State v. Farrier, 339. v. Ferguson, 27, 32. v. Fuller, 125. v. Gardiner, 36, 137. v. Garrigues, 222. v. Ginnis, 312. v. Guild, 35, 36, 40. v. Hall, 222. v. Hasset, 127. v. Hattaway, 765. v. Hayward, 757, 770. v. Hooper, 85. v. Houston, 83. v. Irwin, 56. v. Jenkins, 18, 539. v. J. N. B. 136. v. Lazarus, 262. v. Leach, 795. v. Le Blanc, 114, 800, 802. v. Lehre, 609, 611. v. Maris, 733. v. Martin, 98. v. M'Donald, 159. v. Moody, 29. v. Mooney, 143. v. Morris, 609. v. Norris, 165. v. Odel, 82. v. Petty, 119. Ev. Phelps, 136. v. Poll, 29. v. Powell, 23. v. R. 162. v. Rickie, 365, 368. v. Ridgely, 9, 23, 124, 125. v. Rutherford, 709. v. Ryaw, 581. v. Scovel, 813. D. Self, 546. v. Shepard, 91. v. Squires, 178. v. Stephenson, 564. v. Tacket, 670. v. Taylor, 91, 339. v. Tillery, 579. v. White, 545. v. Wilkinson, 511. v. Williams, 745. v. Wilson, 303, 306, 312, 535. v. Wood, 92, 261. v. Woodruff, 221. State v. Yancey, 209. —v. Zellers, 717. Stebbins v. Sacket, 9, 153. Steinbach v. Columbian Ins. Co. 165. — v. Rheinlander, 127. Stevens v. The Comm., 249. The State, 91. Stockton v. Demath, 165. Stoever v. Whitmore, 193. Storrs v. Wetmore, 159. Strother v. Lucas, 168, 197. Swindle v. The State, 600. Sword v. Nestor, 165. Tacket v. May, 136, 165. - v. Seeman, 168. Taney v. Kemp, 159. Tarlton v. Briscoe, 168. Taunton Bank v. Richardson, 12. Taylor v. Riggs, 1. v. Swell, 168. Taylor's case, 76. Ten Eyck v. Bill, 135. Terry v. Belcher, 136. Thallhimer v. Brinckerhoff, 12. Thomas v. Crosswell, 611. v. Hargrave, 136. v. Horlocker, 197. Thorn v. Blanchard, 609. Todd v. Rome, 511. Tomkins v. Saltmarsh, 23. Trenchard v. Elderkin, 135. Trever's case, 140. Trustees of Lansingburg v. Willard, 153. Tucker v. Welsh, 171. Tuttle v. Russel, 165. Tyler v. The People, 539. U. States v. Moses, 183, 458. v. Ortega, 258. v. Porter, 94. v. Reyburn, 12. v. Stevens, 101. v. Turner, 44. v. Vickery, 91. v. Wood, 62, 209. U. States Bank v. Sill, 12. Valentine's case, 560. Van Evour v. The State, 131. Veazie's case, 458. Waite's case, 124. Ware v. Ware, 156, 171, 173. Wartrous v. Steel, 262. Washington Bank a. Barrington, 51. Watson v. Gilday, 62. Watson v. Lisbon Bridge, 62. Webster v. Lee, 165. Welland Canal Co. v. Hathaway, 3. William's case, 583. v. Nations, 765. Witter v. Latham, 12. v. Mosely, 165. Wishart v. Downey, 3. Young v. The State, 51. THE general rules of evidence are the same in criminal and in civil proceedings. "There is no difference as to the rules of evidence," says Abbott, J. "between criminal and civil cases; what may be received in the one may be received in the other; and what is rejected in the one ought to be rejected in the other." Watson's case, 2 Stark. N. P. C. 155 (a). Murphy's case, 8 C. & P. 306 (b). It is the first and most signal rule of evidence, that the best evidence of which the case is capable shall be given, for if the best evidence be not produced, it affords a presumption that it would make against the party neglecting to produce it. Gilb. Ev. 3. Bull. N. P. 293 (1). Primary evidence—written instruments.]—As a general rule, the contents of a written instrument can only be proved by the production of the instrument itself, parol evidence of them being of a secondary or inferior nature. But this rule is not without many exceptions. In general, whenever an instrument is entered into in writing, which is intended by the parties (testified by their *signatures) to contain and to [ *2 ] be the evidence of their consent or agreement, or whenever there exists a written document, which by the policy of the law is considered to contain the evidence of certain facts, that instrument or document is regarded (1) Taylor v. Riggs, 1 Peters, 596. Cutbush v. Gilbert, 4 S. & R. 551. Duckwall v. Weaver, 2 Ohio, 13. (a) Eng. Com. Law Rep. iii. 291. (b) Id. xxxiv. 402. |
