Greenleaf, "Evidence" 137 76. Sir Edward Coke, "Commentary upon Littleton" 137 77. Statutes 137 Sub-topic A. Mental and Moral Incapacity 78. Simon Greenleaf, "Evidence" 142 79. Regina v. Hill (England, 1851) 142 80. Worthington v. Mercer (Alabama, 1892) 144 81. Statutes 144 82. Rex V. Brasier (England, 1779) 144 83. Hughes v. Detroit G. H. & M. R. Co. (Michigan, 1887) .... 145 84. Wlieeler v. United States (Federal, 1895) 145 85. Brown v. Crashaw (England, 1614) 145 86. Chief Baron Gilbert, "Evidence" 146 87. Simon Greenleaf, "Evidence" 146 88. Sims V. Sims (New York, 1878) 147 89. Statutes 149 90. Vance v. State (Arkansas, 1902) 149 Sub-topic B. Emotional Incapacity (1) Interest in Litigation 91. Sir Edward Coke, "Commentary upon Littleton" 15Q 92. Simon Greenleaf, "Evidence" 150 93. Statutes 151 94. Louis' Adm'r v. Easton (Alabama, 1874) 151 95. St. John V. Lofland (North Dakota, 1895) 154 96. Ross V. Demoss (Illinois, 1867) 157 97. Anon., "The Attorney as a Witness" 158 (2) Marital Relationship 98. Sir Edward Coke, "Commentary upon Littleton" 159 99. Chief Baron Gilbert, " Evidence " 159 100. Cornell v. Vanartsdalen (Pennsylvania, 1846) 159 101. William & Mary College v. Powell (Virginia, 1855) 161 102. Common Law Practice Commissioners' Report of 1853 .... 164 103. Statutes 165 Xll CONTENTS PAGE Sub-topic C. Experiential Incapacity 104. Vander Donckt v. Thellusson (England, 1849) 166 105. Jones v. Tucker (New Hampshire, 1860) 168 106. Evans v. People (Michigan, 1858) 170 107. Siebert v. People (Illinois, 1892) .' . 173 Sub-topic D. Perception (Observation, Knowledge) (1) In General 108. John Ayliffe, "Parergon" 174 109. Bushell's Case (England, 1670) 175 110. Thomas Star kie, "Evidence" 175 111. Evans V. People (Michigan, 1863) 175 112. Walter Buslmell's Trial (England, 1656) 175 113. R, r. Dewhiirst (England, 1820) 176 114. Parnell Commission's Proceedings (England, 1888) 176 115. State V. Flanders (New Hampshire, 1859) 177 116. Perry v. Burton (Illinois, 1884) 179 117. Killen v. Lide's Adm'r. (Alabama, 1880) 180 118. Pittsburgh, V. &C.R. Co. V. Vance (Pennsylvania, 1886). ... 182 119. State V. Lytle (North Carolina, 1895) 184 120. Grayson v. Lynch (Federal, 1895) 185 (2) Handwriting 121. Lord Ferrers v. Shirley (England, 1731) 186 122. Eagleton v. Kingston (England, 1803) 187 123. Rowt's Adm'x v. Kile's Adm'r (Virginia, 1829) 188 124. State v. Allen (North Carolina, 1820) 188 125. State v. Goldstein (New Jersey, 1905) 189 Sub-topic E. Memory (Recollection) 126. Scroop's Trial (England, 1660) 190 127. Knox's & Lane's Trial (England, 1679) 190 128. Sir J. Freind's Trial (England, 1696) 191 129. Duchess of Kingston's Trial (England, 1776) 191 130. Anon. (England, 1754) 191 131. Davis V. Field (Vermont, 1884) 191 (1) Present Recollection Revived 132. Henry v. Lee (England, 1810) 192 133. Lawes v. Reed (England, 1835) 192 134. Huff V. Bennett (New York, 1852) 193 (2) Past Recollection Recorded 135. Talbot v. Cusack (Ireland, 1864) 194 136. Doe dem. Church & Phillips v. Perkins (England, 1790) .... 194 137. Burrough v. Martin (England, 1809) 196 138. Burton v. Plummer (England, 1834) 196 139. Acklen's Ex'r v. Hickman (Alabama, 1879) 198 CONTENTS Xlll PAGE 140. Norwalk v. Ireland (Connecticut, 1896) 200 141. Volusia County Bank v. Bigelow (Florida, 1903) 203 142. Murray & Peppers v. Dickens (Alabama, 1906) 204 143. Curtis v. Bradley (Connecticut, 1894) 207 Sub-topic F. Narration (1) Form of Narration 145. James Ram, "Facts" 211 146. Nicholls v. Dowding (England, 1815) 212 147. Blevins v. Pope (Alabama, 1845) 212 148. Heisler v. State (Georgia, 1856) 213 149. Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Sheppard (Georgia, 1890) 215 150. Lott». King (Texas, 1891) 216 151. Thomas Hardy's Trial (England, 1794) ......... 220 152. Statutes 221 153. Allen z). Rand (Connecticut, 1824) 222 154. People v. Moore (New York, 1836) 224 155. Cowley v. People (New York, 1881) 226 156. De Forge v. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. Co. (Massachusetts, 1901) ... 228 (2) Opinion 160. History 231 (a) The Opinion Rule, in General 161. New England Glass Co. ». Lovell (Massachusetts, 1851) .... 232 162. Commonwealth v. Sturtivant (Massachusetts, 1875) 234 163. Hardy v. Merrill (New Hampshire, 1875) 239 164. Fiske v. Gowing (New Hampshire, 1881) 246 165. Marcott v. Marquette, H. & O. R. Co. (Michigan, 1882) .... 247 166. Graham v. Pennsylvania Co. (Pennsylvania, 1890) 249 167. Schaefer & Co. y. Ely (Connecticut, 1911) 252 168. John H. Wigmore, "A Treatise on Evidence" 254 (b) Opinion to Character 170. Layer's Trial (England, 1722) 255 171. Macclesfield's Trial (England, 1725) 255 172. Alexander Davison's Trial (England, 1808) 255 173. Regina v. Rowton (England, 1865) 256 174. John H. Wigmore, "Note on R. v. Rowton" 259 175. Sir J. F. Stephen, "Note on R. 2). Rowton" 260 176. Hamilton v. People (Michigan, 1874) 260 177. Wm. Trickett, "Character-Evidence in Criminal Cases" .... 263 (c) Opinion to Handwriting 179. Algernon Sidney's Trial (England, 1683) 264 180. Hales' and Kinnersley's Trial (England, 1729) 264 181. History 265 182. Doe dem. Perry v. Newton (England, 1836) 267 XIV CONTENTS PAGE 183. Doe dem. Mudd v. Suckermore (England, 1836) 269 184. Morrison v. Porter (Minnesota, 1886) 275 185. University of Illinois v. Spalding (New Hampshire, 1900) .... 277 186. Statutes 281 187. Hoag V. Wright (New York, 1903) 282 (d) Hypothetical Questions 189. Lord Melville's Trial (England, 1806) 282 190. M'Naghten's Case (England, 1843) 284 191. Dickenson v. Fitchburg (Massachusetts, 1859) 284 192. Bellefontaine & Ind. R. Co. v. Bailey (Ohio, 1860) 285 193. People v. McElvaine (New York, 1890) 286 194. People V. Faber (New York, 1910) 289 Topic 2. Rules Limiting Impeachment of Witnesses Sub-topic A. General Character Traits 196. Lord Chancellor Macclesfield's Trial (England, 1725) 292 197. Rex V. Watson (England, 1817) 292 198. State v. Randolph (Connecticut, 1856) 293 199. Calhoon v. Com. (Kentucky, 1901) 294 200. State v. Beckner (Missouri, 1905) 295 201. Alleman v. Stepp (Iowa, 1879) 299 Sub-topic B. Specific Co>rDUCT 202. Rookwood's Trial (England, 1696) 301 203. Layer's Trial (England, 1722) 301 204. Watson's Trial (England, 1817) 302 205. People r. Jackson (New York, 1857) 303 206. Lord Castlemaine's Trial (England, 1680) 305 207. Statutes 306 208. Koch V. State (Wisconsin, 1906) 306 209. Oxier v. United States (Indian Territory, 1896) 309 210. R. V. Castro, alias Tichborne (England, 1873) 309 211. Buel V. State (Wisconsin, 1899) 310 212. People v. Crandall (California, 1899) 312 213. States. Greenburg (Kansas, 1898) 315 214. Sir J. F. Stephen, "History of the Criminal Law," " Digest of the Law of Evidence" 317 Sub-topic C. Contradiction and Self-Contradiction 216. Whitebread's Trial (England, 1679) 318 217. Earl of Castlemaine's Trial (England, 1680) 319 218. Attorney-General v. Hitchcock (England, 1847) 319 219. Chicago City R. Co. v. Allen (Illinois, 1897) 323 220. Hoag V. Wright (New York, 1903) 325 221. Lambert v. Hamlin (New Hampshu-e, 1905) 328 CONTENTS XV PAGE 222. Simms v. Forbes (Mississippi, 1905) 330 223. The Queen's Case (England, 1820) 331 224. Downer v. Dana (Vermont, 1847) 332 225. Unis v. Charlton's Admr. (Virginia, 1855) 335 226. Adams v. Herald Pub. Co. (Connecticut, 1909) 336 Sub-topic D. Who may be Impeached 228. History 338 229. Stephen Colledge's Trial (England, 1681) 338 230. Duller, J., "Trials at Nisi Prius" 339 231. Ewer v. Ambrose (England, 1825) 339 232. Selover v. Bryant (Minnesota, 1893) . . . .' 341 233. Statutes 345 234. State v. Slack (Vermont, 1897) 345 235. Sturgis v. State (Oklahoma, 1909) .347 236. Johnston v. Marriage (Kansas, 1906) 352 237. Koester v. Rochester Candy Works (New York, 1909) .... 