(1.) Official transactions between the head of the department of State and his subordinate officers. (2.) The proceedings of grand-juries.

(3.) Communications between husband and wife. (4.) Disclosures offensive to public morals.

Grand-jurors are sworn to secrecy. It is the policy of the law to keep secret the preliminary inquiries respecting the guilt or innocence of the accused. The clerk of the grand-jury, and also the district attorney, are placed under the same restrictions of secrecy. A grand-juror may be asked if twelve of their number agreed to the indictment, the certificate of the foreman not being conclusive evidence of the fact. Confidential communications between husband and wife are excluded, on the ground that the married state requires that there should be the most unlimited confidence between husband and wife; and that nothing should be extracted from the bosom of one, confided to him or to her by the other. After the parties are separated by death or otherwise, they are prohibited from disclosing any conversations had between

them.

CHAPTER CXIII.

THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES.

1. Ar common law, the crime of treason was proved by the evidence of one credible witness. In this country, two witnesses to the same overt act, or to different acts of the same treason, are required to convict, or a voluntary

What four privileged communications are named? What is the policy of the law as to grand-jurors? What question may be put to a grandjuror? On what ground are confidential communications between hus band and wife excluded? If the parties are separated by death or otherwise?

1. How many witnesses are required at common law, to prove the crime of treason? How many are required by statute law? How many wit

confession in open court. In proof of the crime of perjury two witnesses are required, or one witness strongly corroborated. Documentary or written evidence may be relied on to convict of perjury.

(1.) When such evidence of the falsehood of the matter sworn to came from the prisoner with circumstances showing the corrupt intent.

(2.) In cases when the matter so sworn is contradicted by a public record, proved to have been well known to the prisoner when he took the oath.

(3.) In cases when the party is charged with taking an oath contrary to what he must necessarily have known to be true, the falsehood being shown by his own letters relating to the fact sworn to.

2. In England two witnesses are required to attest a will. In the New England States, New Jersey, Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi, three witnesses are required. In the other States, two witnesses are required. In some of the States it must. be attested in the presence of the testator. In New York this is not necessary. If the testator be near enough to see and identify the instrument, he is held to be present. If the testator be in a State of insensibility at the time of the attestation, it is void in most of the States. In Vermont a will is required to be under scal. It is not necessary that the witnesses attest in the presence of each other, and that all attest at the same time, unless the statute expressly requires it. If the testator intended to sign each separate sheet of the will, but signed only two of them, being unable to sign the others, the will is incomplete. nesses are necessary to convict in case of perjury? When may documentary evidence be relied upon to convict of perjury?

2. In England how many witnesses are required to attest a will? In what States are three witnesses required? In what States are only two witnesses required? How must it be attested in some of the States? How in New York? When is the testator held to be present? If the testator be in a state of insensibility at the time of the attestation? In what State must a will be under seal? Is it necessary that the witnesses attest in the presence of each other? If the testator intended to sign each separate sheet and signed only a part, and then became unable to sign the others?

3. The revocation of a will must be proved

(1.) By some subsequent will or codicil inconsistent with the former will.

(2.) By some other writing declaring the revocation, and duly attested.

(3.) By burning, tearing, cancelling, or obliterating the same by the testator, or in his presence, and by his direction and consent.

A revocation is an act of the mind, demonstrated by some outward and visible sign or symbol of revocation. The statute is satisfied by any act of spoliation, or destruction deliberately done upon the instrument with the intention of revoking it. The declarations of the testator accompanying the act are admissible in evidence to explain the intention. Where the testator threw his will into the fire, and it was saved without his knowledge, it was held to be a sufficient revocation. The testator being angry with the devisee began to tear his will, but being afterwards pacified he fitted the pieces carefully together, saying he was glad it was no worse: the act was held not to be a revocation.

4. When parties have put their engagements into wri ting, it is presumed that their whole engagement was reduced to writing. Parol evidence cannot be introduced. to contradict or vary the terms of a valid written instrument. The terms of every written instrument are to be understood in their plain, ordinary, and popular sense, unless they have acquired a peculiar sense, or unless the context evidently shows that they must be understood in

3. How must the revocation of a will be proved? What is a revocation ? With what is the statute satisfied? What is admissible evidence to explain the intention? When the testator threw his will into the fire, and it was saved without his knowledge? When the testator became angry with the devisee, and began to tear his will, but being afterwards pacified fitted the pieces carefully together, saying he was glad it was nc worse?

4. When the parties have put their engagement into writing, what is presumed? For what purpose can parol evidence not be introduced? How are the terms of a written instrument to be understood? What evidence may be introduced to aid the court in reading the instrument?

some other sense. The evidence of experts is admitted to aid the court in reading the instrument. The rule excluding parol evidence, is not infringed by the admission of parol evidence to show that the instrument is entirely void, nor to show that it never had any legal existence or binding force, either by reason of fraud, or for want of due execution and delivery, or for the illegality of the subject. Want of consideration may be proved in all cases, to show that the instrument is not binding; except in cases of instruments under seal, and negotiable commercial paper within the statute in the hands of an indorsee for value. Fraud vitiates all contracts. Fraud practised by the party seeking the remedy, upon him against whom it is sought, is fatal to his claim. Want of consideration and fraud may be shown by parol evidence. It may be shown by parol evidence

(1.) That the contract was made for the furtherance of objects forbidden by the law.

(2.) That the instrument was obtained by duress.

(3.) That the party was incapable of binding himself, either by reason of some legal impediment, such as infancy, or coverture, or insanity; or from a temporary cause, such as drunkenness.

(4.) That the instrument came into the hands of the plaintiff without any final delivery by the party charged. The rule excludes parol evidence of the conversations of the parties, but not the evidence of collateral facts.

By what is the rule, excluding parol evidence, not infringed? For what purpose may parol evidence be introduced, in actions upon written instruments? When can want of consideration be proved? What is the effect of fraud upon a contract? If the fraud has been practised by the party seeking the remedy upon the other party? How may want of consideration and fraud be shown? What other facts may be shown by parol evidence?

20

CHAPTER CXIV.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF EVIDENCE.

1. THE symbols of nationality and sovereignty are the national flag and seal. The public acts, decrees, and judgments under this seal are received as true and genuine. It is not necessary to prove the seals of foreign admiralty and maritime courts. It is unnecessary to

prove

(1.) Things which must have happened according to the ordinary course of nature.

(2.) The course of time, or of the heavenly bodies. (3.) The ordinary public fasts and festivals.

(4.) The coincidence of days of the week with the days of the month.

(5.) The meaning of words in the vernacular language. (6.) Legal weights and measures.

(7.) Matters of public history affecting the whole people. The court will take notice of

(1.) The territorial extent of the jurisdiction and sovereignty exercised by their own governments.

(2.) The local divisions of their country.

(3.) The relative position of each local division.

The courts will recognize

(1.) The political condition of their own government. (2.) Its essential political agents or public officers. (3.) Its political operations and actions.

2. The true question in trials of fact is, whether there is sufficient probability of the truth of the fact at issue, and not whether it is possible that it may be false. A fact is

1. What are the symbols of nationality? What are received as true and genuine? What is it necessary to prove? Of what will the courts take notice? What will the courts recognize? 2. What is the true question in trials of fact?

When is a fact said to