Gambar halaman



said: “Conceding that the acts and declarations of

Mrs. Innis were sufficient to establish a waiver, in N People v. Freshorn, Supreme Court of California, case she had been feme sole, yet it is an unquestioned

1 Ky. L. Rep. 224, it was held that where an fact that during the whole time she was under coaccomplice called as a witness by the State volun- verture. The question then is, were they sufficient tarily testifies in chief on a particular subject, he to transfer the title of a married woman in real may be cross-examined on that subject, even though estate and estop her from asserting it? It is a sethe claims to be privileged from answering, on the

tled rule of law that a married woman has no caground that his answers may criminate him in other pacity to contract for the sale of her real estate, nor matters. The prisoner had testified that he was to convey it, otherwise than in the precise statutory present at and a party to the alleged larceny, and mode conferring the power. Hepsel v. Gefser, 2 was then asked by defendant's counsel

, “ state the Grant, 84; Rumfet v. Clemens, 10 Wright, 455; general plan which you and the defendant entered Gliddon v. Stempler, 2 P. F. Smith, 400; Dunham v. into for stealing these cattle ?” This he was ex- Wright, 3 id. 167; Graham v. Long, 15 id. 383; cused from answering, and this was held error. Brown v. Bennet, 25 id. 420. The title which she The court said: “ The witness should not have been did transfer according to the requirements of the permitted to separate the actual taking of the prop- statute, on the 11th of November, 1877, had reerty from the plan of the parties to the taking. His verted to her. It became hers as absolutely and recital of the alleged plan or agreement might have unconditionally as if she had not executed that tended to show that the connection of defendant agreement. Her title then could not be sold withwith the actual taking was innocent — as that he out an instrument in writing duly executed and acsupposed the cattle to be the property of the wit- knowledged by herself and her husband. Without ness, and was employed by him — or might have led those the instrument as to her was void and passed to such expansion of the narrative by witness as no title at law or in equity. Gliddon v. Stempler, would leave him open to contradiction, or to im- supra; Dunham v. Wright, supra. The fact that peachment by reason of the improbabilities of his she may have received a part or the whole of the story. Defendant was entitled to a full history of purchase-money in consideration of her agreement, all that tended to explain the nature and degree of or induced the purchaser to make valuable improvehis complicity with the acts of the witness. The ments thereon, is insufficient to pass her title to real scheme of the parties and the acts following were estate where the form of transfer prescribed by the part of one transaction; and when a witness volun- statute has not been observed. To hold otherwise tarily testifies in chief on a particular subject, he would operate as a repeal of the statute which desigmay be cross-examined on that subject, even though nates the only mode in which a married woman can his answers may criminate or disgrace him. Toron convey her real estate. Rumfet v. Clemens, supra; v. Gaylord, 28 Conn. 309. If the witness had been Gliddon v. Stempler, supra ; Thorndale v. Morson, 1 compelled to give his version of the agreement, it Casey, 326; Richards v. McClelland, 5 id. 385; Pelwould have aided the jury in determining how far let v. Fritz's Executors, 9 id. 118. The doctrine of his testimony was credible. He had already tes- estoppel cannot be invoked to enforce the agreetified that there were other parties to the criminal ment of Mrs. Innis for the sale of her land when agreement, but it was neither his moral duty nor her agreement was otherwise void. Legal incapaclegal privilege to protect them at the expense of the ity cannot be removed, even by fraudulent repredefendant on trial. If when he had given his ver- sentation, so as to create an estoppel in the act to sion of the plan he had stated there were no other which the incapacity relates. Hence it was held in parties to it than defendant and himself, he would Keen v. Coleman, 3 Wright, 299, that a married have shown that this or his former statement was woman who falsely and fraudulently represented untrue; if he named other parties, they might have that she was single when she executed a judgment been called to disprove the accusation, and thus bond, thereby obtaining the consideration therefor, discredit the whole of his testimony. It is enough, was not estopped from setting up her coverture as a however, to say that he had already admitted that defense to a recovery on the bond.” We also refer the conspiracy contemplated and provided for the to Shivers v. Simmons, 54 Miss. 520; S. C., 28 Am. commission of the particular overt act charged in Rep. 372,- and note, 374. the indictment. If a witness discloses a part of a transaction with which he was criminally concerned, without claiming his privilege, he must disclose the

In State ex rel. American Union Telegraph Co v. whole. 10 Fost. 540."

