original. If an alteration be fraudulent, whether material or immaterial, the instrument is void, if made by the party claiming under it. If the alterations are made by the consent of both parties, the instrument is valid. When an instrument is produced in court, it must be proved by the subscribing witness, except (1.) When the instrument is more than thirty years old. (2.) When it is produced by the adverse party pursuant to notice, the party producing it claiming an interest under it. (3.) When the subscribing witness cannot be found. If there be more than one subscribing witness, the absence of all must be satisfactorily accounted for, in order to let in secondary evidence. CHAPTER CX. HEARSAY EVIDENCE. 1. THE most satisfactory evidence is that which is af forded by our own senses. When this cannot be had, the law requires the evidence of those who can speak from their own personal knowledge. It is not necessary that the witness in all cases have personal knowledge of the main fact in the controversy. This may not be provable from direct evidence, but by inference from other facts shown to exist. The witness must be confined to facts lying within his own knowledge, whether of things said or done. He cannot testify from information given by instrument void? If made by the consent of both parties? How must an instrument in writing be proved? When may it be proved without the evidence of the subscribing witness? If there are more than one subscribing witness? 1. What is the most satisfactory evidence? When this cannot be had, what does the law require? What is not necessary for the witness to know in all cases? Is this always provable from direct evidence? To what must the witness be confined? From what can he not testify? To others, however worthy of credit they may be. Every living witness must be subjected to the ordeal of a crossexamination, for the purpose of ascertaining(1.) What were his powers of perception. (2.) What were his opportunities for observation. (3.) His attentiveness in observing. (4.) The strength of his recollection. (5.) His disposition to speak the truth. Information obtained by the repetition of a third party cannot be subjected to this test. It is frequently impossible to ascertain through how many persons the story has been transmitted from the original witness of the fact. 2. Such evidence is called hearsay evidence. This term is applied to that which is written as well as that which is spoken. Hearsay evidence is incompetent to establish any fact which in its nature is susceptible of being proved by witnesses who can speak from their own knowledge. It is to be presumed that there is better evidence which might be produced. Other grounds of exclusion are(1.) Its intrinsic weakness. (2.) Its incompetency to satisfy the mind as to the existence of the fact. (3.) The frauds which might be practised under its cover. These considerations combine to support the rule that hearsay evidence is totally inadmissible. 3. The evidence (1.) Of general reputation, what must every living witness be subjected? For what purpose? What cannot be subjected to this test? What is frequently impossible to ascertain? 2. What is such evidence called? Is this term applied to written evidence? What is hearsay evidence incompetent to establish? What is generally to be presumed when such evidence is offered? What are other grounds of exclusion? What do these considerations combine to support? 3. What evidence is composed of the speech of third persons not under is composed of the speech of third persons not under oath. This, however, is original, and not hearsay evidence. The subject of inquiry is the concurrence of many voices to the same fact. The principal question, in pedigree, is the parentage or descent of the individual. In order to as certain that fact, it is important to know how he was ac knowledged and treated by those who were interested in him, or sustained towards him any relation of consanguinity or affinity. The rule of admission in such cases is restricted to the declaration of deceased persons, who were related to the person whose pedigree is to be proved, and who were interested in the succession in question. General repute in the family, proved by a surviving member, comes under the same rule. The term pedigree embraces not only descent and relationship, but also the fact of birth, death, and the time when these events happened. These facts may be proved in all cases in the same manner as parentage or descent, where they occur incidentally, and in relation to pedigree. The entry by a deceased parent, or other relative, in a Bible, or other book, or in any paper, stating the fact of the birth, marriage, or death of a child, or other relative, with the time thereof, is regarded as the declaration of such parent or relative in the matter of pedigree. 4. The following are also admitted as proofs of pedigree: (1.) Inscriptions on tombstones. (2.) Engravings on rings. (3.) Inscriptions on family portraits. (4.) Charts of pedigree. These must be proved to have been made by, or under the direction of a deceased relative; and when so proved are oath? Is this original or hearsay evidence? What is the subject of inquiry? What is the principal question in pedigree? To ascertain that fact, what is it important to know? To what is the rule of admission in such cases restricted? Under what rule does general repute come? What does the term pedigree embrace? How may these facts be proved? How is the entry of a deceased parent or relative of the birth or doth of a child, or other relative, in a Bible, or other book or paper, regarded? 4. What other facts are admitted in evidence of pedigree? How must admitted as his declarations. If they were publicly exhibited, and well known to the family, they are admitted on the ground of tacit and common consent. Evidence of reputation is admitted in cases of public or general interest; but the witness may not be able to specify the persons from whom he heard the declarations. Such evidence is admitted (1.) In matters of public and general interest. (2.) In relation to ancient possessions. (3.) Declarations against interest. (4.) Dying declarations. The general principle upon which dying declarations are admitted is, that they are declarations made when the party is at the point of death. Such situation is considered in law as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by an oath in a court of justice. Dying declarations are admissible only in cases of homicide, where the death of the deceased is the subject of the charge, and the circumstances of the death are the subject of the dying declarations. If the person making the declaration would have been incompetent to testify by reason of infancy or other causes, if living, his dying declarations are inadmissible. When a party offers the dying declarations of a deceased person in evidence, he must first show that they were made under a sense of impending death. This may be shown- (1.) By the language of the declarant. (2.) By his evident danger. (3.) By the opinion of his attendants, stated to him. (4.) By his conduct. (5.) By the general circumstances of the case. they be proved to have been made? How are they admitted? If they were publicly exhibited, and well known to the family? When is evidence of reputation admitted? What is the general principle upon which dying declarations are admitted? How is such situation considered in law? In what cases only are they admitted? If the person making the declaration would have been incompetent to testify if liv ing? When a party offers a dying declaration, what must he first show? How may this be shown? If the deceased had any hope of recovery? If the deceased had any hope of recovery, however slight it might have been, his declarations are inadmissible. That the declarations were made in answer to leading questions, or obtained by pressing and earnest solicitations, is no objection to their admissibility. The statement of the deceased must be clear and complete in itself. If it appears to have been intended to be qualified by some other statement which he was prevented from making, it will not be received. The judge must determine whether or not the evidence is admissible. The judge is to decide the question of admissibility. The jury are to decide the question of credibility. The jury are at liberty to weigh all the circumstances under which the declaration was made, and to give the testimony only such credit as they may think it deserves. CHAPTER CXI. ADMISSIONS AND CONFESSIONS. 1. THE term admission is usually applied to civil transactions. Confessions are acknowledgments of guilt. The admission of a party against himself, or against those identified with him in interest, may be received in evidence. The admission of one partner may be given in evidence against all. The admission of a third party may be received in evidence against one who has referred another to him for information. In such case, the party If the declaration was made in answer to leading questions? Must the statement be complete? If it was intended to be qualified by some other statement? Who determines its admissibility? Who weighs the evidence when admitted, and determines its credibility? What are the jury at liberty to do? 1. To what is the term admission usually applied? What are confessions? What admissions may be received in evidence? Can the admission of a third party be received in evidence? To what degree is the |