Letters in evidence fall within the gen eral rule as to written documents; 27 L. J. C. P. 193 ; their construction is for the court unless extrinsic circumstances be ca pable of explaining them ; 27 L. J. Ex. 34; but if they are written in so dubious a man ner as to be capable of different construc tions, or to be unintelligible without the aid of extrinsic circumstances,•their meaning be comes a question for the jury ; 8 C. B. 44; so the jury must deal with the whole ques tion, where a contract is made partly by let ter and partly oral; 17 C. B. N. S. 107.
It is a general prima facie presumption that all documents were made on the day they bear date, and this presumption ob tains where the document is a letter ; 2 Ex. 191, 196; 2 B. & Ad. 502; 2 M. & H. 853; but the date of a letter is not evidence that it was forwarded on that day ; Uhlman v. Brewing Co., 53 Fed. 485 ; Shelburne Falls Nat. Bank v. Townsley, 102 Mass. 177, 3 Am. Rep. 445; nor can the date of the receipt of a letter be established by witnesses who base their calculations upon its date ; the date of a letter does not prove the date of its de ceipt, or the time of mailing it, or that it was ever mailed; Uhlman v. Brewing Co., 53 Fed. 485. In an action for criminal conversation, where the letters offered are those of a wife to a husband, to show the terms on which they lived ; evidence must show when they were written ; 1 B. & Ald. 90; 9 C. & P. 198 ; 2 Stark. 193.
Postmarks on letters are prima facie evi dence that the letters were in the post at the time and place specified ; 7 East 65 ;• 29 How. St. Tr. 103; U. S. v. Williams, 3 Fed. 484; 1 Camp. 215; 7 M. & W. 515; 7 H. L. Cas. 646 ; although it be shown that in aid of justice, postmasters sometimes furnish empty envelopes bearing the post-office stamp, where they have never in fact been in the mail; U. S. v. Noelke, 1 Fed. 426. Postmarks are evidence that the letter was mailed and sent, rather than that it was merely put in the post office ; New Haven County Bank v. Mitchell, 15 Conn. 206 ; Oaks v. Weller, 16 Vt. 63 ; Russell v. Buck ley, 4 R. I. 525, 70 Am. Dec. 167 ; U. S. v. Babcock, 3 Dill. 571, Fed. Cas. No. 14,485. The burden of proving the receipt of a letters rests upon the party who asserts it; Huntley v. Whittier, 105 Mass. 391, 7 Am. Rep. 536; Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U. S.
185, 4 Sup. Ct. 382, 28 L. Ed. 395. If a letter properly directed is proved to have been either put in the post office or delivered to the postman, it is presumed to have reached its destination at the regular time, and to have been received by the person to whom it is addressed; 16 M. & W. 124; 1 H. L. Cas. 381; Bussard v. Levering, 6 Wheat. (U. S.) 102, 5 L. Ed. 215; see Russell v. Buck ley, 4 R. I. 525, 70 Am. Dec. 167, where it is held that any further evidence of the re ceipt of a letter than that it was properly directed and mailed would be wholly un necessary, always difficult and often impos sible. But this presumption is not one of law, but solely one of fact ; Whitmore v. Ins. Co., 148 Pa. 405, 23 Atl. 1131, 33 Am. St. Rep. 838; Freeman v. Morey, 45 Me. 50, 71 Am. Dec. 527; founded upon the probability that the officers of the government will do their duty, and the usual course of business ; Huntley v. Whittier, 105 Mass. 391, 7 Am. Rep. 536 ; Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U. S. 185, 4 Sup. Ct. 382, 28 L. Ed. 395. It may be rebutted by evidence showing that it was not received ; Austin v. Holland, 69 N. Y. 571, 25 Am. Rep. 246; De Jarnette v. Mc Daniel, 93 Ala. 215, 9 South. 570; German Nat. Bank of Denver v. Burns, 12 Col. 539, 21 Pac. 714, 13 Am. St. Rep. 247; Whitmore v. Ins. Co., 148 Pa. 405, 23 Atl. 1131, 33 Am. St Rep. 838. But the fact of non-return of a letter bearing a request for return in case of failure to deliver so strengthens the pre sumption of receipt from mailing that it be comes wellnigh conclusive; Jensen v. Mc Corkell, 154 Pa. 323, 26 Atl. 366, 35 Am. St. Rep. 843. On proof of the posting of a let ter, properly addressed, the fact that it was not returned to the dead letter office is evi dence of its receipt ; 16 M. & W. 124. The facts that all letters put in a certain place were in .the proper course of business put in the mail, and that a particular letter was put in such place, are evidence that it was despatched ; 4 Campb. 193. See L. R. 3 Ch. Div. 574 ; Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362, 19 Ara. Rep. 285 ; Hall v. Brown, 58 N. H. 97.
Proof that government stamped envelopes were exclusively used in the sender's office is evidence that a properly addressed letter was duly stamped ; Burch v. Grocery Co., 125 Ga. 153, 53 S. E. 1008.