2. Sect. 1079 of the Revised Statutes was intended to do no more than to
restore in the Court of Claims the common-law rule excluding
parties as witnesses, which had been abolished by the act of July 2,
1864 (13 Stat. 351); and hence the petitioner in this case is a com-
petent witness to prove the contents of a package of government
money taken from his official safe by robbers. Id.
3. The petitioner being competent, neither his testimony before the
court-martial which convicted the robbers, nor his report of the loss
to his superior officer, is admissible as independent or orginal evi-
dence, though it might be proper as corroborative of his own testi-
mony. Id.
4. Where a witness testifies, in his direct examination, to a purchase
made by him, it is competent on cross-examination to ask him
whether his contract was in writing; and, if it was, to identify the
paper. Gregory v. Morris, 619.
"About." See Contracts, 4-6.
"Knowingly and Wilfully." See Distilling, 2, 3.
"More or Less." See Contracts, 4-6, 8.
"Taking." See Constitutional Law, 13.
"Utter Loss." See Bottomry and Respondentia, 1.
"Voyage or Voyages." See Contracts, 3.
WRONGFUL CONVERSION, ACTION FOR. See Pleading, 1.
Cambridge: Press of John Wilson & Son.