DEMONSTRATION (Lat. demonstrare, to point out). Whatever is said or written to designate a thing or person.
Several descriptions may be employed to denote the same person or object; and the rule of law in such cases is that if one of the descriptions be erroneous it may be re jected, if, after it is expunged, enough will remain to identify the person or thing in tended, for falsa dentonstratio non nocet. The meaning of this rule is, that if there be an adequate description with convenient cer tainty of what was contemplated, a subse quent erroneous addition will not vitiate it. The complement of this maxim is, non accipi debent verba in demonstrationem falsam gum competent in limitationem veram; which means that if it stand dOnbtful upon the words whether they import a false reference or demonstration, or whether they be words of restraint that limit the generality of the former words, the law will never intend er ror or falsehood. If, therefore, there is some object wherein all the demonstrations are true, and some wherein part are true and part false, they shall be intended of true limitation to ascertain that person or thing whereof all the circumstances are true; 4 Exch. 604 ; 8 Bingh. 244; Broom, L. Max. 490; Pettis v. Kellogg, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 460.
Parol and extrinsic evidence for the con struction of wills misdescribing the subje'et of the devise is admitted. Its office is to en
able a court to reject whatever part of the description is false ; Fairfield v. Lawson, 50 Conn. 501, 47 Am. Rep. 669 ; Doe v. Roe, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 541; Benham v. Hendrickson, 32 N. J. Eq. 441; Rose v. Hale, 185 III. 379, 56 N. E. 1073, 76 Am. St. Rep. 40; Fitzpat rick v. Fitzpatrick, 36 Ia. 674, 14 Am. Rep. 538; Wales v. Templeton, 83 Mich. 177, 47 N. W. 238; Seebroek v. Fedawa, 33 Neb. 413, 50 N. W. 270, 29 Am. St. Rep. 488; but not where there is a property which every part of the description fits ; 16 C. B. N. S. 698; nor where the will contains no language to connect the description in such devise with any land of the testator ; id; Lomax v. Lo max, 218 Ill. 629, 75 N. E. 1076, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 942.
The rule that falai& demonstratio does not vitiate an otherwise good description applies to every kind of statement of fact. Some of the particulars of an averment in a declara tion may be rejected if the declaration is sensible without them and by their presence is made insensible or defective ; Yelv. 182.
In Evidence. That proof which excludes all possibility of error.
Demonstrative evidence of negligence has been applied to that kind of negligence which is usually expressed by res' ipsa loguitur (which see). See EVIDENCE.