Bell Telephone Company of Missouri, Judge Thayer, of the St. Louis Circuit Court, has delivered an in

teresting decision. There was an application for Our remarks on the effect of a wife's joinder in mandamus to compel the defendant to connect the her husband's deed of land, in answer to a corre- plaintiff's office with its wires, and give it the use spondent, ante, p. 319, are confirmed by Innis v. of telephonic facilities. The defendant contended Pendleton, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, October 4, that it could not be compelled to do so, because by 1880, 11 Pitts. L. J. 73, where it is held that estop- the terms of its license from the patentee of the inpel cannot be invoked to enforce a wife's agreement, vention it was forbidden to connect with any teleotherwise void, for the sale of her land. The court | graph office or permit any telegraph company to


[ocr errors]

become one of its subscribers. The court observed: | opinion of a surgeon or physician is necessarily “Bearing in mind that the respondent serves the formed in part on the statements of his patient, depublic as a common carrier of messages, not by keep- scribing his condition and symptoms, and the causes ing offices and agents of its own to which the entire which have led to the injury or disease under which public may resort, but by applying instruments to he appears to be suffering. This opinion is clearly private residences and offices, and thereby enabling competent, as coming from an expert. But it is its subscribers to communicate directly with each obvious that it would be unreasonable, if not abother, and it becomes evident that this clause of the surd, to receive the opinion in evidence, and at the contract, if enforced as a valid provision, would same time to shut out the reasons and grounds on compel the respondent to discriminate against a which it was founded. Such a course of practice class of individuals or corporations engaged in a would take from the consideration of court and particular calling, to the extent of denying them jury the means of determining whether the judgany telephonic facilities whatsoever. In other ment was sound, and his opinion well founded and words, a corporation created under the laws of this satisfactory.

The party producing the State, and endowed with large privileges, among witness, and who relies on his opinion, should be others with the right to appropriate private prop- allowed the privilege of showing that his testimony, erty (presumptively on the theory that such a cor- as an expert, is the result of due inquiry and invesporation is a public servant), is compelled by the tigation into the condition and symptoms of the natural operation of this provision of the contract, patient, past and present.

The existence to withhold facilities for the transaction of business of many bodily sensations and ailments which go from one class of citizens which it accords to others. to make up the symptoms of disease or injury can In my judgment, this clause of the contract is inde- be known only to the person who experiences them. fensible when called in question by any person or It is the statement and description of these which corporation injuriously affected thereby. In so far enter into and form part of the facts on which the as the contract between the respondent and the opinion of an expert as to the conditions of health patentee compels the former to discriminate against or disease is founded.” And at p. 326 he says: “It one class of its would-be customers, and to deny is suggested, in behalf of the defendant, that the them the same privileges and service which it ac- statements in the present case were made by the cords to others, the contract is invalid. It is not plaintiff after the commencement of the action. But possible to admit the principle that a railroad, tele- we do not think that for this reason only they ought graph or telephone company may avoid the perform to have been rejected. It was a circumstance which .ance of any part of the paramount duty they owe may have detracted from the weight of the evidence to the entire public, by contract obligations which of the opinion of the physician, so far as it was they may enter into, even with the patentee of an founded on these statements. But as the statements invention. If the principle were conceded, it is were made to a medical man, for the purpose of requite obvious that such corporations might readily ceiving advice, they were competent and admissiavoid the performance of any public duty that be ble.” came inconvenient or burdensome. It would become The principal case is supported by Matteson v. N. possible to discriminate at pleasure both against

Y. Cent. R. R. Co., 35 N. Y. 487. The injury ocindividuals or classes." “If the relator, owing to curred on the 7th of July, and consisted in concusthe peculiar nature of its business as a telegraph sion of the spine. Declarations made by the injured company, shall attempt to make such use of the person in the following October, after suit brought, telephone as the respondent seems to anticipate, the to physicians while they were examining her to asquestion as to the legality of such use can only be certain her condition, were held admissible in her tried and determined when the emergency arises, behalf. The court said: “Ller complaints and repand in some appropriate form of proceeding." resentations of pain and suffering, together with

her appearance and conduct, necessarily formed the

basis of their judgment.” “This is the case, notDECLARATIONS OF INJURED PARTY TO withstanding the examinations referred to were SURGEON AS TO CAUSE OF INJURY, made by the physicians after the suit was comCONDITION AND SYMPTOMS.