353 238. John H. Wigmore, "A Treatise on Evidence" 355 Topic 3. Rules Limiting Corroboration of Witnesses 240. Bate v. Hill (England, 1823) 356 241. Tedens v. Schumers (Illinois, 1884) 357 242. Gertz v. Fitchburg R. Co. (Massachusetts, 1884) 359 243. Knox's and Lane's Trial (England, 1679) 360 244. Chief Baron Gilbert, "Evidence" 361 245. Stolp V. Blah- (Illinois, 1873) 361 246. State v. Parish (North Carolina, 1878) 363 247. Hewitt v. Corey (Massachusetts, 1890) 365 Topic 4. Rules Excluding Party's Admissions and Confessions Sub-topic A. In General 250. Theory 367 251. State v. Wilhs (Connecticut, 1898) 367 252. Heane v. Rogers (England, 1829) 367 253. Corser v. Paul (New Hampshire, 1860) 370 254. Kitchen v. Robbins (Georgia, 1860) 370 Sub-topic B. Third Person's Admissions 255. The King v. Inhabitants of Hardwick (England, 1809) 372 256. Gibblehouse v. Stpng (Pennsylvania, 1832) 375 257. Franklin Bank v. Penn. D. & M. Steam Nav. Co. (Maryland, 1839) . 380 258. Ashmore v. Pennsylvania S. T. & T. Co. (New Jersey, 1875) ... 382 259. Rudd v. Robinson (New York, 1891) 384 260. Starr Burying Ground i\ North Lane Cemetery Ass'n (Connecticut, 1904) 384 261. State v. Walker (Iowa, 1904) 387 262. Piedmont Savings Bank v. Levy (North Carolina, 1905) .... 391 XVI CONTENTS Sub-topic C. Implied Admissions (a) Sundry Conduct page 265. Foxley's Case (England, 1607) 391 266. Armory i-. Delamirie (England, 1722) 391 267. Craig dem. Annesley v. Anglesea (England, 1743) 391 268. Roe dem. Haldane & Urry v. Harvey (England, 1769) 394 269. Morse v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. (Minnesota, 1883) .... 397 270. Brock i\ State (Alabama, 1898) 398 271. Stevens ». Boston Elevated Ry. Co. (Massachusetts, 1904) . ... 402 272. Rhea v. Territory (Oklahoma, 1909) 405 (jb) Assent by Silence 274. Home Tooke's Trial (England, 1794) 405 275. Fairlie v. Denton (England, 1828) 405 276. Mattocks v. Lyman (Vermont, 1844) 406 277. Commonwealth v. Kenney (Massachusetts, 1847) 408 278. Parulo v. Phila. & Reading R. Co. (Federal, 1906) 410 279. Wiedemann v. Walpole (England, 1891) * .... 413 280. Rudd V. Robinson (New York, 1891) 416 281. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. v. Deepwater R. Co. (West Virginia, 1905) . 419 Sub-topic D. Admissions in Litigation 282. Hartford Bridge Co. v. Granger (Connecticut, 1822) 419 283. Truby v. Seybert (Pennsylvania, 1849) 421 284. Dennie v. Williams (Massachusetts, 1883) 424 285. Boots V. Canine (Indiana, 1883) 426 286. Person v. Bowe (Minnesota, 1900) 430 Sub-topic E. Confessions 288. History 431 289. Warickshall's Case (England, 1783) 434 290. Bram v. United States (Federal Supreme Court, 1897) 436 291. Commonwealth v. Cressinger (Pennsylvania, 1899) 443 292. Commonwealth v. Storti (Massachusetts, 1901) 446 293. Ammons v. State (Mississippi, 1902) 447 294. State v. Finch (Kansas, 1905) 449 295. State v. Campbell (Kansas, 1906) 451 TITLE II. PREFEREXTIAZ, RULES 296. Introductory 453 297. James Bradley Thayer, "A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence" . 453 SUB-TITLE I. RULE OF PREFERENCE FOR DOCUMENTARY ORIGINALS 298. History 455 299. Francis Francia's Trial (England, 1717) 456 300. John Tutchin's Trial (England, 1704) 456 CONTENTS XVU PAGE Topic I. The Rule Itself 302. Dr. Leyfield's Case (England, 1011) 457 303. Read v. Brookman (England, 1789) 458 304. The Queen v. Kenilworth (England, 1S45) 458 305. Bagley v. McMickle (California, 1858) 460 306. Prussing v. Jackson (Illinois, 1904) 464 307. Attorney-General v. Le Merchant (England, 1772) 467 308. Lawrence v. Clark (England, 1845) 468 309. Dwyer v. Collins (England, 1852) 468 310. United States v. Doebler (Federal, 1832) 471 311. Eure r. Pittman (North Carolina, 1824) 472 312. Bowden v. Achor (Georgia, 1S94) 475 313. Shea t'. Sewerage & W. Board (Louisiana, 1909) 476 314. Chief Baron Gilbert, "Evidence" 478 315. Rex V. Gordon (England, 1781) 478 316. Hennell v. Lyon (England, 1817) 479 317. Clement v. Graham (Vermont, 1905) 480 318. Lynch v. Gierke (England, 1696) 483 319. Peay v. Picket (South Carolina, 1825) 483 320. Commonwealth v. Emery (Massachusetts, 1854) 486 321. Statutes 487 322. Scott V. Bassett (Illinois, 1898) 487 323. Carpenter v. Dressier (Arkansas, 1905) 490 Topic 2. Limits to the Application of the Rule 325. Philipson v. Chase (England, 1809) 492 326. Rex V. Watson (England, 1817) 493 327. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n. v. Hutmacher (Illinois, 1889) . . . 494 328. Peaks v. Cobb (Massachusetts, 1906) 496 329. International Harvester Co. v. Elfstrom (Minnesota, 1907) . . . 497 330. Cole V. Gibson (England, 1750) 499 331. Lamb v. Moberly (Kentucky, 1826) 500 332. Tilton v. Beecher (New York, 1875) 500 333. Massey v. Bank (Illinois, 1885) 501 334. Minnesota Debenture Co. v. Johnson (Minnesota, 1906) .... 503 335. Slatterie v. Pooley (England, 1840) 505 336. Lawless v. Queale (Ireland, 1845) 506 337. Minnesota Debenture Co. v. Johnson (Minnesota, 1906) .... 507 338. The Queen's Case (England, 1820) 507 339. Henry Brougham, "Speech on the Courts of Common Law" . . . 508 340. Statutes 508 341. The Charles Morgan (Federal Supreme Court, 1884) 509 Topic 3. Rules Preferring One Sort of Secondary Evidence to Another , 343. Doe dem. Gilbert v. Ross (England, 1840) 511 344. Harvey v. Thorpe (Alabama, 1856) 512 345. State v. Lynde (Maine, 1885) 513 346. State v. Knowles (Maine, 1904) 514 347. Statutes 516 XVlll CONTENTS PAGE 348. Chief Baron Gilbert, "Evidence" 516 349. Cameron v. Peck (Connecticut, 1871) 516 SUB-TITLE II. RULES OF PREFERENCE AS BETWEEN DIFFERENT KINDS OF WITNESSES Topic I. Rule Preferring the Attesting Witness 351. History 519 352. Statutes 521 353. Bootle v. Blundell (England, 1815) 521 354. Holmes v. Holloman (Missouri, 1849) 524 355. McVicker v. Conkle (Georgia, 1895) 526 356. Gillis v. Gillis (Georgia, 1895) 529 357. More v. More (Illinois, 1904) 531 358. Statutes 534 Topic 2. Rules of Preference for Sundry Kinds of Witnesses 359. United States v. Gibert (Federal, 1834) 534 360. Regina v. Christopher (England, 18.50) 536 361. Brice ». Miller (South Carolina, 1891) 539 TITLE HI. ANALYTIC RULES (HEARS AT RULE) SUB-TITLE I. THE HEARSAY RULE ITSELF Topic I. Theory and History of the Hearsay Rule 364. Introductory 542 365. History 547 Topic 2. Modes of Satisfying the Rule of Cross-Ezamination 368. Cazenove v. Vaughan (England, 1813) 550 369. Statutes 552 370. Evans v. Rothschild (Kansas, 1895) 555 371. Walkerton v. Erdman (Canada, 1894) 557 372. Ansonia v. Cooper (Connecticut, 1895) 561 Topic 3. Modes of Satisfying the Rule of Confrontation 373. Introductory 562 374. Statutes 563 375. Greenlee v. INIosnat (Iowa, 1907) 564 376. Hughes v. Chicago, St. P. M. & Omaha R. Co. (Wisconsin, 1904) . 568 377. State v. HefFernan (South Dakota, 1909) . 571 SUB-TITLE II. EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEARSAY RULE 380. Introductory 578 Topic I. Dying Declarations 381. Wright dem. Clymer v. Littler (England, 1761) 579 382. Stobart v. Dryden (England, 1836) 581 CONTENTS XIX PAGE 8S3. J. G. Phillimore, "History and Principles of the Law of Evidence" . 583 384. Montgomery D. State (Indiana, 1S81) 584 Topic 2. Statements of Facts against Interest 385. Middleton v. Melton (England, 1829) 587 386. Smith v. Moore (North Carolina, 1906) 590 386a. Donnelly v. United States (Federal Supreme Court, 1913) ... 593 Topic 3. Statements about Family History 387. Vowles v. Young (England, 1806) 596 388. Johnson v. Lawson (England, 1824) 598 389. Hartman's Estate (CaUfornia, 1910) 600 Topic 4. Regtilar Entries 391. History 603 Sub-topic A. Party's Books of Account 392. Eastman v. Moulton (New Hampshh-e, 1825) 605 393. Statutes 607 394. Conklin v. Stamler (New York, 1857) 608 395. House v. Beak (Illinois, 1892) 610 396. Lewis v. England (Wyoming, 1905) 613 Sub-topic B. Third Person's Entries 397. Price v. Earl of Torrington (England, 1703) 616 398. Kennedy v. Doyle (Massachusetts, 1865) 616 399. Delaney v. Framingham Gas F. & P. Co. (Massachusetts, 1909) . . 