HEARSAY EVIDENCE is the name given by lawyers to evidence given in a court of justice at second-hand, where the witness states not what he himself saw or heard, but what somebody else said. This evidence is, as a general rule, inadmissible, because the axiom is, that the best evidence that can be had must be produced, and therefore each witness must be confined to stating what he knows of his own personal knowl edge, or what he has learned by the aid of his own senses; and as he is sworn to the truth, his truthfulness is thus secured, as far as human testimony can be so. If evi dence were once admitted at second-hand, there would be no limit to its uncertainty, and there would be thus introduced vague statements of absent persons, who, not being sworn when they made them, are therefore incapable of being punished if they speak falsely, and cannot be cross-examined. Though such is the general rule, yet there are a few exceptions which are unavoidable, owing to the nature of the thing.' Thus, in proving pedigrees, the hearsay evidence of persons connected with the family, and those only, is adinUted in England; but in Scotland it is admitted though the persons were not connected with the family. A remarkable exception also exists in the ease of dying
declarations, i.e., statements made by persons mortally wounded and in the prospect of death; but in England such evidence is only admitted in criminal cases, on a charge of manslaughter or murder. In Scotland such declarations are admitted in all eases of violence, and though the party at the time did not believe he was dying. There is another exception to the non-admissibility of hearsay evidence allowed in Scotland, hut not in England, viz., where the person who made the statement is dead, and therefore cannot be produced as a witness. In England there is no help for such a state of things, and the statements of the dead person cannot be admitted; but in Scotland. if there was no reason. to .suppose the dbritrary it it presumed the dead witness spoke the truth, and what he said may be given in evidence for Whatit isrtVorth, both in civil and criminal cases. A few other exceptions, of a less important description to the above general rule, exist in both countries, which are too technical to be here noticed.