menced, and with a view as to their testifying

therein as to the result of their examinations. It N

48 Wis. 513, it was held that in an action of their object, and if she did know it the jury were damages for personal injuries by negligence, the to judge whether her representations were false or plaintiff having at the defendant's request sub- her testimony coilusive.” So in Brown v. N. Y. mitted to a physical examination by surgeons, testi- Cent. R. R. Co., 32 id. 597, testimony that the inmony that judging from the examination, including jured party complained “all the time since the what she said at the time, and her indications of injury," was held admissible. To the same effect suffering, the injury complained of existed, was ad- Caldwell v. Murphy, 11 id. 416, where the commissible, although the witness swore he could dis- plaints were made during ten or eleven days after cover no external evidence of it.

the injury, and in Werely v. Persons, 28 id. 344, This is based on Barber v. Merriam, 11 Allen, where they were made during two or three weeks 322–324, where Chief Justice Bigelow says: “The after the injury. In Adeson v. Kincaid, 6 East, 188,

[ocr errors]

the action was on a policy of insurance on the plaint- court said: “It is natural evidence upon those iff's wife's life, the defense fraud. The wife's de- points, as her appearance, seeming agony of body, clarations as to the state of her health were held and other physical exhibitions would be.” “But receivable. Lord Ellenborough said: “What were the account given by her as to previous symptoms the complaints, what the symptoms, what the con- and their origin and duration would not influence duct of the parties themselves at the time, are al- the mind of the physician upon the question as one ways received in evidence upon such inquiries, and of science, but would be acted upon by him only in must be resorted to from the very nature of the proportion to his belief of its truth, either from his thing."

confidence in the narrator or from its coincidence In Chapin v. Marlborough, 9 Gray, 244, the state- with his judgment on that point, formed from the ment of the plaintiff to his physician, several existing stage of the malady.” Exactly the same months after the injury, of the cause of injury and doctrine was declared in Rogers v. Crain, 30 Tex. that he then suffered pain, was excluded as evidence 284; and in Wilson v. Town of Granby, 47 Conn. of the fact of the injury. The court said: “Any The conclusion, therefore, is: First. That the thing in the nature of narration or statement is to complaints and statements of the injured party at be carefully excluded, and the testimony is to be the very time of the occurrence, not only as to bodconfined strictly to such complaints, exclamations ily suffering but as to the circumstances of the ocand expressions as usually and naturally accompany currence, are admissible as res gesta. Second. That and furnish evidence of a present existing malady.” the statements of the injured party subsequently Citing Bacon v. Charlton, 7 Cush. 586. In the lat- and not substantially at the time of the occurrence, ter case the complaints were three or four days after as to the circumstances of the occurrence, are not the accident.

admissible, whether made to a physician or to a In Kennard v. Burton, 25 Me. 39, the complaints non-expert. Third. Complaints and statements of were made while on the way home after the injury. the injured party as to his present physical condiThe court said: “By the time in question is not in- tion, although subsequently to the occurrence and tended the time of injury, but the time when it is indeed after suit is brought for the injuries, are admaterial to prove a condition of bodily or mental missible, whether made to a physician or to one suffering. And that may be material for weeks and who is not an expert. perhaps months after an injury has been inflicted.” To the same effect Gray v. McLaughlin, 26 Iowa, 279. And in Illinois Cent. R. R. Co. v. Sutton, 42

EXPERTS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY.* Dll. 438, the court said: “Not only the opinion of

BY JOHN B. CHAPIN, M. D. the expert, founded in part upon such data, is receivable in evidence, but he may state what his patient said in describing his bodily condition, if said

IN presenting the subject which forms the title of under circumstances which free it from all suspicion clear away the difficulties which are conceded to surof being spoken with reference to future litigation

round it. It is the purpose to offer for your consideraand give it the character of res gestce.

tion some propositions which may promote discussion,

and an interchange of views, which will in tho end In Denton v. State, 1 Swan, 279, it was held that

solve the recurring problem, viz.: The conditions the statements of a wounded man, when his wounds which are essential to enable a witness, called into were being examined, in explanation of the charac- court in the capacity of an expert, to appear in such a ter and extent of his injury, being part of that

manner that his independent judgment may be secured,

and that it may be presented free from bias, or the sustransaction, so far as they are necessary to commu

picion of its existence. nicate information upon the subject, are admissible

The practice of the courts is to admit the testimony in evidence in a prosecution growing out of the of a class of witnesses who are not supposed to have conflict in which the wound was given, but the state- personal knowledge of any facts or circumstances ment of the name of the person who inflicted the

bearing upon a pending case, but on the assumption injury, or as to the instrument with which it was

that they are able from their special training and expe

rience to apply scientific tests and present to the court done, constitutes no part of that information, and

and jury the import and value of such evidence as is not admissible.

