A Treatise on the Law of Indirect and Collateral Evidence |
Contents
| 231 | |
| 232 | |
| 233 | |
| 234 | |
| 236 | |
| 238 | |
| 240 | |
| 241 | |
| 61 | |
| 72 | |
| 81 | |
| 87 | |
| 93 | |
| 102 | |
| 103 | |
| 104 | |
| 106 | |
| 107 | |
| 109 | |
| 112 | |
| 113 | |
| 116 | |
| 117 | |
| 119 | |
| 121 | |
| 123 | |
| 125 | |
| 128 | |
| 131 | |
| 132 | |
| 134 | |
| 135 | |
| 140 | |
| 141 | |
| 143 | |
| 148 | |
| 151 | |
| 152 | |
| 153 | |
| 154 | |
| 155 | |
| 156 | |
| 157 | |
| 158 | |
| 159 | |
| 161 | |
| 162 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |
| 166 | |
| 167 | |
| 169 | |
| 170 | |
| 171 | |
| 172 | |
| 178 | |
| 180 | |
| 184 | |
| 185 | |
| 186 | |
| 187 | |
| 188 | |
| 189 | |
| 190 | |
| 191 | |
| 192 | |
| 193 | |
| 195 | |
| 197 | |
| 198 | |
| 200 | |
| 201 | |
| 202 | |
| 204 | |
| 207 | |
| 208 | |
| 209 | |
| 210 | |
| 211 | |
| 215 | |
| 216 | |
| 217 | |
| 218 | |
| 220 | |
| 221 | |
| 223 | |
| 224 | |
| 225 | |
| 226 | |
| 227 | |
| 228 | |
| 230 | |
| 244 | |
| 245 | |
| 246 | |
| 248 | |
| 249 | |
| 252 | |
| 253 | |
| 254 | |
| 257 | |
| 258 | |
| 259 | |
| 260 | |
| 261 | |
| 262 | |
| 264 | |
| 266 | |
| 270 | |
| 272 | |
| 273 | |
| 275 | |
| 277 | |
| 279 | |
| 281 | |
| 282 | |
| 283 | |
| 284 | |
| 285 | |
| 286 | |
| 287 | |
| 288 | |
| 289 | |
| 290 | |
| 291 | |
| 292 | |
| 293 | |
| 294 | |
| 298 | |
| 299 | |
| 300 | |
| 301 | |
| 303 | |
| 304 | |
| 305 | |
| 307 | |
| 308 | |
| 309 | |
| 310 | |
| 312 | |
| 313 | |
| 314 | |
| 315 | |
| 316 | |
| 318 | |
| 319 | |
| 322 | |
| 323 | |
| 324 | |
| 325 | |
| 326 | |
| 327 | |
| 328 | |
| 329 | |
| 331 | |
| 332 | |
| 333 | |
| 335 | |
| 338 | |
| 339 | |
| 340 | |
| 341 | |
| 343 | |
| 345 | |
| 347 | |
| 349 | |
| 351 | |
| 352 | |
| 353 | |
| 354 | |
| 355 | |
| 357 | |
| 360 | |
| 362 | |
| 397 | |
Other editions - View all
A Treatise on the Law of Indirect and Collateral Evidence John H. 1860-1920 Gillett No preview available - 2015 |
A Treatise on the Law of Indirect and Collateral Evidence (Classic Reprint) John Henry Gillett No preview available - 2016 |
Common terms and phrases
admission admitted aliunde Allen authorities Bank character charged Chicago chose in action circumstances cited City claim collateral common law confession Conn contract corpus delicti court crime criminal cross-examination Cush custom death deceased declarations against interest defendant defendant's dence doctrine dying declarations entries exclude existence experience express fact gesta Gray Greenl ground guilt handwriting hearsay evidence held competent held proper impeach incompetent inference injury introduced Iowa issue jury larations Mass matter ment Minn N. E. Rep negligence ness oath Ohio St opinion particular party permit plaintiff presumption principle prior proof proposition prosecution question Railroad reason received render reputation res gestæ rule says shown sion Smith Starkie statement Tarrington Taylor tending to show testify testimony tion transaction trial truth usage weight Wend Whart witness
Popular passages
Page 247 - The general principle on which this species of evidence is admitted is that they are declarations made in extremity, when the party is at the point of death, and when every hope of this world is gone — when every motive to falsehood is silenced, and the mind is induced by the most powerful considerations to speak the truth. A situation so solemn and so awful is considered by the law as creating an obligation equal to that which is imposed by a positive oath, administered in a court of justice.
Page 177 - no friend to the almost indiscriminate habit of late years, of setting up particular usages or customs in almost all kinds of business and trade, to control, vary, or annul the general liabilities of parties under the common law, as well as under the commercial law.
Page 162 - A free and voluntary confession is deserving of the highest credit, because it is presumed to flow from the strongest sense of guilt, and therefore it is admitted as proof of the crime to which it refers.
Page 33 - If it be proved that the defendants pursued by their acts the same object, often by the same means, one performing one part, and another another part of the same, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of that same object, the jury will be justified in the conclusion that they were engaged in a conspiracy to effect that object.
Page 125 - The inviolability of the person is as much invaded by a compulsory stripping and exposure as by a blow. To compel any one, and especially a woman, to lay bare the body, or to submit it to the touch of a stranger, without lawful authority, is an indignity, an assault and a trespass...
Page 4 - And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin : for I feared thee, because thou art an austere man : thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
Page 283 - To this rule there are some exceptions which are said to be as old as the rule itself. These are cases of pedigree, of prescription, of custom, and in some cases of boundary. There are also matters of general and public history which may be received without that full proof which is necessary for the establishment of a private fact.
Page 292 - These surrounding circumstances, constituting parts of the res gestse, may always be shown to the jury, along with the principal fact ; and their admissibility is determined by the judge, according to the degree of their relation to that fact, and in the exercise of his sound discretion ; it being extremely difficult, if not impossible, to bring this class of cases within the limits of a more particular description.
Page 282 - hearsay' is used with reference to that which is written, as well as to that which is spoken, and in its legal sense it denotes that kind of evidence which does not derive its value solely from the credit to be given to the witness himself, but rests also in part on the veracity^ and competency of some other person.
Page 81 - If the evidence be so dubious that the judge does not clearly perceive the connection, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the prisoner, instead of suffering the minds of the jurors to be prejudiced by an independent fact, carrying with it no proper evidence of the particular guilt.