these States, therefore, and in trials for treason against the general government, in the Courts of the United States, both the witnesses must speak not only to the same species of treason, but to the same overt act charged in the indictment. But whether where the overt act, constituting the treason is to be proved by evidence of several distinct facts, which, separately taken, may each appear innocent, but which in the aggregate are treasonable, it be necessary, under the national Constitution, that each of the two witnesses should be able to testify to all the facts of which the overt act of treason is composed, is a point not known to have been expressly decided. § 247. The proof of misprision of treason is regulated by the rules of the common law, as in other cases of crime, in all those States where it has not been changed by statute.1 § 248. It may here be added, that though one witness may be sufficient to prove a confession of treason, where such confession is offered in evidence merely as corroborative of other testimony in the cause; yet under the law of the United States, and of those States which have adopted a similar rule, the prisoner cannot be convicted upon the evidence of his confession alone, unless it is made in open Court.2 ch. 30, § 20. In Florida, and in Connecticut, the testimony of two witnesses, or that which is equivalent thereto," is made necessary to every capital conviction. Thompson's Dig. p. 258, § 159; Connecticut Rev. Stat. 1849, tit. 6, § 159. In Georgia, it is required that the party be "legally convicted of open deed, by two or more witnesses, or other competent and credible testimony," &c. Penal Code, 1833, Div. 3, § 2; Prince's Dig. p. 162. In Pennsylvania, the language of the law is, that he "be thereof legally convicted by the evidence of two sufficient witnesses," &c. Stat. Feb. 11, 1777; Dunlop's Dig. p. 120. 1 The only exception now known to the author, is the provision in Maine, Rev. St. 1840, ch. 153, § 4; which requires the same amount of evidence in proof of misprision of treason, which is required by Stat. 7 W. 3, ch. 3, quoted supra, § 246, in cases of treason. In Pennsylvania, persons charged with treason or misprision of treason, may be proceeded against for a misdemeanor, and convicted on the testimony of one witness alone. Stat. Mar. 8, 1780; Dunlop's Dig. ch. 69, p. 127. 2 Supra, § 237; Ante, Vol. 1, § 255. And see 1 East, P. C. 131-135; Respublica v. Roberts, 1 Dall. 39; Respublica v. McCarty, 2 Dall. 86. PART VI. OF EVIDENCE IN PROCEEDINGS IN EQUITY. CHAPTER I. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. § 249. In the first volume of this work, those general rules of Evidence have been considered, which are recognized in all the tribunals of the country, whatever may be their various modes of administering justice; including, of course, the general principles and rules of this branch of the law, as administered in Courts of Equity. Those principles and rules, therefore, will not here be repeated; it being proposed in this place merely to treat of matters in the law of Evidence peculiar to proceedings in Courts of Equity, and in other Courts which employ forms of proceedings, substantially similar to those. § 250. The rules of evidence, as to the matter of fact, as Lord Hardwicke long since remarked, are generally the same in equity as at law. It is only in particular cases that they differ; and these are either the investigation of frauds or trusts, or cases growing out of the peculiar nature of the proceedings. These proceedings, as on a former occasion has 1 Manning v. Lechmere, 1 Atk. 453; Glynn v. Bank of England, 2 Vez. 41; Man v. Ward, 2 Atk. 228. And see Dwight v. Pomeroy, 17 Mass. 303, 325; Reed v. Clark, 4 Monr. 20; Baugh v. Ramsey, Id. 157. |