may appear, which laymen could not be expected to In A Miss Goodwin v. Harrison, 1 Port. 80, an ac- comprehend and properly estimate. The expert wittion for giving her a dose in some toddy to intoxi- ness may be said to be tolerated by the courtesy, and cate and inflame her passions, her complaints to her

usages of the practice, of tho courts. He cannot have

any other standing. That he can be compelled to furmother the next morning were admitted "as being

nish any testimony against his inclination is not yet an exception from the general rule, founded upon clearly established. He has nothing to offer but his the necessity of the case.” This was disapproved, opinions or scientific deductions which may, or may Brady, J., dissenting, in Spatz v. Lyons, 55 Barb. not, in the estimation of tho court and jury, have an 476.

appreciable value.

According to the statutes and the common law, a In Lush v. McDaniel, 13 Ired. L. 485, it was held

person of unsound mind is not in a fit state for punishthat the declarations of a sick person to a physician

ment, to enter upon his defense, or responsible for his at any particular time of his sufferings and condi

acts. The opinion the medical expert offers has refertion are evidence so far as they refer to the time at ence to the quality or quantity of mind at the time of which they are made, but not so far as they refer to

* Read before tho Association of Superintendents of their state and condition at any past time. The American Asylums for the Insane, May, 1880.

the commission of a crime, or when some transaction science, as well as of men, who ought with like pretook place about wbich a question may arise. The mises to reach conclusions precisely similar, expressing opinion which is presented can hardly be said to have opinions in conflict with each other. been formed from a circumstantial kuowledge of the It is not a matter of surprise that courts have anoccurrence, or as the result, in all cases, of a personal nounced from the bench that medical men might be examination.

better employed at home in attendance upon their The true mental condition of the party involved is a patients, and that doctors are respectable men in their question of fact, like other facts pertaining to the way, “who are called to administer to our ailments, guilt or innocence of a person charged with crime, to but we are not bound to believe their opinions unless be determined by the verdict of a jury. This method they are compatible with sound sense; doctors give must stand until some other process of adjudication opinions wbich are merely speculative. They have shall be accepted. To this tribunal tho medical wit- their theories and speculations. You (gentlemen of ness offers his opinion, not as he may have formed it tho jury) are not bound to believe the opinion of a from the whole of the evidence adduced, but upon an doctor unless it comports with your common sense." assumed or a hypothetical case embracing as much of It is undoubtedly true that many cases are presented it, and omitting as much, as may serve the purpose of for judicial investigation which are beyond the domain the examiner. Courts are not disposed to remit to of actual determination — subjects of mere opinion, other tribunals the determination of issues of fact, uncertainty and speculation to be determined only by for there “would be nothing left for the jury to deter- results. Juries, on the other hand, havo furnished too mine." So carefully guarded do the courts seek to many unfortunate instances of the extreme assertion preserve the sacred province of the jury, that the of their prerogative in cases, within tho knowledge medical expert, in cases where the issue is the mental doubtless of many here present, where they hare condition of the party involved, is only permitted to ignored the expression of professional opinions, which express an opinion upon a hypothetical question, or an were founded on actual experience, aud should have assumed case.

been received with all the weight to be attached to the In the language of a learned judge, "a question of testimony of facts bearing upon the case. this character to be admissible must always be an hypo- How opinions which are merely speculative and thetical one, based either upon the truth of all the theoretical are to be discriminated from those formed evideuce given in the case, or upon an hypothesis from actual professional experience it may not be easy specially framed of certain facts assumed to be proven to determine. It must be admitted that a real diffifor the purpose of the inquiry. Such a question leaves culty arises at this point. Possibly a recognition of it for the jury to decide in the first case whether the this difficulty may have induced the judge whose lanevidence in whole or in part is true or not, and in the guage we have quoted to advise the jury, in the second case whether the particular facts assumed are dilemma and amidst the conflict of professional or are not proved." *