618 400. Louisville & N. R. Co. r. Daniel (Kentucky, 1906) 620 401. Coolidge v. Taylor (Vermont, 1911) 624 Topic 5. Statements by Deceased Persons in General 402. Sugden v. St. Leonards (England, 1876) 626 403. Statutes 626 404. Nagle v. Boston & N. S. R. Co. (Massachusetts, 1905) 626 Topic 6. Reputation 407. Badger v. Badger (New York, 1882) 627 408. Bland v. Beasley (North Carolina, 1906) 630 409. Bucklint). State (Ohio, 1851) 633 410. Atlantic & Birmingham R. Co. v. Reynolds (Georgia, 1903) . . . 634 Topic 7. Official Statements 412. Introductory 636 413. Rex I). Aickles (England, 1785) 637 414. Gaines v. Relf (Federal, 1851) 637 Sub-topic A. Registers and Records 415. Merrick v. Wakley (England, 1838) 637 416. Kennedy v. Doyle (Massachusetts, 1865) 639 417. Delaney r. Framingham Gas F. & P. Co. (Massachusetts, 1909) . . 640 XX CONTENTS PAGE 418. History 640 419. Statutes 642 420. Eady v. Shivey (Georgia, 1870) 642 421. Wilcox I'. Bergman (Minnesota, 1905) 644 422. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Deepwater R. Co. (West Virginia, 1905) 647 Sub-topic B. Reports and Returns 423. EUicott V. Pearl (Federal Supreme Court, 1836) 648 424. U. S. Life Insurance Co. v. Vocke (IlHnois, 1889) 649 425. Jones r. Guano Co. (Georgia, 1894) 653 Sub-topic C. Certificates 427. Omichund v. Barker (England, 1744) 655 428. Townsley v. Sumrall (Federal Supreme Court, 1829) 655 429. Statutes 657 430. Kidd's Admr. v. Alexander's Admr. (Virginia, 1823) 657 431. Statutes 658 432. John H. Wigmore, "Treatise on Evidence" 658 433. Chief Baron Gilbert, "Evidence" 659 434. Justice Buller, "Trials at Nisi Prius" 660 435. Appleton v. Braybrook (England, 1816) 660 436. Chiu-ch V. Hubbart (Federal Suprejne Court, 1804) 660 437. United States v. Percheman (Federal Supreme Court, 1833) , . . 664 438. Ferguson v. Clifford (New Hampshire, 1858) 666 439. Statutes 666 440. Chief Baron Gilbert, "Evidence" 668 441. Statutes 668 442. Willock v. Wilson (Massachusetts, 1901) 669 Topic 8. Statements of a Mental or Physical Condition 445. Aveson v. Kinnaird (England, 1805) 669 446. Bacon t). Charlton (Massachusetts, 1851). 669 447. Roosa v. Loan Co. (Massachusetts, 1882) 670 448. Roche v. Railroad Co. (New York, 1887) 671 449. Williams v. Great Northern R. Co. (Minnesota, 1897) 674 450. Doe dem. Shallcross r. Palmer (England, 1851) 675 451. Commonwealth ('. Trefethen (Massachusetts, 1892) 676 452. Waterman v. Whitney (New York, 1854) 680 453. Sugden v. St. Leonards (England, 1876) 683 454. Mooney ». Olsen (Kansas, 1879) 687 455. Hobson v. Moorman (Tennessee, 1905) 690 Topic 9. Spontaneous Exclamations 457. Thompson v. Trevanion (England, 1693) 694 458. United States v. King (Federal, 1888) 694 459. Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Sheppard (Georgia, 1890) .... 694 460. Pittsburgh, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Haislup (Indiana, 1907) ... 696 SUB-TITLE III. HEARSAY RULE NOT APPLICABLE (RES GESTAE) 462. Introductory 697 463. James Bradley Thayer, "Preliminary Treatise on Evidence" . . . 697 CONTENTS XXI PAGE 464. Cherry v. Slade (North Carolina, 1823) 697 465. Fabrigas v. Mostyn (England, 1773) 698 466. Tilton i\ Beecher (New York, 1875) 698 467. Parnell Commission's Proceedings (England, 1888) 699 468. Webb c. Richardson (Vermont, 1869) 700 469. State r. Fox (New Jersey, 1856) 702 470. State Bank v. Hutchinson (Kansas, 1900) 703 471. Piedmont Savings Bank v. Levy (North CaroHna, 1905) .... 704 TITLE ir. PROPHYLACTIC RULES 472. Introductory 708 SUB-TITLE I. OATH 473. History 708 474. Joseph Chitty, "The Practice of the Law" . 709 475. Clinton v. State (Ohio, 1877) 709 476. Lady Lisle's Trial (England, 1685) 709 477. Omichund v. Barker (England, 1744) 711 478. Miller v. Salomons (England, 1852) 713 479. People v. INIatteson (New York, 1824) 713 480. Braddon's Trial (England, 1684) 713 481. Charles Dickens' "Bleak House" 714 482. Hughes v. D. G. H. & M. R. Co. (Michigan, 1887) 714 483. Statutes 718 484. Hronek v. People (Illinois, 1890) : ... 719 SUB-TITLE II. SEQUESTRATION OF WITNESSES 486. The History of Susanna 722 487. Kerne's Trial (England, 1679) 722 488. Golden v. State (Arkansas, 1858) 723 489. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. York (Alabama, 1902) .... 723 490. Statutes 723 491. Laughlin v. State (Ohio, 1849) 724 SUB-TITLE III. DISCOVERY BEFORE TRIAL 492. History 726 Topic I. Testimony Sub-topic A. Criminal Cases 493. Stephen Colledge's Trial (England, 1681) 727 494. Sir. James Stephen, "History of the Criminal Law" 730 495. Statutes 730 496. State v. Myers (Missoiu-i, 1906) 731 Sub-topic B. Civil Cases 497. Sir James Wigram, "Disco vel-y" 734 498. Common Law Practice Commissioners' Report (England, 1853) . . 734 499. Statutes 735 500. Ex parte Schoepf (Ohio, 1906) 736 500o. Meier v. Paulus (Wisconsin, 1887) 741 XXll CONTENTS PAGE Topic 2. Documents 501. Wm. Tidd, "Practice" 741 502. Bolton v. Liverpool (f:ngland, 1833) 741 503. Henry Brougham, "Speech on the Courts of Common Law" . . . 743 504. Common Law Practice Commissioners' Report (England, 1831) . . 744 505. Statutes 746 506. Swedish-American Telephone Co. v. Fidelity & C. Co. (Illinois, 1904) 746 507. Reynolds v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co. (New Hampshire, 1902) . . 748 TITLE r. SYNTHETIC RULES 509. Introductory 753 SUB-TITLE I. NUMBER OF WITNESSES REQUIRED 510. History 753 511. Indianapolis Street R. Co. ?;. Johnson (Indiana, 1904) 758 512. Summary 759 SUB-TITLE II. KINDS OF WITNESSES REQUIRED 513. Introductory 761 514. Rex V. Simmonds (England, 1823) 761 515. State v. Barrett (Oregon, 1898) 761 516. Sir Matthew Hale, "Pleas of the Crown" 763 517. Commonwealth v. Webster (Massachusetts, 1850) 763 518. Buel V. State (Wisconsin, 1899) 764 SUB-TITLE III. VERBAL COMPLETENESS 520. Algernon Sidney's Trial (England, 1683) 768 521. Thomas Starkie, "Evidence" 768 522. Tilton v. Beecher (New York, 1875) 768 523. Commonwealth v. Keyes (Massachusetts, 1858) 768 Topic I. Compulsory Completeness 525. Summons v. State (Ohio, 1856) 769 526. State v. Lu Sing (Montana, 1906) 772 527. Read v. Hide (England, 1613) 774 528. Vance v. Reardon (South Carolina, 1820) 774 529. Perry v. Burton (Illinois, 1884) 776 530. Tilton v. Beecher (New York, 1875) 777 531. Parnell Commission's Proceedings (England, 1888) 778 Topic 2. Optional Completeness 532. The Queen's Case (England, 1820) 779 533. Prince v. Samo (England, 1838) 779 534. People v. Schlessel (New York, 1909) 780 535. Dewey v. Hotclikiss (New York, 1864) 780 536. Atherton v. Defreeze (Michigan, 1902) 782 537. Lombard v. Chaplin (Maine, 1903) 783 SUB-TITLE IV. AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS 538. Home Tooke's Trial (England, 1794) 786 539. Wilson v. Betts (New York, 1847) 787 CONTENTS XXlll PAGE 540. Stamper v. Griffin (Georgia, 1856) o . . 787 541. Siegfried v. Levan (Pennsylvania, 1820) 787 542. John H. Wigmore, "A Treatise on Evidence" 787 Topic I. Authentication by Age 544. Middleton v. Mass (South CaroHna, 1819) 788 545. McGuire v. Blount (United States, 1905) 790 Topic 2. Authentication by Contents 546. International Harvester Co. v. Campbell (Texas, 1906) .... 