But parol evidence is not admissible to con tradict the terms of the agreement or show the intent of the parties ; Delaware Indians v. Cherokee Nation, 193 U. S. 127, 24 Sup. Ct. 342, 48 L. Ed. 646; Packer v. Roberts, 140 III. 671, 29 N. E. 668 ; Willis v. Weeks, 129 Ia. 525, 105 N. W, 1012 ; or to construe a term which may be done without extrinsic evidence ; Sullivan v. R. Co., 138 Ala. 650, 35 Sduth. 694 ; or to explain away or destroy the effect of the agreement ; King v. Ins. Co., 45 Ind. 43.
Extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to contra dict or control court records ; Bent v. Stone, 184 Mass. 92, 68 N. E. 46 ; Marrow v. Brink ley, 85 Va. 55, 6 S. E. 605, in which an appeal was dismissed ; Marrow v. Brinkley, 129 U. S. 178, 9 Sup. Ct. 267, 32 L. Ed. 654 ; Cook v. Penrod, 111 Mo. App. 128, 85 S. W. 676; or to supply, extend, or modify the record of judi cial action by a municipal board ; Kidson v. City of Bangor, 99 Me. 139, 58 Atl. 900 ; and this rule extends to official records generally ; Ferguson v. Brown, 75 Miss. 214, 21 South. 603 ;Austin v. Rodman, 8 N. C. 71; legisla tive journals and records ; Auditor General v. Board, 89 Mich. 552, 51, N. W. 483 ; Wil son v. Markley, 133 N. C. 61.6, 45 S. E. 1023 ; municipal records ; Chippewa Bridge Co. v. Durand, 122 Wis. 85, 99 N. W. 603, 106 Am. St. Rep. 931; corporation records ; State v. Hancock, 2 Pennewill (Del.) 252, 45 Atl. 851 (at least in the absence of fraud or mistake); Snyder v. Lindsey, 157. N. Y. 616, 52 N. B. 592; contra, Rose v. Independent Chevra Kadisho, 215 Pa. 69, 64 Atl. 401; bourg v. Edwards, 155 Mo. 514, 56 S. W. 490. If there be no fraud, accident, or mistake, a deed cannot be contradicted or varied by pa rol evidence ; Kruse v. Koelzer, 124 Wis. 536, 102 N. W. 1072 ; Wishart v. Gerhart, 105 Mo. App. 112, 78 S. W. 1094 ; nor can an official deed ; Bower v. Chess & Wymand Co., 83 Miss. 218, 35 South. 444 ; Wells v. Savannah, 181 U. S. 531, 21 Sup. Ct. 697, 45 L..Ed. 986 ; or a sealed instrument generally ; Finck Bauer, 40 Misc. 218, 81 N. Y. Supp. 625.
See a "Brief History of the Parol Evi dence Rule," by Wigniore ; 4 Colum. L. Rev. 338; 20 L. Q. R. 245; 9 L. R. A. (N. S.) 967, note ; [1898] 2 Q. B. 487 ; also as to con tracts against public policy and good in part ; 16 Y. L. J. 531; and where the writing was delivered conditionally ; 18 L. R. A. (N. S.) 434, note.
In these cases, the parol evidence does not usurp the place, or arrogate the authority of written evidence, but either shows that the instrument ought not to be allowed to oper ate at all, or is essential in order to give to the instrument its legal effect ; Smith v. Wil liams, 5 N. C. 426, 4 Am. Dec. 564 ; White v.
Eagan, 1 Bay (S. C.) 247 ; Querry v. White, 1 Bibb (Ky.) 271; Stackpole v. Arnold, 11 Mass. 30, 6 Am. Dec. 150. See Gilpins v. Consequa, Pet. C. C. 85, Fed. Cas. No. 5,452 ; Barnet v. Gilson, 3 S. & R. (Pa.) 340; Otis v. Von Storch, 15 R. I. 41, 23 Atl. 39 ; Olds v. Conger, 1 Okl. 232, 32 Pac. 337 ; Bradley Fer tilizer Co. v. Caswell, 65 Vt. 231, 26 Atl. 956 ; Bulkeley v. House, 62 Conn. 459, 26 All. 352, 21 L. R. A. 247 ; O'Leary v. McDonough, 2 Misc. 219, 23 N. Y. Supp. 665 ; Lonergan v. Buford, 148 U. S. 581, 13 Sup. Ct. 684, 37 L. Ed. 569 ; Shepherd v. Busch, 154 Pa. 149, 26 Atl. 363, 35 Am. St. Rep. 815. Where the facts do not appear on the face of the judg ment, oral evidence is admissible to show how credits thereon come to be allowed; and what they were allowed for ; Humphreys v. Bank, 75 Fed. 852, 21 C. C. A. 538. And parol evidence has been admitted to establish a contemporaneous oral agreement which in duced the execution of the written contract though the effect be to alter or reform the latter ; Cullmans i. Lindsay, 114 Pa. 170, 6 Atl. 332 ; Cake v. Bank, 116 Pa. 270, 9 Atl. 302, 2 Am. St. Rep. 600 ; so when the con tract was a letter "confirming our verbal con tract," proof of the latter was permitted al though inconsistent with the letter ; Holt v. Pie, 120 Pa. 439, 14 Atl. 389. Asa general rule the withdrawal of evidence from the consideration of the jury, by direction of the court, cures any error caused by its admis sion; Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 452, 26 L. Ed. 141; Hopt v. Utah, 120 U. S. 430, 7 Sup. Ct. 614, 30 L. Ed. 708 ; but there are exceptions, as where too strong an impres sion has been made to, be cured.by the with drawal ; id.; or where the language of the withdrawal is insufficient to identify clearly what is withdrawn ; Throckmorton v. Holt, 180 U. S. 552, 21 Sup. Ct. 474, 45. L. Ed. 663.
It was held to be no cause of action to give false evidence negligently but not wilfully or corruptly, whereby the plaintiff was convict ed of a criminal offence, the conviction still standing ; [1902] 1 K. 467 ; which was based on a long line of authorities ending with Basely v. Mathews, L. R. 2 C. P. 684, which is said to he a novel case, and that there would probably be no cause of action even if the conviction were reversed; 18 L. Q. R. 107. See PERJURY.
As to the distinction between evidence, which corresponds with probatio, and preuve, see PREL See, generally, the treatises on Evidence, of Gilbert, Phillipps, Starkie, Roscoe, Swift, Bentham, Macnally, Peake, Greenleaf, Whar ton, Stephen, Rice ; Wigmore ; Chamberlayne ; McKelvey ; Jones ; Best on Presumption; Browne, Parol Ev.; Will, Circ.• Ev.; • TELE