opiuion in the mazes of which he found himself inAssuming this dictum to be the settled practice in volved, to adhere to and exercise their common sense. conducting judicial inquiries of this nature, hypo- We have alluded to the fact that the practice of the thetical questions to be propounded to medical wit- courts is to admit a class of witnesses kuown as experts, nesses are prepared by counsel representing opposite and that the physicians of asylums and others who theories of the case, and calculated to elicit replies en- have relations with the insane are in a position rendertirely different. Counsel confer beforehand with medicing them liable to be called to give testimouy in certain cal men summoned in the interests of their clients in

cases. They are also subjected to a line of examinathe preparation of the questions. By a process of in- tion, which, while established by the usages of tho genious aggregation, or elimination of symptoms, courts, is not in harmony with the course of inquiry answers favorable to either view of the case are elicited, recognized by medical men and believed by them tho or such a congregation of circumstances presented so method best calculated to reach a correct opinion. deficient in essentials, that the witness is unable to ex- They are not always willing witnesses. Sometimes press any opinion.

they attend on request, and again they are present in While the courts are disposed to insist that the basis obedience to the commands of the court. of the hypothetical question shall embrace conditions Such briefly being the practice, it remains to conthat have been developed in the course of the investi- sider some of the results, one of which may be stated gation, there is a radical defect permitted in their to be a growing distrust of the value, and wo may say formation in this respect, that the hypothesis does not the honesty, of expert testimony. Want of confidence embody all the medical history, neither is the medical exists not only toward medical experts, but toward witness allowed to frame a case which will embrace a experts in sciences reputed to be exact. It is only complete history of it. The witness is present to

necessary to point to somo recept trials to assert that answer questions, and not, as he may be informed, to the waut of confidence and distrust aro confined not deliver a disquisition on medical science.

wholly to judges and jurors, but to a certain extent The hypothesis which is presented contains just so pervade the community. This sentiment has its origin much of the case as will elicit an answer or opinion in various causes, among which may be mentioned: favorable to the party in whose interest it is framed. 1st. Tho fact that medical experts are usually sumThe courts do not insist that it embrace more, but that moned' by counsel, and not by the court, in the interwhat it does contain shall have appeared in evidence ests of their side or clients, and their supposed liability in the course of the trial. Tho answer to the question to have a bias arise in tho progress of the case - a poscomes, sometimes, with the automatism of a machine. sible risk that their feelings and sympathies may We have known the medical witness, impatient at the become enlisted in behalf of the side on which they tedium of a protracted trial, request that he might are called. record his “aye" and " nay”in response to the hypo- 2d. The arrangement which is sometimes made for thetical questions as they might appear, and that he be the payment of money, or a retaining fee, to medical allowed to depart. If the questions are skillfully experts for their services, by counsel in whose interests framed the experts usually agree in their replies, other they are summoned, the amount of which is not fixed wise they appear ranged on opposite sides offering by law, and which may possibly be contingent upon opinions that are contradictory. The spectacle is pre- the issue of the case. sented of the uncertainty of medical judgment and 3d. The form of submission of the hypothetical ques;

tion which is permitted to contain a portion, and noi * Carpenter v. Blake, 2 Lans.

the whole, of what a physician may deem essential to the formation of a satisfactory opinion, or so much as tion of any gift or compensation for expert services may be necessary to bring an answer favorable to the directly from parties interested. interests of one or the other parties; and,

The composition of the hypothetical question and 4th. The general prejudice which exists in the popu- the time of its submission have been alluded to as lar mind against the interposition of the plea of in- causes tending to bring discredit upon expert testisanity in criminal cases.