791 547. Bariiam v. Bank of Delight (Arkansas, 1910) 793 548. Cobb V. Glenn B. & L. Co. (West Virginia, 1905) 793 549. Barrett v. Magner (Minnesota, 1908) 796 Topic 3. Authentication by Official Custody 550. Adamthwaite v. Synge (England, 1S16) 799 Topic 4. Authentication by Official Seal 552. J. C. JeaflFreson, "A Book about Lawyers" 799 553. Chief Baron Gilbert, "Evidence" 801 554. John H. Wigmore, "A Treatise on Evidence" 801 555. Church v. Hubbart (Federal Supreme Court, 1804) 802 556. Griswold v. Pitcairn (Connecticut, 1816) 802 557. Waldron v. Turpin (Louisiana, 1840) 804 558. Statutes 805 559. Commonwealth v. Phillips (Massachusetts, 1831) 806 560. Statutes 806 561. Garden City Sand Co. v. Miller (Illinois, 1895) 806 562. Willock v. Wilson (Massachusetts, 1901) 808 563. John H. Wigmore, "A Treatise on Evidence" 811 PART II. RULES OF EXTRINSIC POLICY 565. Introductory 813 TITLE I. RULES OF ABSOLUTE EXCLUSION 566. Stevison v. Earnest (IlHnois, 1875) 813 567. Williams v. State (Georgia, 1897) 813 TITLE II. RULES OF CONDITIONAL EXCLUSION (PRIVILEGE) 568. History . - 818 569. Introductory 822 SUB-TITLE I. VIATORIAL PRIVILEGE 570. Braddon's Trial (England, 1684) 823 571. West D. State (Wisconsin, 1853) 824 572. People v. Davis (New York, 1836) 826 573. Statutes ' 827 574. Dixon v. People (Illinois, 1897) 828 575. In re Shaw (Federal, 1909) 832 XXIV CONTENTS PAGE SUB-TITLE II. PRIVILEGED TOPICS 576. Doe v. Date (England, 1842) 835 577. Great Western Turnpike Co. v. Loomis (New York, 1865) .... 836 Topic I. F»rivilege for Party-Opponent in Civil Cases 578. History 837 579. Statutes 838 580. Reynolds v. Burgess Sulphite Fibre Co. (New Hampshire, 1902) . . 838 581. Wanek v. Winona (Minnesota, 1899) 838 Topic 2. Privilege for Anti-Marital Facts 583. Sir Edward Coke, "Commentary upon Littleton" 840 584. Lady Ivy's Trial (England, 1684) 840 585. Rex V. All Saints (England, 1817) 841 586. State v. Briggs (Rhode Island, 1869) 843 587. Caldwell v. Stuart (South Carolina, 1832) 844 588. State v. Woodrow (West Virginia, 1905) 844 589. Rhea v. Territory (Oklahoma, 1909) 848 590. Statutes 852 591. Common Law Practice Commissioners' Report (England, 1853) . 852 Topic 3. Privilege for Self-Criminating Facts 593. History 852 594. Statutes 857 595. Counselman v. Hitchcock (Federal Supreme Court, 1892) .... 857 Sub-topic A. Scope of the PRmLEGE 596. Paxton v. Douglas (England, 1809) 857 597. Aaron Burr's Trial (Federal, 1807) 858 598. Ward v. State (Missouri, 1829) 859 599. State v. Flynn (New Hampshire, 1858) 861 600. United States v. Cross (District of Columbia, 1892) 863 601. Downs V. Swann (Maryland, 1909) 864 602. Holt V. United States (Federal Supreme Court, 1910) 865 603. Ex parte Kneedler (Missouri, 1912) 865 604. Hale v. Henkel (Federal Supreme Coiu-t, 1906) 868 605. John H. Wigmore, "Note on Hale «. Henkel" 873 Sub-topic B. Claim of the Privilege 607. Bembridge's Trial (England, 1783) 875 608. Mayo v. Mayo (Massachusetts, 1876) ' . . , . 875 609. Cloyes v. Thayer (New York, 1842) 875 610. State v. Kent alias Pancoast (North Dakota, 1896) 876 611. Regina r. Garbett (England, 1847) 877 612. State v. Thaden (Minnesota, 1890) 879 613. People v. Tyler (California, 1869) 881 614. Commonwealth v. Webster (Massachusetts, 1850) 88E 615. Brock v. State (Alabama, 1898) 888 616. Commonwealth v. Richmond (Massachusetts, 1911) 883 617. Arthur C. Train, "The Prisoner at the Bar" 886 contents xxv Sub-topic C. Waiver of the Privilege page 618. East India Co. v. Atkins (England, 1719) 887 619. Regina v. Garbett (England, 1847) 887 620. Fitzpatrick v. United States (Federal Supreme Court, 1899) ... 887 Sub-topic D. Removal of the Privilege by Grant of Immunity 621. Counselman i'. Hitchcock (Federal Supreme Court, 1892) 622. Brown v. Walker (Federal Supreme Court, 1896) . . 623. Hale v. Henkel (Federal Supreme Court, 1906) . . 624. State v. Murphy (Wisconsin, 1906) 625. Heike v. United States (Federal Supreme Court, 1912) 889 892 896 896 902 Sub-topic E. Policy of the Privilege 627. Marquis of Nayve's Trial (France, 1895) 902 628. Sir J. F. Stephen, "History of the Criminal Law" 906 629. Committee on Trial Procedure, Institute of Criminal Law and Crim- inology 907 630. Arthur C. Train, "The Prisoner at the Bar" 908 631. John H. Wigmore, "A Treatise on Evidence" 909 SUB-TITLE III. PRIVILEGED RELATIONS 633. Introductory 912 Topic I. Attorney and Client 635. Greenough v. Gaskell (England, 1833) 913 636. Anderson v. Bank (England, 1876) 913 637. Statutes 913 638. Craig dem. Annesley v. Anglesea (England, 1743) 914 639. Hatton v. Robinson (Massachusetts, 1833) 918 640. Barnes v. Harris (Massachusetts, 1851) 920 641. Mitchell's Case (New York, 1861) 921 642. Skinner v. Great Northern R. Co. (England, 1874) . . . . . . 925 643. Ex parte Schoepf (Ohio, 1906) 928 644. Sheehan v. Allen (Kansas, 1903) 928 645. Champion v. McCarthy (Illinois, 1907) 930 646. In re Cunnion's Will (New York, 1911) 932 Topic 2. Husband and Wife 648. Introductory 936 649. Mercer v. State (Florida, 1898) 9g7 650. Sexton v. Sexton (Iowa, 1905) 939 Topic 3. Jurors 652. Earl of Shaftesbury's Trial (England, 1681) 944 653. Phillips v. Marblehead (Massachusetts, 1889) 945 654. State v. Campbell (Kansas, 1906) 945 XXVI CONTENTS PAGE Topic 4. Official Secrets 655. Thomas Hardy's Trial (England, 1794) 950 656. Michael v. Matson (Kansas, 1909) 951 657. Aaron Burr's Trial (Federal, 1807) 951 658. Mississippi v. Johnson (Federal Supreme Court, 1866) 954 659. Beatson v. Skene (England, 1860) 955 660. Hennessy v. Wright (England, 1888) 956 Topic 5. Physician and Patient 662. Duchess of Kingston's Trial (England, 1776) 957 663. Commissioners on Revision of the Statutes (New York, 1836) . . 957 664. Gartside v. Connecticut M. L. Ins. Co. (Missouri, 1882) .... 957 665. McRae v. Erickson (California, 1905) 960 BOOK II HOW AND WHEN EVIDENCE IS TO BE PRESENTED (PROCEDURE OF ADMISSIBILITY) TITLE I. THEORY OF ADMISSIBILITY Topic I. Multiple Admissibility 667. People v. Doyle (Michigan, 1870) 963 668. Goodhand v. Benton (Maryland, 1834) 963 669. Pegg V. Warford (Maryland, 1855) 966 670. BaU V. United States (Federal, 1906) 970 Topic 2. Curative Admissibility 671. MowTy v. Smith (Massachusetts, 1864) 971 672. Phelps v. Hunt (Connecticut, 1875) 972 673. Sisler v. Shaffer (West Virginia, 1897) 973 674. State v. Slack (Vermont, 1897) 973 Topic 3. Conditional Admissibility 675. Rogers v. Brent (Illinois, 1849) 973 676. Campau v. Dewey (Michigan, 1861) 975 677. Parnell Commission's Proceedings (England, 1888) 976 678. Ellis V. Thayer (Massachusetts, 1903) 976 679. Putnam v. Harris (Massachusetts, 1906) 978 TITLE II. MODE OF INTRODUCING EVIDENCE Topic I. The Oflfer 682. Goodhand v. Benton (Maryland, 1834) 979 683. Farleigh v. Kelley (Montana, 1903) 979 684. Indianapolis & Martinsville R. T. Co. v. Hall (Indiana, 1905) ... 980 685. Marshall v. MarshaU (Kansas, 1905) 981 Topic 2. The Objection 687. Cady v. Norton (Massachusetts, 1833) 983 688. Marshr. Hand (Maryland, 1871) 983 689. John H. Wigmore, "A Treatise on Evidence" 984 CONTENTS XX\'ll PAGE 690. Albers Commission Co. v. Sessel (Illinois, 1901) 985 691. Rush V. French (Arizona, 1874) 987 692. Rindskoff v. Malone (Iowa, 1859) 988 693. Tooley v. Bacon (New York, 1877) 990 694. Wolverton v. Commonwealth (Pennsylvania, 1821) 991 695. Spencer v. Potter's Estate (Vermont, 1911) 994 Topic 3. The Ruling , 697. Hamblett v. Hamblett (New Hampshire, 1833) 996 698. State v. Moran (Iowa, 1906) 998 699. Gulliford v. McQuillen (Kansas, 1907) 999 700. John H. Wigmore, "A Treatise on Evidence" 1000 701. Norris v. Clinkscales (South Carolina, 1896) 1000 702. De Camp v. Archibald (Ohio, 1893) 1003 703. Ex parte Jennings (Ohio, 1899) 1007 704. Ex parte Schoepf (Ohio, 1906) 1008 705. Dowagiac Mfg. Co. v. Lochren (Federal, 1906) 1008 Topic 4. The Exception 707. Wright v. Sharp (England, 1709) 1009 708. Hunnicutt v. Peyton (Federal Supreme Court, 1880) 1010 709. Rush V. French (Arizona, 1874) 1010 710. Griffin v. Henderson (Georgia, 1903) 1011 Topic 5. New Trial for Erroneous Ruling 711. John H. Wigmore, "A Treatise on Evidence" 1013 712. State v. Crawford (Minnesota, 1905) 1014 TITLE III. ORDER OF INTRODUCIXG EVIDEKCE Topic I. In General 714. Lord Lovat's Trial (England, 1746) 1019 715. Hathaway v. Hemingway (Connecticut, 1850) 1019 716. Rucker v. Eddings (Missouri, 1841) 1019 717. Mueller v. Rebhan (Illinois, 1879) 1020 718. Ankersmit v. Tuck (New York, 1889) 1021 Topic 2. Putting in One's Own Case on Cross-Examination 719. Moody v. Rowell (Massachusetts, 1835) 1023 720. Philadelphia & Trenton R. Co. v. Stimpson (Federal Supreme Court, 1840) 1024 721. Stafford v. Fargo (Illinois, 1864) 1024 722. New York Iron Mine v. Negaunee Bank (Michigan, 1878) . . . 