Best Evidence - Law Dictionary Search Results
Home Dictionary Name: best evidence Page: 2Parol evidence
Parol evidence, testimony by the mouth of a witness. It is a general rule that oral evidence cannot be substituted for a written instrument, where the latter is required by law, or to give effect to a written instrument, defective in any particular essential to its validity; nor contradict, alter, or vary a written instrument, required by law, or agreed upon by the parties, as the authentic memorial of the facts which it recites. But parol evidence is admissible to defeat a written instrument on the ground of fraud, mistake, etc., or to apply it to its proper subject, or, in some instances, as ancillary to such application to explain the meaning of doubtful terms, or to rebut presumptions arising extrinsically. In these cases the parol evidence does not usurp the place of written evidence, but either shows that the instrument ought not to be allowed to operate at all, or is essential in order to give to the instrument its legal effect.The general rule with regard to the admission of pa...
Presumption
Presumption, a supposition, opinion, or belief pre-viously formed, Wood's Inst. 599.Presumptions have been said to be either: (1) juris et de jure (irrebuttable); or (2) juris (rebuttable); or (3) hominis vel judicis (rebuttable, of fact). (1) The presumption juris et de jure is that where law or custom establishes the truth of any point, on a presumption that cannot be overcome by contrary evidence; thus, that a child under seven is incapable of committing a felony (2) The pr'sumptio juris is a presumption established in law till the contrary be proved, as the property of goods is presumed to be in the possessor; every presumption of this kind must necessarily yield to contrary proof (3) The pr'sumptio hominis vel judicis is the conviction arising from the circumstances of any particular case. See Best on Evidence.There is a distinction between the 'presumption' under s. 114 of the Evidence Act and a 'statutory presumption' provided under the Bombay Prohibition Act. Under a statutory ...
Criminal Evidence Act
Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 (English) (61 & 62 Vict. c. 36), the general Act by which every person charged with an offence and his or her wife or husband became a competent, but not a compellable, witness for the defence at every stage of the proceedings.The Evidence Acts, 1851 and 1853, whichmade parties and spouses admissible witnesses (they having been previously incompetent on the groundof interest), expressly excepted criminal proceedings from its opertion; but a series of enactments dealing with particular offences, from the Licensing Act, 1872, downto the Chaff Cutting Machines Accidents Act, 1897 (of which s. 20 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, was by far the most important), did away with this exception, in particular cases and in varying phraseology, but without qualifications except that against compellability, and enabled accused persons to give evidenceon oath in their own defence.The Act of 1898, superseding [see Charnock v. Merchant, (1900) 1 QB 474] but not expr...
Experts
Experts, referred in Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), s. 45.The witnesses who give evidence upon matters of their own professional knowledge, as distingui-shed from particular matters of fact, e.g., professed judges of handwriting, foreign lawyers as to foreign law (see Re Turner, 1906 WN 27), or doctors as to the effects of drugs or poisons. The admissibility of such evidence rests upon the maxim cuilibet in sua arte est credendum.Regarding Court Experts, see R.S.C.Ord. XXXVIIA. An arbitrator under the (English) Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908 (8 Edw. 7, c. 36), cannot by virtue f Schedule I. (5) of that Act hear expert witnesses except by direction of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. See Best on Evidence; as to privilege of expert on handwriting, see Seaman v. Netherclift, (1876) 2 CPD 53; and as to the caution with which well-paid expert evidence is to be accepted as proof, see per Jessel, M.R., in Lord Abinger v. Ashton, (1873) LR 17 Eq. 358....
Indirect evidence
Indirect evidence, proof of collateral circumstances from which a fact in controversy, not directly attested by witnesses or documents, may be inferred. It is also called circumstantial and presumptive evidence. See Taylor or Best on Evidence....
Judicial Notice
Judicial Notice. Of many things, such as the course of nature, the common law of England, public statutes, the existence of a war in which this country is engaged, standard almanacs, the rule of the road (to keep on the left side), and the constitution of the government, a court does not require any proof. See best on Evidence, s. 253; Taylor on Evidence, part i., ch. 2; Powell on Evidence, 9th Edn., pp. 145 et seq.No fact of which the court will take judicial notice need to be proved (s. 56) court shall take judicial notice of certain facts and they need not be proved in the court see (Indian Evidence Act, Part II, Chapter II, S. 57)....
Unus Nullus Rule, The
Unus Nullus Rule, The, the rule of evidence which obtains in the Civil Law, that the testimony of one witness is equivalent to the testimony of none. See Best on Evidence, bk. 3, pt. 2, c. 10, and CORROBORATION. In our law corroboration is required in an action for breach of promise of marriage and on a summons for an affiliation order, and two witnesses are required on an indictment for treason or perjury, and for attestation of a will. The unsupported evidence of an accomplice, though legally admissible, is usually rejected by a jury under the direction of the judge [In re Meunier, (1894) 2 QB 415]; the same procedure will usually apply to the uncorroborated testimony of a party in divorce proceedings or the claimant of an estate. With these exceptions, the rule of our law is that witnesses are weighed, not counted,- 'ponderantur testes, non numerantur.'...
Leading question
Leading question, a question which suggests to a witness the answer which the party examining desires. Any question suggesting the answer which the person putting it wishes or expects to receive is called a leading question (Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 141). See Best on Evidence; Powell on Evidence. Such questions are not allowed to be put except in cross-examination, except as to matter not in dispute, and preliminary inquires, name and address, etc., of witnesses.It is not easy to lay down any precise general rule as to what are leading questions; on the one hand, it is clear that the mind of the witness must be brought into contact with the subject of inquiry; on the other, that he ought not to be prompted to give a particular answer, or to be asked any question to which yes or no would be conclusive. But how far it may be necessary to particularise, in framing the question, must depend upon the circumstances of each particular case.If a witness by his conduct show himself decided...
Real evidence
Real evidence, as by models, etc. See Best on Evidence, 10th Edn., bk. ii. pt. ii....
Tichborne case
Tichborne case. A very celebrated case in which one Arthur Orton, for falsely swearing in 1867 and afterwards that he was Sir Roger Charles Doughty Tichborne, who had been drowned at sea in 1854, was sentenced in 1873 to fourteen years' penal servitude-being seven years (the maximum sentence for perjury) for each of two perjuries. See Best on Evidence, 10th Edn., s. 517 B, where an extract from Orton's confession, sworn before a commissioner for oaths, is given; Article in Supplement to Dictionary of Biography, tit. 'Orton'; Famous Trials of the Century (19th), by J.B. Atlay, and other authorities referred to in Best on Evidence, latest book....
- << Prev.
- Next >>