TIIE BURDEN OF PROOF. From the nature of plead ing and the trial of an action at law it follows that upon one party or the other to the controversy rests the burden of introducing some evidence in order to establish his contention. The burden of proof is said to rest upon the party against whom a judgment must be given if no evidence be introduced in his favor. The same doctrine is stated in slightly different terms by saying that the burden of proving a fact rests upon him asserts the existence of the fact in his pleading, and not on him who denies it. The party on whom the burden rests may, by the introduction of some evidence, make out a prima fade ease, and then arises the legal necessity for the other party to introduce evidence enough to destroy the prima fade case of his opponent. Thus at vari ous stages of the trial the burden of introducing evidence may shift from one side to the other. It is evident, therefore. that the common expres sion that the burden of proof shifts during the progress of a trial is not exact, unless the word proof be taken in the sense of attempt to establish the truth of a fact, and not in its usual legal sense as such evidence as satisfies the mind. In civil trials the party on whom rests the burden of proof must sustain his ease by the preponderance of evidence. In criminal trials the burden of proof rests the prosecution, which is required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In sustaining the burden of proof the party upon whom the burden rests is aided in making proof by the doc trines of judicial notice, and of presumption. It is unnecessary to prove facts of which the court will take judicial notice. In general these are facts of such common and universal knowledge that it would be idle to prove them by affirmative testimony. Thus ( to cite a few of the innumerable
cases) it is unnecessary to prove the calendar, the multiplication table. that water will freeze, or that ice will melt. The party sustaining the burden of proof is also aided in making proof by proving one fact or set of facts from which cer tain consequences are presumed to flow. (See Prmsumertos.) All so-called circumstantial evi dence is evidence intended for the purpose of creating a presumption of some other fact sought to be proven.
In general courts of equity follow the rules of evidence as adopted by the common-law courts. The important exceptions have been noticed above.
In the United States the Federal courts in civil cases follow rules of evidence applied by the local State courts, unless a different rule is required by Federal statute. In criminal trials they fol low the common law as interpreted by the Fed eral courts, and as modified by Federal statutes. In the several States the common-law rules of evidence are generally followed with compara tively few statutory modifications, the more im portant of which have been noted. Consult: Greenleaf, Treatise on the Law of Eridence (16th ed., Boston, 1899) ; Thayer, Preliminary Treatise on Eridcnce at La • (Boston, 1898); id.. Cases on Ecidence (Boston. 1900) ; Stephen, Digest of the Law of Evidence (May, editor, Bos ton. 1877) ; Abbott, elect Cases on Evidence (New York, 1895) ; hi.. Trial Evidence (New York, 1900) : Powell, Principles and Practice of the Lau' of Evidence (7th ed., London, 1899) : Best, Principles of Eridence (9th ed., London, 1902).