Home >> Bouvier's Law Dictionary >> Photograph to Preliminary Examination >> Photograph_P1

Photograph

co, am, rep, st, pac, fed, people, mass, tex and ill

Page: 1 2

PHOTOGRAPH. The mechanical process of photography is judicially recognized as a means of producing true likenesses which are admissible in evidence in the trial of civil and criminal cases. The difference be tween the iiages produced upon a photo graphic plate and upon the human eye does not render a photograph inadmissible in evi dence, but bears only upon the effect of such evidence; 1 Greenl. Ev. 92; Scott v. New Orleans, 75 Fed. 373, 21 C. C. A. 402; Mac lean v. Scripps, 52 Mich. 214, 17 N. W. 815, 18 N. W. 209. A photograph of the subject matter in controversy is admissible in evi dence, when proved to have been fairly taken; Cowley v. People, 83 N. Y. 464, 38 Am. Rep. 464; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Upton, 194 Fed. 371, 115 C. C. A. 379; Church v. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 512; Frank lin v. State, 69 Ga. 42, 47 Am. Rep. 748; Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Smith, 90 Ala. 25, 8 South. 43, 24 Am. St. Rep. 753; Udderzook v. Com., 76 Pa. 340; In re Jes sup, 81 Cal. 408, 21 Pac. 976, 22 Pac. 742, 1028, 6 L. R. A. 594; Barker v. Perry, 67 Ia. 146, 25 N. W. 100; Ordway v. Haynes, 50 N. H. 159. There should be preliminary proof of care and accuracy in the taking, and of their relevancy ; Cunningham v. R. Co., 72 Conn. 244, 43 Atl. 1047; McKarren v. R. Co., 194 Mass. 179, 80 N. E. 477, 10 Ann. Cas. 961. The testimony of the photogra pher is not essential ; id.; New York, S. & W. R. Co. v. Moore, 105 Fed. 725, 45 C. C. A. 21.

While the reported cases do not always show that the photograph offered in evidence was first authenticated, yet there is no case which holds that such proof is unnecessary. The following cases show that such proof was assumed to be necessary Or was given; Cooper v. R. Co., 54 Minn. 379, 56 N. W. 42 ; Geer v. Min. Co., 134 Mo. 85, 34 S. W. 1099, 56 Am. St. Rep. 489 ; People v. Fish, 125 N. Y. 136, 26 N. E. 319; State v. Kelley, 46 S. C. 55; Buzard & Hilliard v. McAnulty, 77 Tex. 438, 14 S. W. 138; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Hall, 91 Ala. 112, 8 South. 371, 24 Am. St. Rep. 863; Miller v. IL Co., 128 Ind. 97, 27 N. E. 339, 25 Am. St. Rep. 416. It has been said that photographs are merely secondary evidence; Duffin v. People, 107 Ill. 113, 47 Am. Rep. 431; Leathers v. Wrecking Co., 2 Woods 680, Fed. Cas. No. 8,164; but they are of a high order of proof ; Beards lee v. Columbia Tp., 188 Pa. 496, 41 Atl. 617, 68 Am. St. Rep. 883. Where the jury has viewed the premises in question a photo graph of them is generally inadmissible ; Blair v. Pelham, 118 Mass. 420; Church v. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 512; but where the pho tographs themselves are the subject of the controversy, or the original subject of the photograph cannot for any reason be produc ed, it is otherwise; Barnes v. Ingalls, 39 Ala. 193; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Kendall, 49 Ill. App. 398; Perkins v. Buaas (Tex.) 32 S. W. 240 ; Omaha S. R. Co. v. Beeson, 36 Neb. 361, 54 N. W. 557; t,hurch v. Milwau kee, 31 Wis. 512; Wilcox v. Wilcox, 46 Hun ' (N. Y.) 32; In re Jessup, 81 Cal. 408, 21 Pac. 976, 22 Pac. 742, 1028, 6 L. R. A. 594; Daly v. Maguire, 6 Blatch. 137, F'ed. Cas. No. 3,551. The discretion of the court in the ad mission of photographs does not differ from the exercise of that power with reference to other kinds of evidence; Oritz v. State, 30 Fla. 256, 11 South. 611; Van Houten v. Morse, 162 Mass. 414, 38 N. E. 705, 26 L. R.

A. 430, 44 Am. St. Rep. 373 ; Archer v. R. Co., 106 N. Y. 598, 13 N. E. 318; Hynes v. ,McDermott, 82 N. Y. 41, 37 Am. Rep. 538.

