JUDICAIIA ; JUDGMENT.
The constitution of the United States, art. 4, s. 1, declares that "full 'faith and shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And congress may, by gen eral laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof." See Hamp ton v. M'Conuel, 3 Wheat. (U. S.) 234, 4 L. Ed. 378; Cora v. Green, 17 Mass. 546; Stephenson v. Bannister, 3 Bibb (Ky.) 369; Manwaring v. Griffing, 5 Day (Conn.) 563; Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 16 Sup. Ct. 139, 40 L. Ed. 95 ; Ritchie v. McMullen, 159 U. S. 235, 16 Sup. Ct. 171, 40 L. Ed. 133 ; 2 Black, Judg. § 857 ; FOREIGN JUDGMENT.
Statutes defining what shall be held con clusive are, in general, unconstitutional, as a deprivation of due process of law, and as depriving the courts of their function .of de termining the weight and sufficiency of evi dence; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Min nesota, 134 U. S. 418, 10 Sup. Ct. 462, 702, 33 L. Ed. 970 ; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Simonson, 64 Kan. 802, 68 Pac. 653, 57 L. R. A. 765, 91 Am. St. Rep. 248; Cairo & F. R. Co. v. Parks, 32 Ark. 131; Wantlan v. White, 19 Ind. 470; Meyer v. Berlandi, 39 Minn. 438, 40 N. W. 513, 1 L. R. A. 777, 12 Am. St. Rep. 663; Cooley Const. Lim. (5th ed.) 453; but the legislature may make the deliberate statement of a party conclusive evidence against him ; Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U. S. 557, 19 Sup. Ct. 281, 43 L. Ed. 552.
Foreign laws must be proved as facts in the courts of this country, and mere cita tions to English statutes and authorities can not be accepted as showing the English law; Dickerson v. oiatheson, 50 Fed. 73. 'See Fos EIGN LAW. For the force and effect of for eign judgments, see FOREIGN JUDGMENT.
The object of evidence is next to be con sidered. It is to ascertain the truth be tween the parties. It has been discovered by experience that this •is done most cer tainly by the adoption of the following rules, which are now binding as law : 1. The evi dence must be confined to the point in issue. 2. The substance of the issue must be proved; but only the substance is required to be proved. 3. The affirmative of the issue must
be proved.
It is a general rule, both in civil and criminal cases, that the evidence shall be confined to the point in issue. Justice and convenience require the observance of this rule, particularly in criminal cases ; for when a prisoner is charged with an offence it is of the utmost importance to him that the facts laid before the jury should consist exclusively of the transaction which forms the subject of the indictment, and which alone he has come prepared to answer ; 2 Russ. Cr. 694; 1 Phill. Ev. 166.
To this general rule there are several ex ceptions, and a variety of cases which do not fall within the rule. In general, evi dence of collateral facts is not admissible; but when such a fact is material to the issue joined between the parties, it may be given in evidence: as, for example,.irc order to prove that the acceptor of a bill knew the payee to be a fictitious person, or that the drawer had general authority from him to fill up bills with the name of a fictitious payee, evidence may be given to show that he had accepted similar bills before they could, from their date, have arrived from the place of date;. 2 H. Bla. 288.
When special damage sustained by the plaintiff is not stated in the declaration, it is not one of the points in issue, and, there fore,, evidence of it cannot be received ; yet a damage which is a necessary result of the defendant's breach of contract may be proved notwithstanding it is not in the dec laration ; 11 Price 19.
In general, evidence of the character of either party to a suit is inadmissible ; yet in some cases such evidence may be given. See CHARACTER.
When evidence incidentally applies to an other person or thing not included in the transaction in question, and with regard to whom or to which it is inadmissible, yet if it bear upon the point in issue it will be received; 8 Bing. 376. And see. 4 B. & P. 92; State v. Watkins, 9 Conn. 47, 21 Am. Dec. 712; 1 Whart. Cr. Law § 649.