1025 723. Rush V. French (Arizona, 1874) 1027 724. Ayers v. Wabash R. Co. (Missouri, 1905) 1028 TITLE ir. JURISDICTION; RILES OF EVIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS 727. Introductory, John H. Wigmore, "A Treatise on Evidence " . . 1032 728. Wilson v. New England Navig. Co. (United States, 1912) .... 1033 XXVUl CONTENTS BOOK III TO WHOM EVIDENCE IS TO BE PRESENTED (Law and Fact; Judge and Jury) page 730. James Bradley Thayer, "A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence" . . 1038 731. Bushell's Trial (England, 1670) 1038 732. Commonwealth v. Porter (Massachusetts, 1846) 1039 733. State v. Gannon (Connecticut, 1902) 1044 734. Gates' Trial (England, 1685) 1045 735. State i'. Moses (North Carolina, 1830) 1046 736. James Bradley Thayer, "A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence" . . 1049 737. Arthur C. Train, "The Prisoner at the Bar" 1049 738. Bartlett v. Smith (England, 1843) 1050 739. Hutchison v. Bowker (England, 1839) 1052 740. Hooper v. Moore (North Carolina, 1857) 1054 741. State v. Monich (New Jersey, 1906) 1056 742. Bridges v. North London R. Co. (England, 1874) 1058 743. James Bradley Thayer, "A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence" . . 1062 BOOK IV BY WHOM EVIDENCE IS TO BE PRESENTED (Burdens of Proof; Presumptions) 745. Introductory 1064 TITLE I. MEASURE OF JURY'S PERSUASION 746. Commonwealth v. Webster (Massachusetts, 1850) 1072 747. Ellis V. Buzzell (Maine, 1872) 1072 748. Buel v. State (Wisconsin, 1899) 1075 749. William Trickett, "Preponderance of Evidence, and Reasonable Doubt" 1076 TITLE II. PARTY'S RISK OF yOy -PERSUASION OF THE JURY 751. Kendall v. BrowTison (New Hampshire, 1866) 1081 752. Lisbon v. Lyman (New Hampshire, 1870) 1084 753. Gulf, Colo. & S. F. R. Co. v. Shieder (Texas, 1895) 1089 754. State v. Quigley (Rhode Island, 1904) 1092 755. Ginn v. Dolan (Ohio, 1909) 1095 TITLE III. PARTY'S DUTY OF SATISFYING THE JUDGE Topic I. Sufficiency of a Mass of Evidence 757. Rex V. Almon (England, 1771) 1099 758. Regina v. O'Doherty (Ireland, 1848) 1099 759. Gray v. Jackson (New Hampshire, 1871) 1099 760. Bridges v. North London R. Co. (England, 1874) 1104 761. Hehir t). Rhode Island Co. (Rhode Island, 1904) 1104 762. State ?;. Forbes (New Hampshire, 1909) 1106 763. Joliet, Aurora & N. R. Co. v. Velie (llUnois, 1892) 1108 CONTENTS XXIX PAGE Topic 2. Specific Presumptions 765. CogdeU tr. R. Co. (North Carolina, 1903) 1111 766. State t). Hodge (New Hampshire, 1869) 1112 767. Ross ?J. Cotton Mills (North CaroHna, 1905) 1116 768. Continental Ins. Co. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. (Minnesota, 1906) . 1118 769. Foss t<. McRae (Maine, 1909) 1121 770. Carver v. Carver (Indiana, 1884) 1123 BOOK V OF WHAT FACTS NO EVIDENCE NEED BE PRESENTED TITLE I. JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS 773. Chief Baron Gilbert, "Evidence" 1124 774. Paige v. WiUet (New York, 1868) 1124 775. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co.'s Petition (New York, 1885) . . . 1124 776. Prestwood v. Watson (Alabama, 1896) 1124 777. State v. Marx (Connecticut, 1905) 1127 778. Statutes 1127 779. Carver t>. Carver (Indiana, 1884) 1128 TITLE II. JUDICIAL NOTICE 782. Introductory • 1133 783. James Bradley Thayer, "A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence" . .1133 784. Lumley v. Gye (England, 1853) 1134 785. Fox V. State (Georgia, 1851) 1134 786. Kilpatrick v. Commonwealth (Pennsylvania, 1858) 1135 787. State ». Main (Connecticut, 1897) 1137 788. Winn v. Coggins (Florida, 1907) 1139 789. Rea D. State (Oklahoma, 1909) 1140 790. Perovich v. Perry (Federal, 1909) 1141 791. People D. Schmitz (California, 1908) 1142 792. Letters on the Case of People v. Schmitz 1144 BOOK VI THE SO-CALLED PAROL EVIDENCE RULES 795. Introductory 1150 TITLE I. ENACTION OF A LEGAL ACT 796. History 1153 SUB-TITLE I. ACT VOID FOR INCOMPLETENESS 798. Thoroughgood's Case (England, 1601) 1154 799. Pym v. Campbell (England, 1856) 1154 XXX CONTENTS PAGE 800. Burke V. Dulaney (Federal Supreme Court, 1894) 1156 801. Stanley t). White (Illinois, 1896) 1158 802. Smith z). Dotterweich (New York, 1911) 1161 SUB-TITLE II. ACT VOID FOR LACK OF INTENT 804. Thomas Erskine Holland, "Jurisprudence" 1162 805. Foster ». Mackinnon (England, 1869) 1163 806. McNamara v. Boston Elevated R. Co. (Massachusetts, 1908). . .1166 807. Gray J). James (North Carolina, 1909) 1169 808. Essex z). Day (Connecticut, 1885) 1171 809. Medley ». German Alliance Ins. Co. (West Virginia, 1904) . . . .1176 810. Baxendale v. Bennett (England, 1878) 1183 811. Hubbard v. Greeley (Maine, 1892) 1186 812. A. M. Kidd, "Delivery in Escrow" 1189 813. Louis M. Greeley, "Unauthorized Delivery of Escrow" .... 1190 814. Guardhouse v. Blackburn (England, 1866) 1191 815. Beamish V. Beamish (Ireland, 1894) 1194 SUB-TITLE III. ACT VOIDABLE 816. State «. Cass (New Jersey, 1889) 1196 817. Fairbanks D. Snow (Massachusetts, 1887) 1198 TITJjE II. INTEGRATION OF LEGAL ACTS 820. History . .* 1200 SUB-TITLE I. ORDINARY TRANSACTIONS Topic I. In General 821. Lilly, "Practical Register" 1203 822. Knight v. Barber (England, 1846) 1203 823. Van Syckel v. Dah-ymple (New Jersey, 1880) 1203 824. Brosty v. Thompson (Connecticut, 1906) 1203 Topic 2. Sundry Applications of the Rule 826. Ramsdell v. Clark (Montana, 1897) * . . 1205 827. Baum v. Lynn (Mississippi, 1895) 1208 828. Lese v. Lamprecht (New York, 1909) 1211 829. Heitman v. Commercial Bank of Savannah (Georgia, 1909) . . . 1214 830. Adams v. Gillig (New York, 1910) 1225 SUB-TITLE II. JUDICIAL RECORDS Topic I. In General 832. Sir F. Pollock and Frederic W. Maitland, "History of English Law" 1229 833. Sir Edward Coke, "Commentaries upon Littleton" 1229 834. Sayles v. Briggs (Massachusetts, 1S42) 1230 835. Hughes v. Pritchard (North Carolina, 1910) 1232 836. Cote v. New England Navig. Co. (Massachusetts, 1912) .... 1233 CONTENTS XXXI PAGE Topic 2. Jury's Verdict 837. Vaise v. Delaval (England, 1785) 1236 838. Owen v, Warbiirton (Enfrknd, 1807) 1236 839. Robbins v. Windover (Vermont, 1802) 1236 840. Wright v. Telegraph Co. (Iowa, 1866) 1238 841. Capen v. Stoughton (Massachusetts, 1860) ........ 1241 842. Koch V. State (Wisconsin, 1906) 1243 SUB-TITLE III. CORPORATION RECORDS 845. United States Bank v. Dandridge (Federal Supreme Court, 1827) . . 1247 846. Chesapeake & Ohio R. Co. v. Deepwater, R. Co. (W. Va. 1905) . . 1252 TITLE III. FORMALITIES OF LEGAL ACTS 847. John H. Wigmore, "A Treatise on Evidence" 1260 TITLE ir. INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL ACTS 848. Introductory 1261 SUB-TITLE I. STANDARD OF INTERPRETATION 850. History 1266 851. Attorney-General v. Shore (England, 1843) 1267 852. Re Jodrell (England, 1890) 1269 853. Tilton v. American Bible Society (New Hampshire, 1880) .... 