LETTER. An epistle; a despatch ; a writ ten message, usually on paper, folded up and sealed, and sent by one person to anoth er. Lyle v. Clason, 1 Cai. (N. Y.) 582. It will include the envelope in which it is sent. U. S. v. Duff, 6 Fed. 45, 19 Blatchf. 10.
A writer of letters has a special property in them to prevent their publication or com munication to other persons ; Kiernan v. Telegraph Co., 50 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 194; Folsom v. Marsh, .2 Story 100, Fed. Cas. No. 4,901; U. S. v. Tanner, 6 McLean 128, Fed. Cas. No. 16,430.
The writer of a letter has a right of prop erty in the letter, superior to that of the party to whom the letter is sent ; Loog v. Bean, 26 Ch. Div. 306. The writer of letters, or his representative, whether they are lit erary compositions, or familiar letters, or letters of business, possesses the sole and ex clusive right of publishing them ; and they cannot be published without his consent by the person to whom they are addressed, or by any other ; Woolsey v. Judd, Duer (N. Y.) 379. The recipient of a private letter sent without any reservation, express or im plied, is invested with the right to keep the letter or destroy it, or to dispose of it in any other way than by publication ; Dock v. Dock, 180 Pa. 14, 36 Atl. 411, 57 Am. St. Rep. 617 ; Hopkinson v. Burghley, L. R. 2 Ch. 447. The writer 'is not entitled to reclaim it, nor is the receiver bound to keep it for his in spection or transcription; Grigsby v. Breck inridge, 2 Bush (Ky.) 481, 92 Am. Dec. 509 ; he has such property in it that he may by injunction restrain its publication; Eyre v. Higbee, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 502; in sending it, he makes a gift to his correspondent of the actual paper on which the letter is written ; 2 V. & B. 19.
The writer during his lifetime has a cer tain species of property in the publication of his letters, but this property only stands so far as to prevent the recipient from making any unfair or improper use of them ; 77 L. T. R. 559.
Letters written to a wife by a former hus band belong to her and not to his estate, or to her second husband ; Grigsby v. Breckin ridge, 2 Bush (Ky.) 480, 92 Am. Dec. 509; see Wilcox v. Moon, 64 Vt. 450, 24 Atl. 244, 15 L. R. A. 760, 33 Am. St. Rep. 936; and the recipient of a letter has no such property in it as passes to his executor as an asset of the estate; Eyre v. Higbee, 22 How. Pr. (N.
Y.) 198.
Where a bill in equity charged that the de fendant surreptitiously and illegally took from the trunk of the plaintiff's son and from the plaintiff's own bureau certain let ters written by the plaintiff to her son, and by her son to her, it was held that the special right in the letters written by plaintiff was one that could only be adequately protected in equity, and that the court having juris diction for discovery should proceed further and order all the letters to be restored ; Dock v. Dock, 180 Pa. 14, 36 Atl. 411, 57 Am. St. Rep. 617. See INJUNCTION; PRIVACY ; LIT ERARY PROPERTY.
Letters in evidence. A letter is not ad missible in evidence without proof of its being genuine, and such proof cannot be supplied solely by what appears on its face, as its contents, the letter head, etc.; Free man v. Brewster, 93 Ga. 648, 21 S. E. 165; but letters received in the regular course of business responsive to letters on the same subject, with proper letter heads, envelopes, etc., are presumably authentic, according to their purport ; Scofield v. Perlin & Orendorff Co., 61 Fed. 804, 10 C. C. A. 83. In order to prove a memorandum, under the statute of frauds, a letter and envelope are considered as one document ; 76 L. T. Rep. 441.
Letters in themselves inadmissible are so if they communicate any fact to the party against whom they are read which either affects the right in question or explains his subsequent conduct ; 22 E. C. L. R. 273, 845. A letter stating particular facts cannot be read in evidence merely because.it was sent, but if the party to whom it was addressed wrote an answer, such answer might be read as evidence against the party who wrote it, and the letter to which it was an- answer would be admissible for the purpose of ex plaining such answer. A letter and answers thereto are subject to the same rule as ap plieS to a conversation; if part is given in evidence by one party, the other party is entitled to have the whole produced ; Mc Intyre v. Harris, 41 Miss. 81. Failure to answer a letter is not generally deemed an admission of its contents ; Learned v. Tillot son, 97 N. Y. 1, 49 Am. Rep. 508.