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 seal. 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 writing, 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 no 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

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