Photographs are admissible to show the physical condition, characteristics, and iden tity of persons and property, in civil and criminal cases; Brown v. Ins. Co., 65 Mich. 306, 32 N. W. 610, 8 Am. St. Rep. 894 ; Tay lor, B. & H. Ry. Co. v. Warner, 88 Tex. 642, 32 S. W. 868 ; People v. Webster, 139 N. Y. 73, 34 N. E. 730; Gilbert v. Ry. Co., 160 Mass. 403, 36 N. E. 60; Malachi v. State, 89 Ala. 134, 8 South. 104; State v. Holden, 42 Minn. 350, 44 N. W. 123; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Sheppard, 85 Ga. 751, 12 5:E. 18; Com. v. Connors, 156 Pa. 147, 27 Atl. 366 ; 4 Fost. & F. 103; State v. Windahl, 95 Ia. 470, 64 N. W. 420; People v. Chin Bane, 108 Cal. 597, 41 Pac. 697; also of places ; 3 Fost. & F. 73 ; Omaha S. R, Co. v. Bee son, 36 Neb. 361, 54 N. W. 557; Church v. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 512; Bliss v. Johnson, 76 Cal. 597, 16 Pac. 542, 18 Pac. 785; Leid lein v. Meyer, 95 Mich. 586, 55 N. W. 367 ; Dyson v. R. Co., 57 Conn. 9; 17 Atl. 137, 14 Am. St. Rep. 82 ; Missouri, K. & T. Ry. v. Moore (Tex.) 15 S. W. 714; Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Monaghan, 140 Ill. 474, 30 N. E. 869; State v. O'Reilly, 126 Mo. 597, 29 S. W. 577; Keyes v. State, 122 Ind. 527, 23 N. E. 1097; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Hall, 91 Ala. 112, 8 South. 371, 24 Am. St. Rep. 863; to show the condition of a highway; Glazier v. Hebron, 62 Hun 137, 16 N. Y. Supp. 503; and a change of grade in a street; Church v. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 512; Williams v. Car terville, 97 III. App. 160 ; to show resem blance of parent and child; Shorten v. Judd, 56 Kan. 43, 42 Pac. 337, 54 Am. St. Rep. 587; In re Jessup, 81 Cal. 408, 21 Pac. 976, 22 Pae. 742, 1028, 6 L. R. A. 594; Farrell v. Weitz, 160 Mass. 288, 35 N. E. 783; and the physical condition of a plaintiff who was too ill to be present at a trial ; Cooper v. Ry. Co., 54 Minn. 379, 56 N. W. 42; also the appearance of a person at some time in the past; State v. Ellwood, 17 R. I. 763, 24 Atl. 782 ; Cora. v. Morgan, 159 Mass. 375, 34 N. B. 458; to show the identity of a person who passed under different names; U. S. v. A Lot of Jewelry, 59 Fed. 684; of documents in gen eral; Geer v. Min. Co., 134 Mo. 85, 34 S. W. 1099, 56 Am. St. Rep. 489 ; Buzard v. Mc Anulty, 77 Tex. 438, 14 S. W. 138 ; Arthur v. Roberts, 60 Barb. (N. Y.) 580; Duffin v. People, 107 Ill. 113, 47 Am. Rep. 431; Daly v. Maguire, 6 Blatch.' 137, Fed. Cas. No. 3,551; and public records that cannot be brought into court, but the handwriting must be proved; Leathers v. Salvor Wrecking etc. Co., 2 Woods 680, Fed. Cas. No. 8,164 ; for comparison of handwriting; People v. Van ,Astine, 57 Mich. 69, 23 N. W. 594 ; Tome v. v. R. Co., 39 Md. 36, 17 Am. Rep. 540 ; How ard v. Russell, 75 Tex. 176, 12 S. W. 525; Marcy v. Barnes, 16 Gray (Mass.) 161, 77 Am. Dec. 405 ; White S. M. Co. v. Gordon, 124 Ind. 495, 24 N. E. 1053, 19 Am. St. Rep. 109; to show certain premises where inspec tion is impossible; Omaha S. R. Co. v. Bee son, 36 Neb. 361, 54 N. W. 557 ; and eye-wit nesses may verify their accuracy; Nies v. Broadhead, 75 Hun 255, 27 N. Y. Supp. 52; to show things in general ; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Kendall, 49 Ill. App. 398 ; Wurm ser v. Frederick, 62 Mo. App. 634; People's Pass. R. Co. v. Green, 56 Md. 84.

Page: 1 2