mony. They are believed to exert a decided influence There may be a difficulty about the adoption of any in that direction. The expert testimony is introduced new rule for the selection of witnesses other than the at successive stages of a trial, and if the question is one in force. It cannot become a question but that so framed as to include generally what has been prounder the present practice counsel have a right to sum- duced in evidence to a certain period of the trial it mon such, and so many witnesses as may be admissible, necessarily embraces but a portion of the whole case. or that a person charged with crime may avail himself The consequence is that at one stage of the trial a of any proper line of defense at any stage of the trial, hypothesis will admit of one answer by an expert, and and for this purpose call witnesses. There is no doubt, at a subsequent stage another hypothesis framed from however, that the results which we have pointed out, additional evidence warrants another, and exactly are in great part to be attributed to the existing prac- opposite answer. There is presented an apparent contice. As a profession we have the right of respectful flict of professional opinion between “two trained protest, and to ask that a mode of procedure calculated bands of witnesses in battle array against each other," in its operation to bring discredit upon the profession with the possible and probable result of lowering, in be changed. To effect a change, legislation must be the estimation of the court and jury, the value of the invoked to alt the practice so tha the law confer whole expert testimony. We know of no remedy for upon judges alone the power to subpoena experts in this except it may be found by changing the rule and such cases where their opinions would seem to be desir- permitting experts to express an opinion on a hypoable. There can be no doubt the power thus conferred thetical question which embraces, in the judgment of would be exercised wisely and result in elevating the the medical expert, all the points bearing on the quesstanding and character of expert testimony, and what tion of insanity, where this is involved. A medical is more important, restore to experts that independ- opinion formed after hearing one side of a case is ence of judgment and respect for their opinions we deserving of no more respect, and has no more value, do not believe they enjoy under the present system. than a verdict of a jury formed in a similar manner, No suspicion of bias could then properly attach to or the opinion of a high court of appeal, the judges them. They would then assume their appropriate and of which are in a sense experts in law, rendered after originally-intended relation to the court that of amicus argument on one side only. curiæ.

The frequency with which expert testimony has It has been urged as a defense of the present system been introduced in judicial proceedings leads to the that each party in interest is entitled to have as full an conclusion that it is destined in the future to bear a exposition of expert knowledge as can be brought for- still more important part. The influence which it will ward to serve the respective interests — that in other exert upon the issues of trials, and the respect in which words, medical experts should be permitted to say as it will be held, will depend greatly upon the independmuch as possible in behalf of the cause in which they ence of the witness, and his absolute freedom from are engaged, and as little as possible that may serve circumstances calculated to produce a bias or even the the opposite party. This course is hardly admissible, suspicion of its existence. Whatever may conduce to as it ignores the true position of the expert and con- these results: to the elevation of the standard and verts him into that of a quasi counsel.

cbaracter of the medical expert, it should be our highThe physician by study and actual experience ac- est duty to promote. Notwithstanding the respect we quires knowledge and matured judgment which is may have for the usages and established traditions of peculiarly his own property and capital, the independ- the law, however willingly the medical witness may ent use and enjoyment of which ought to be as fully feel disposed to assume grave responsibilities which are assured to him as if the avails of his life-work were in- imposed, and not coveted, we still believe the right of vested in goods and land. His goods and land cannot respectful protest should be vigorously exercised be taken from him without his consent or some process against practices which tend so frequently to depreof law, and his proprietary right to his professional ciate the estimation in which he and his opinions experience ought to be as sacredly guarded, and secured ought to be held. to him.

If the knowledge and experience of the expert is a VALIDITY OF FOREIGN MARRIAGE - PROOF necessity, and if the principles laid down above are

OF HANDWRITING - PROOF OF FORcorrect, he should unquestionably be paid for the ser

EIGN LAW - PRESUMPTIONS. vice he renders. Ought the compensation to be the subject of a private bargain between the expert and parties interested in his testimony, or be fixed in a

NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, SEPTEMBER 21, 1880. manner authorized and provided by law ? Certainly, whatever plan will elevate the expert witness above all

HYNES V. McDERMOTT et al., appellants. suspicion of bias, and conduce to his independence, would seem the more desirable one - indeed the best.

Where enough took place upon a vessel crossing the Eng

lish channel and afterward in France between a man The witness appears before the court and jury to sub

and woman to sustain the finding of a jury that there mit his opinion on a hypothesis the elements of which

was a marriage between them if such transactions had are made up from evidence already adduced. He is

taken place in the Stato of New York, held, that such a not a juror, but a quasi juror. Extreme caution is

finding would be sustained, there being no proof as to taken that jurors themselves shall have no pecuniary the law of France in relation to marriage, nor of the relations with parties interested in the result of the nationality of the vessel upon which the parties mentrial, and penalties are imposed for a violation of a tioned crossed the channel. rule intended to preserve the purity of the jury box.

There can be no comparison of handwriting by an expert It would therefore seem to be the proper and obvious

unless the pieces of writing by which comparison is

made are properly in evidence in the case for some purcourse to authorize and direct the court in all cases

pose other than that of being compared. where experts appear, to fix and determine their com

A comparison of a signature in dispute with photographic pensation, in its discretion, and if deemed necessary to copies of other writings for the purpose of allowing an go further, prohibit by positive enactment the recep- opinion of an expert as to the character of the signa

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »