EVIDENCE (ante), in law, embraces all statements which a court permits or requires to be made by witnesses in relation to matters of fact pertaining to the case on trial, and all documents produced for the inspection of the court. The former is dis tinguished as parol, the latter as written evidence. Again, evidence is either direct or circumstantial. When a witness testifies to a fact in issue from his own personal knowledge, his evidence is direct; when he swears to other facts, from which the existence of the fact at issue is inferred, it is circumstantial. Generally direct evidence has more force than circumstantial, though the latter is sometimes of such weight as to carry conviction to a court or jury. Both are to be taken with some allowance for pos sible mistake or falsehood on the part of the witness. Evidence must be relevant to the issue, though it may embrace incidents in themselves irrelevant, but which are among the necessary surroundings of the fact to be proved. The contents of a docu ment must be proved by the document itself if it be accessible; if not, then by a certi fied copy, or by oral evidence; the law requiring the "best evidence" procurable in each case. When a contract has been reduced to writing, parol evidence cannot be admitted to prove its contents; still less can any variations of its terms be thus proved. Courts presume, until the contrary is proved, that a document was executed on the day of its date. Alterations and interlineations in a deed are presumed to have been made before execution, but in respect to wills the rule is reversed. When the law requires an instru ment, e.g., a will, to be attested, it cannot be used in evidence unless one attesting wit ness be called to prove its execution if such a witness be alive and capable of giving evi dence. If there be no such witness, then the signature of at least one attesting witness, and of the person- executing the deed, must be proved to be in their respective hand writings. A will thirty years old is held to prove itself; that is, there is a presumption in favor of its validity. The burden of proof lies on the person who asserts the affirma tive. A presumption on the part of a court can be set aside only by evidence, and the burden of proof rests upon the party making denial. In criminal cases—in trials for murder, for instance—malice is presumed and requires to be rebutted by evidence. A person who has not been heard of for seven years, unless the circumstances are such as to account otherwise for his absence, is presumed in law to be dead. His wife may marry again without liability to punishment for bigamy. The effect of presumption is to establish against a party a conclusion which stands until lie disproves it. In many states uninterrupted, undisputed possession for 20 years is held to establish a title to real estate. In some states a shorter period is sufficient. By the common law, if a wife commits a felony, other than inurder'or treason, the Presence.of her husband, she is
not criminally liable, it being assumed that she was under coercion. This rule is greatly'restricted in practice in the United States. It is a rule of law, to which, how ever, there are some qualifications, that a witness cannot testify to what he has heard another say, but to only what he himself knows. One of the exceptions to this rule is that the dying declarations of a murdered person as to the causes of his death and the person who committed the murder may be given in evidence by one who heard them. If a witness testify in a trial, his evidence may be proved in a subsequent trial. When doubts arise respecting the boundaries of land, or the pedigree of persons, and the question is material to determine the issue before the court, traditional evidence—in other words, declarations made long ago by persons supposed to have had knowledge of the subject—is sometimes admitted. The ordinary witness is confined to statements of fact; he cannot give an opinion, or state the inferences he draws from the facts within his knowledge. An "expert"—one skilled in some art or profession—is allowed and even required to give opinions as to the significance of facts whose meaning isnot fully understood by a court or jury; e.g., a chemist may testify as to the effects of certain poisons upon the human system, or a surgeon may say whether in his opinion there has been malpractice in treating a wound. For reasons of public policy, the confidential communications between an attorney and client and between a husband and wife are excluded. " Secrets of state" and the deliberation of judges and juries are exempt from judicial investigation. A witness within the jurisdiction of the court is required to attend in person; if he be beyond the jurisdiction his testimony is taken by commis sion. Formerly parties to an action and others interested therein were not allowed to be witnesses, but they are now generally admitted, it being assumed that courts and juries will give due weight to the temptation which such witnesses may be under to swerve from the truth in their own interest. Persons of a defective understanding, or who are supposed to be insensible to the obligations of an oath, are held to be incom petent as witnesses. Persons convicted of an infamous crime are generally excluded. The tendency of law at present, however, is to widen the range of evidence as far as possible, and to regard many of the former grounds of exclusion as concerning not the admissibility but only the credibility of a witness. The party calling a witness is not allowed to ask him "leading questions"—i.e., questions which suggest their answers. The other party on cross-examination is not bound by this rule. A witness is not required to answer questions, when in doing so he must criminate himself. A wit ness may be impeached by proving that his reputation for truth and veracity is bad.