1273 854. Myers v. Sari (England, 1860) 1275 855. Browne v. Byrne (England, 1854) 1277 856. Walls V. Bailey (New York, 1872) 1277 857. Stoops V. Smith (Massachusetts, 1868) 1279 858. Goode v. Riley (Massachusetts, 1891) 1282 859. Violette v. Rice (Massachusetts, 1899) 1282 860. Rickerson v. Hartford Fu-e Ins. Co. (New York, 1896) 1283 ♦ SUB-TITLE II. SOURCES FOR DETERMINING INTERPRETATION 862. History 1286 863. Sir James Wigram, "Interpretation of Wills" 1287 864. Attorney-General v. Drummond (England, 1842) 1287 Topic I. Declarations of Intention 865. Francis, Lord Bacon, "Maxims" 1287 866. The Lord Cheyney's Case (England, 1591) 1288 867. Miller v. Travers (England, 1832) 1288 868. Doe dem. Simon Hiscocks v. John Hiscocks (England, 1839) . . . 1292 869. Willard v. Darrah (Missouri, 1902) 1294 870. Sir J. F. Stephen, "Digest of the Law of Evidence" 1297 871. A. M. Kidd, "Note on Doer. Hiscocks" ........ 1298 XXxii CONTENTS PAGE Topic 2. Falsa Demonstratio 873. Myers u. Ladd (Illinois, 1861) 1299 874. Winkley v. Kaime (New Hampshire, 1855) 1299 875. Kurtz v. Hibner (Illinois, 1870) 1301 876-879. Isaac T. Redfield, John D. Caton, John H. Wigmore, Henry Schofield, "Comments on Kurtz t). Hibner" 1303 APPENDICES APPENDIX I Topical List of Cross-References to Sections in the Compiler's Treatise on Evidence and Pocket Code of Evidence 1311 APPENDIX II Review Problems, for Applying the Rules of Evidence 1339 APPENDIX III Practical Exercises in Introducing Evidence in Court 1357 INDICES LIST OF CASES REPRINTED ... 1363 LIST OF STATUTES REPRINTED 1371 LIST OF AUTHORS OF EXTRACTS REPRINTED .... 1373 INDEX OF TOPICS 1375 SELECT CASES ON THE LAW OF EVIDENCE INTRODUCTORY TOPICS 1. History.^ The marked divisions of chronology, for our law of evidence, may be said to be seven, — from primitive times to 1200 a.d., thence to 1500, thence to 1700, to 1790, to 1830, to 1860, and to the present time: (1) A. D. 700-1200. Up to the period of the 1200s, the history of the rules of evidence, in the modern sense, is like the chapter upon ophidians in Erin; for there were none. Under the primitive practices of trial by ordeal, by battle, and by compurgation, the proof is accomplished by a judicium Dei, and there is no room for our modern notion of persuasion of the tribunal by the credibility of the witnesses; ^ for the tribunal merely verified the observance of the due ^ From the Compiler's "Treatise on the System of Evidence," 1905, Vol. I, §8. For further reading on the history of the law of Evidence, Anglo-American and Continental, consult the following works: James Bradley Thayer, "A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law" (1898), cc. i-iv (on "The Older Modes of Trial" and "Development of Trial by Jury"); Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, "A History of the Criminal Law of England" (1883), Vol. I, cc. vii, viii, xi; reprinted in Vol. II of "Select Essays in Anglo- American History" (1908), No. 34 ("Criminal Procedure from the 13th to the 18th Century") ; Wm. S. Holdsworth, "A History of English Law" (1909), Vol. Ill, c. vi ("Procedure and Pleading in the Medieval Law"); Sir F. Pollock and Frederic Wm. Maitland, "The History of English Law before the Time of Edward I" (2d ed., 1899), Vol. II, c. ix, § 4 ("Pleading and Proof"); A. Esmein, "History of Continental Criminal Procedure" (1913; Conti- nental Legal History Series, Vol. V), Part II, title ii, c. iii ("The Theory of Legal Proofs"), and Appendix II ("A Brief History of the Law of Evidence"). The Continental system in its history may be more fully studied in the work of Raoul dc la Grasserie, " De la Preuve au Civil et au Criminel, en droit fran^ais et dans les legislations etrangeres; Evolution, Comparaison, Critique, Reforme" (2 vols. 1912). ' This is indeed elaborately denied by Declareuil, in "Nouvelle revue hist, du droit fr. et etr.," 1898, XXII, 220 ff. ; but all prior students have assumed the contrary. It is no doubt difficult to replace ourselves in the primitive mental attitude. 2 INTRODUCTORY TOPICS No. 1 formalities, and did not conceive of these as directly addressed to their own reasoning powers. Nevertheless, a few marks, indelibly made by these earlier usages, were left for a long time afterwards in our law. The summoning of attesting witnesses to prove a document, the quantitative effect of an oath, the conclusiveness of a seal in fixing the terms of a documentary transaction, the necessary production of the original of a document, — these rules all trace a continuous existence back to this earliest time, although they later took on different forms and survived^or reasons not at all connected with their primitive theories. (2) A. D. 1200-1500. With the full advent of the jury, in the 1200s, the general surroundings of the modern system are prepared; for now the tribunal is to determine out of its own conscious persuasion of the facts, and not merely by supervising external tests. The change is of course gradual; and trial by jury is as yet only one of several competing methods; but at least a system for the process of persuasion becomes possible. In this period, no new specific rules seem to have sprung up. The practice for attesting witnesses, oaths and documentary originals is developed. The rule for the conclusiveness of a sealed writing is definitely established. But during these three centuries the general process of pleading and procedure is only gradually differentiated from that of proof, — chiefly because the jurors are as yet relied upon to furnish in themselves both knowledge and decision ; for they are not commonly caused to be informed by witnesses, in the modern sense. (3) A. D. 1500-1700. By the 1500s, the constant employment of witnesses, as the jury's chief source of inforination, brings about a radical change. Here enter, very directly, the possibilities of our modern system. With all the em- phasis gradually cast upon the witnesses, their words and their documents, the whole question of admissibility arises. One first great consequence is the struggle between the numerical or quantitative system, which characterized the canon law and still dominated all other methods of proof, and the unfettered system- less jury trial; and it was not for two centuries that the numerical system was finally repulsed. Another cardinal question now necessarily faced was that of the competency of witnesses; and by the end of the 1500s the foimdations were laid for all the rules of disqualifications which prevailed thenceforward for more than two centuries, and in part still remain. At the same time, and chiefly from a simple failure to differentiate, most of the rules of privilege and privileged communication were thereby brought into existence, at least in embryo. The rule for attorneys, which alone stood upon its own ground, also belongs here, though its reasons were newly conceived after the lapse of a century. A third great principle, the right to have compulsory attendance of witnesses, marks the very beginning of this period. Under the primitive notions, this all rested upon the voluntary action of one's partisans; the calling of compurgators and documentary attestors, under the older methods of trial, was in effect a matter of contract. But as soon as the chief reliance came to be the witnesses to the jurors, and the latter ceased to act on their own knowledge, the necessity for the provision of such information, compulsory if not otherwise, became immedi- ately obvious. The idea progressed slowly; it was enforced first for the Crown, next for civil parties; and not until the next period was it conceded to accused persons. Thus was laid down indirectly the general principle that there is no privilege to refuse to be a witness; to which the other rules, above mentioned, subsequently became contrasted as exceptions. A fourth important principle, wholly independent in origin, here also arose and became fixed by