said to be proved, when it is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Every sane man is presumed to contemplate the natural and probable result of his own acts. An intention to murder is conclusively inferred from the deliberate use of deadly weapons. An infant under the age of seven years is conclusively presumed to be incapable of committing a felony. If a woman act in conjunction with her husband in the commission of a felony, except treason or homicide, it is conclusively presumed that she acted under his coercion, and consequently without any guilty intention. When two persons have perished in the same calamity, the circumstances of their death being unknown, by the Roman law, if they were a father and son, and the son was under the age of fourteen, it was presumed that he died first. If over that age, it was presumed that the father died first. The French Code has regard to the ages of fifteen and sixty, presuming that of those under fifteen, the youngest perish first; and that of those over sixty, the oldest perish first. If the parties were between these ages, but of different sex, the male is presumed to have survived. If they were of the same sex, the younger is presumed to have survived. The French rule has been incorporated into the Code of Louisiana.

3. Some presumptions are conclusive; other presumptions are disputable. Disputable presumptions are the result of the general experience of the connection between certain facts or things, the one being usually found to be the companion or effect of the other. The law infers the

be proved? What is every sane man presumed to contemplate? From what is an intention to murder conclusively presumed? What is the conclusive presumption as to infants under seven years of age? If a woman act in conjunction with her husband in the commission of crime, what is conclusively presumed? If two persons have perished by the same calamity, and the circumstances of their death are unknown, which is presumed by the Roman law to have perished first? What is the French law upon this subject? Into what Code has the French rule been incorporated?

3. What two classes of presumptions? Of what are disputable presumptions the result? From what does the law infer the existence of

existence of one fact from the proof of the existence of another fact, in the absence of all opposing evidence. The law presumes that every unlawful act was criminally intended, until the contrary be proved. On the charge of murder, malice is presumed from the fact of killing, unaccompanied with circumstances of extenuation. The burden of disproving the malice is thrown upon the accused. If a person is found in possession of the fruits of crime soon after its commission, this is evidence of guilty possession; and if unexplained, either by direct evidence, or by the attending circumstances, or by the character and habits of life of the possessor, it is conclusive. Where a person was indicted for arson, and proof was given that property, which was in the house at the time it was burnt, was found in possession of the prisoner, it was held to raise a probable presumption that he was present and concerned in the offence. In case of murder, accom panied by robbery, the like presumption is raised. Postmarks on letters are evidence that the letters were in the post-office at the time and place thereon specified. If a letter is sent by post, it is presumed, from the known course in that department, that it reached its destination. at the regular time, and was received by the person to whom it was addressed. It is presumed, until the contrary be proved, that every man obeys the laws, and performs his official and social duties. Every man is presumed to be innocent, until he is proved to be guilty.

one fact? What does the law infer from every unlawful act? From what is malice presumed on the charge of murder? Upon whom is the burden of disproving the malice? If a person is found in possession of the fruits of crime soon after its commission? Where a person was indicted for arson, and proof was given that property, which was in the house at the time it was burnt, was found in possession of the prisoner, what presumption was this held to raise? In case of murder accompa nied by robbery? Of what are post-marks on letters presumptive evidence? If a letter is sent by post, what is presumed? What is the presumption as to obeying the laws? Until what time is every man presumed to be innocent?

CHAPTER CXV.

WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE.

1. THE most difficult task for the jury is to weigh accurately the evidence of the witnesses examined "before them. There is no difficulty in weighing different parcels of different classes of goods. We have standard weights, duly sealed; and by placing these parcels in one scale, and sealed weights in the other, we can tell exactly how many pounds and ounces each parcel weighs. If several parcels belong to one package, we can tell precisely the weight of such package by adding together the weight of the several parcels belonging to the package. So, if two packages of different parcels are to be weighed, and the balance of the weight determined, this question can be easily decided by means of standard weights.

2. Two lawyers come before a jury with their two packages of evidence, each composed of different parcels varying in bulk and density, and ask the jury to weigh each parcel in each package separately, and to give the aggregate weight of the parcels in each package. They also ask the jury to determine the balance of the weight of one package of evidence over the other package. How are the jurors to perform this task? They have no standard weights, duly sealed, which they can place in one of the scales of justice, and a parcel of evidence in the other scale, and be able to give the exact weight of the parcel in pounds and ounces. Each juror is obliged, to a great extent, to form his own standard, by which he must weigh

1. What is the most difficult task for the jury? How can we ascer tain the weight of different parcels? How do we ascertain the difference of the weight of different packages of different parcels?

2. With what do the lawyers come before the jury? What do they ask of the jury? Have the jury any standard weights by which they can give the exact weight of evidence presented to them? By what does each juror weigh the credibility of each witness? When only will the

the credibility of each witness. The court seldom interferes with the decision of the jury on questions of fact; and never unless the verdict is clearly against evidence, or without any evidence to support it. Hence it is important to approximate, if we cannot establish, a general standard by which jurors may be governed in weighing evidence.

3. The jury have nothing to do with the question which may arise as to the competency of the witness to testify. That question belongs exclusively to the court. It is the credibility, and not the competency, of the witness which is to be weighed. We may adopt a scale by which we may measure the weight of the evidence of each witness, or upon which we may mark the weight as it is determined by the balance in the mind of the jurors. The scale may be made in the following form:

SCALE OF CREDIBILITY.

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

court interfere with the decision of the jury on questions of fact? What is important for us to approximate?

3. Are the jurors to decide any question in reference to the compe

4. In order to illustrate the use of the scale of credibility, let us suppose that the issue to be tried by the jury is the sanity of a testator, at the time of making his last will and testament. One party alleges that the testator was of sound disposing mind and memory at the time of making and executing his will, and the other party denies that he was of sound and disposing mind at that time. The issue of sanity is to be determined by the jury. Counsel for the executors introduce in support of the will Dr. Benjamin McCluer, one of the subscribing witnesses to the will. He swears to the due execution of the will; "that he has been in practice as a physician and surgeon for twenty years; that he had been the family physician in the testator's family for two years; that he was the physician of the testator at the time he made his will, and to the time of his death; that in the course of his practice he had witnessed many cases of insanity, and attended several patients affected with that disease. He further says, that the testator was of sound and disposing mind and memory at the time of executing his will, and up to the time of his death, which occurred about six weeks after." Witness, on being cross-examined by counsel for the contestants, stated that "he was not interested in the result of the suit; that no relative of his by consanguinity or affinity was to receive any benefit from sustaining the will."

The evidence of Dr. McCluer is of the highest character known to the law, and being entirely unimpeached or weakened by the cross-examination, must be placed at ten on the scale of credibility.

5. Counsel for the executors then called Dr. James Peabody, who testified that he affixed his signature to the

tency of the witness? To whom does that question exclusively belong? What is the jury required to weigh? What scale may be adopted?

4. In order to illustrate the scale of credibility, what issue is presumed to be before the jury? What does one party allege, and the other deny? Who is the first witness produced on the part of the executors? To what facts does he swear on his direct examination? On his cross-examination? Where should this witness be placed on the scale of credibility? 5. Who is the second witness on the part of the executors? To what