the end of this No. 1 HISTORY 3 period, — the privilege against self-crimination. The creature, under another form, of the canon law, in which it had a long history of its own, it was trans- ferred, under stress of political turmoil, into the common law, and thus, by a singular contrast, came to be a most distinctive feature of our trial system. About the same period — the end of the 1600s — an equally distinctive feature, the rule against using an accused's character, became settled. Finally, the " parol evidence " rule enlarged its scope, and came to include all WTitings and not merely sealed documents; this development, and the enactment of the statute of frauds and perjuries, represent a special phase of thought in the end of this period. It ends, however, rather with the Restoration of 1660 than with the Revolution of 1688, or the last years of the century; for the notable feature of it is that the regenerating results of the struggle against the arbitrary methods of James I and Charles I began to be felt as early as the return of Charles II. The mark of the new period is seen at the Restoration. Justice, on all hands, then begins to mend. Crudities which Matthew Hale permitted, under the Commonwealth, Scroggs put aside, under James II. The privilege against self- crimination, the rule for two witnesses in treason, and the character rule — three landmarks of our law of evidence — find their first full recognition in the last days of the Stuarts. (4) A. D. 1700-1790. Two circumstances now contributed independently to a further development of the law on two opposite sides, its philosophy and its practical efficiency. On the one hand, the final establishment of the right of cross-examination by counsel, at the beginning of the 1700s, gave to our law of evidence the distinction of possessing the most efficacious expedient ever invented for the extraction of t.aith (although, to be sure, like torture, — that great instru- ment of the continental system, — it is almost equally powerful for the creation of false impressions). A notable consequence was that by the multiplication of oral interrogation at trials the rules of evidence were now developed in detail upon such topics as naturally came thus into new prominence. All through the 1700s this expansion proceeded, though slowly. On the other hand, the already existing material began now to be treated in doctrinal form. The first treatise on the law of evidence was that of Chief Baron Gilbert, not published till after his death in 1726. About the same time the abridgments of Bacon and of Comyns gave many pages to the title of Evidence; ^ but no other treatise ap- peared for a quarter of a century, when the notes of Mr. J. Bathurst (later Lord Chancellor) were printed, under the significant title of the "Theory of Evi- dence." But this propounding of a system was as yet chiefly the natural cul- mination of the prior century's work, and was independent of the expansion of practice now going on. In Gilbert's book, for example, even in the fifth edition of 1788, there are in all, out of the three hundred pages, less than five concerned with the new topics brought up by the practice of cross-examination; in Bathurst's treatise (by this time embodied in his nephew Buller's "Trials at Nisi Prius") the number is hardly more; Blackstone's Commentaries, in 1768, otherwise so full, are here equally barren. The most notable result of these disquisitions, on the theoretical side, was the establishment of the "best evidence" doctrine, which dominated the law for nearly a century later. But this very doctrine tended to preserve a general consciousness of the supposed simplicity and narrow- ness of compass of the law of evidence. As late as the very end of the century ^ Hawkins, in 1716, and Hale, in 1680, in their treatises on the criminal law, had had short chapters on evidence at these earlier dates. 4 INTRODUCTORY TOPICS No. 1 Mr. Burke could argue down the rules of evidence, when attempted to be enforced upon the House of Lords at Warren Hastings' trial, and ridicule them as petty and inconsiderable.^ But, none the less, the practice had materially expanded during his lifetime. In this period, besides the rules for impeachment and cor- roboration of witnesses (which were due chiefly to the development of cross- examination), are to be reckoned also the origins of the rules for coHfessions, for leading questions, and for the order of testimony. The various principles affect- ing documents — such as the authorization of certified (or office) copies and the conditions dispensing from the production of originals — now also received their general and final shape. (5) A. D. 1790-1830. The full spring-tide of the system had now arrived. In the ensuing generation the established principles began to be developed into rules and precedents of minutise relatively innumerable to what had gone before. In the Nisi Prius reports of Peake, Espinasse, and Campbell, centering around the quarter-century from 1790 to 1815, there are probably more rulings upon evi- dence than in all the prior reports of two centuries. In this development the dominant influence is plain; it was the increase of printed reports of Nisi Prius rulings.^ This was at first the cause, and afterwards the self-multiplying effect, of the detailed development of the rules. Hitherto, upon countless details, the practice had varied greatly on the different circuits; moreover, it had rested largely in the memory of the experienced leaders of the trial bar and in the momen- tary discretion of the judges. In both respects it therefore lacked fixity, and was not amenable to tangible authority. These qualities it now rapidly gained. As soon as Nisi Prius reports multiplied and became available to all, the circuits must be reconciled, the rulings once made and recorded must be followed, and these precedents must be open to the entire profession to be invoked. There was, so to speak, a sudden precipitation of all that had hitherto been suspended in solution. This effect began immediately to be assisted and emphasized by the appearance of new treatises, summing up the recent acquisitions of precedent and practice. - In nearly the same year, Peake, for England (1801), and MacNally, for Ireland (1802), printed small volumes whose contents, as compared with those of Gilbert and Buller, seem to represent almost a different system, so novel were their topics. In 1806, Evans' Notes to Pothier on Obligations was made the vehicle of the first reasoned analysis of the rules. In this respect it was epoch-making; and its author in a later time once quietly complained that its pages were "more often quoted than acknowledged." The room for new trea- tises were rapidly enlarging. Peake and MacNally, as handbooks of practice, were out of date within a few years, and no new editions could cure them. In 1814, and then in 1824, came Phillipps and Starkie, — in method combining Evans' philosophy with Peake's strict reflection of the details of practice. There was now indeed a system of evidence, consciously and fully realized. Across the water a similar stage had been reached. By a natural interval Peake's treatise was balanced, in 1810, by Swift's Connecticut book, while Phillipps and ^ As to rules of law and evidence, he did not know what they meant; ... it was true, something had been written on the law of Evidence, but very general, very abstract, and comprised in so small a compass that a parrot he had known might get them by rote in one half-hour and repeat them in five minutes" (1794, Hastings' Trial, Lords' Journal, Feb. 25). ^ Compare Campbell's account of the conditions when he began to Report in 1807 ("Life," I, 214). No. 1 HISTORY 5 Starkie (after a period of sufficiency under American annotations) were replaced by Greenleaf's treatise of 1842. (6) A. D. 1830-1860. Meantime, the advance of consequences was proceed- ing, by action and reaction. The treatises of Peake and Phillipps, by embodying in print the system as it existed, at the same time exposed it to the Hght of criti- cism. It contained, naturally enough, much that was merely inherited and traditional, much that was outgrown and outworn. The very efforts to supply explicit reasons for all this made it the easier to puncture the insufficient reasons and to impale the irrational rules. This became the office of Bentham. Be- ginning with the first publication, in French, of his Theory of Judicial Evidence, in 1818, the influence of his thought upon the law of evidence gradually became supreme. While time has only ultimately vindicated and accepted most of his ideas (then but chimeras) for other practical reforms, and though some still remain untried, the results of his proposals in this department began almost immediately to be achieved. Mature experience constantly inclines us to believe that the best results on hiunan action are seldom accomplished by sarcasm and invective; for the old fable of the genial sun and the raging wind repeats itself. But Bentham's case must always stand out as a proof that sometimes the con- trary is true, — if conditions are meet. No one can say how long our law might have waited for regeneration, if Bentham's diatribes had not lashed the com- munity into a sense of its shortcomings. It is true that he was particularly favored by circumstances in two material respects, — the one personal, the other broadly social. He gained, among others, two incomparable disciples, who served as a fulcrum from which his lever could operate directly upon legislation. Henry Brougham and Thomas Denman combined with singular felicity the qualities of leadership in the technical arts of their profession and of energy for the abstract principles of progress. Holding the highest offices of justice, and working through a succession of decades, they were enabled, ^athin a generation, to bring Bentham's ideas directly into influence upon the law. One who reads the great speech of Broughana, on February 7, 1828, on the state of the common law courts, and the reports of Denman and his colleagues, in 1852 and 1853, on the common law procedure, is perusing epoch-making deliverances of the century.^ The other circumstance that favored Bentham's cause was the radical readiness of the times. The French Revolution had acted in England; and as soon as the Napoleonic wars were over, the influence began to be felt. One part of public opinion was resolved to achieve a radical change; the other and dominant part felt assured that if the change did not come as reform, it would come as revolu- tion; and so the reform was given, to prevent the revolution. In a sense, it did not much matter to them where the reform came about, — in the economic, or the political, or the juridical field, — if only there was reform. At this stage, Bentham's denouncing voice concentrated attention on the subject of public justice, — criminal law and civil procedure; and so it was here that the move- ment was felt among the first. As a matter of chronological order, the first considerable achievements were in the field of criminal law, beginning in 1820, under Romilly and Mackintosh ; then came the political upheaval of the Reform ^ "The great controversy now [1851] is upon the Evidence Bill, allowing the parties to be examined against and for themselves. ... If it passes, it will create a new era in the administration of justice in this country" {Campbell's "Life," II, 292). "Our new procedure (which is in truth a jm-idical revolution) is now [1854] established, and people submit to it quietly" {Ibid., II, 328). 6 INTRODUCTORY TOPICS No. 1 Bill, in 1832, under Russell and Grey; next the economic regeneration, beginning with Huskisson and culminating with Peel in the Corn Law Repeal of 1846. Not before the Common Law Procedure Acts of 1852 and 1854 were large and final results achieved for the Benthamic ideas in procedure and evidence. But over the whole preceding twenty years had been spread initial and instructive reforms. Brougham's speech of February 7, 1828, was the real signal for the beginning of this epoch, — a beginning which would doubtless have culminated more rapidly if urgent economic and political crises had not intervened to absorb the legislative energy. In the LInited States, the counterpart of this period came only a little later. It seems to have begun all along the line and was doubtless inspired by the accounts of progress made and making in England, as well as by the writings of Edward Livingston, the American Bentham, and by the legislative efforts of David Dudley Field, in the realm of civil procedure. The period from 1840 to 1870 saw the enactment, in the various jurisdictions in this country, of most of the reformatory legislation which had been carried or proposed in England. (7) A. D. 1860. After the Judicature Act of 1875, and the Rules of Court (of 1883) which under its authority were formulated, the law of evidence in England attained rest. It is still overpatched and disfigured with multiplici- tous fragmentary statutes, especially for documentary evidence. But it seems to be harmonious with the present demands of justice, and above all to be so certain and settled in its acceptance that no further detailed development is called for. It is a sub-stratum of the law which comes to light only rarely in the judicial rulings upon practice. Far otherwise in this country. The latest period in the development of the law of evidence is marked by a temporary degeneracy. Down to about 1870, the established principles, both of common law rules and of statutory reforms, were re-stated by our judiciary in a long series of opinions which, for careful and copious reasoning, and for the common sense of experience, were superior (on the whole) to the judgments uttered in the native home of our laAv. Partly because of the lack of treatises and even of reports, — partly because of the tendency to question imported rules and therefore to defend on grounds of principle and policy whatever could be defended, — partly because of the moral compulsion upon the judiciary, in new communities, to vindicate by intellectual effort its right to supremacy over the bar, — and partly also because of the advent, coincidently, of the same rationalizing spirit which led to the reformatory legislation, — this .very necessity of restatement led to the elaboration of a finely reasoned system. The "mint, anise, and cummin" of mere precedent ^ were not unduly revered. There was always a reason given, — even though it might not always be a worthy reason. The pronouncement of Bentham came near to be exemplified, that "so far as evidence is concerned, the English practice needs no improvement but from its own stores. Consistency, consistency, is the one thing needful. Preserve consistency, and perfection is accomplished." ^ But the newest States in time came to be added. New reports spawned a ' Lumpkin, J., in 33 Ga. 306. ^ "Rationale of Judicial Evidence," b. X, conclusion. Bentham never failed to preach the impropriety of not furnishing reasons. " T think, therefore I exist,' was the argument of Descartes; 'I exist, therefore I have no need to think or be thought about,' is the argument of jurisprudence" (b. II, c. x, § 12; so also in b. Ill, c. iv, note). No. 1 DEFINITIONS 7 multifarious mass of new rulings in fifty jurisdictions, — each having theoreti- cally an equal claim to consideration. The liheral spirit of choosing an