Bertram Jacobs
Published: 2015-06-29
Total Pages: 776
Get eBook
Excerpt from Encyclopaedia of the Laws of England, Vol. 7: With Forms and Precedents Where the identity of parties to an action is called in question, the solicitor may be called to identify his client as party to any affidavit or pleading filed therein (Taylor, s. 935). Collateral facts not otherwise relevant are admissible to show the identity of a person accused of crime or to rebut an alibi (Taylor, ss. 336, 337). Presumptions in favour of identity are made from identity of name or from replies in correspondence (Taylor, ss. 1856-1860). Goods. - In the case of goods, if a question of identity arises it is usual to produce the articles in Court and let the jury judge by their own senses; but witnesses may be called who have seen the goods and can give their opinion as to whether they are the goods in question (Taylor, ss, 555a). Where in an indictment an allegation is made descriptive of the identity of some thing, it must as a general rule be proved as made subject to the power to amend (14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 1), where the discrepancy between allegation and proof is not essential (Archbold, Cr. Pl., 23rd ed., 300). Documents. - Where identification of a document depends on questions as to handwriting, the evidence admissible is that of a man who knows the handwriting of the person alleged to have written or signed it or who is an expert in or experienced in handwriting, and comparison of authentic writings of the supposed writer is permitted (see 28 & 29 Vict. c. 18, s. 8; R. v. Silverlock, [1894] 2 Q. B. 766; Taylor, ss. 1862 et seq.). In the case of documents, such as wills, deeds, etc., it is essential to prove the identity of the signatory with the testator or person as whose will or document it is tendered. In the case of judgments and depositions or signed statements, the parties to the judgments and the deponents, etc., must be identified to render them admissible against the person against whom they are tendered (Taylor, ss. 467-469, 892, 1684-1710). Authorities. - Taylor on Evidence (referred to above as Taylor), 1906, 10th ed.; Archbold's Criminal Pleading, 1905, 23rd ed.; and Stephen's Digest of Evidence, 1904, 6th ed. See Evidence; and Medical Jurisprudence. The differentiating mark between idiocy and lunacy is that the former is a natural (a nativitate) while the latter is an acquired or supervening (accidentalis, adventitia) incapacity. It should be noted, however, that the word "lunatic" in sec. 341 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, includes "idiot" where not inconsistent with the context. For further information as to the distinctive terminology of the law of lunacy, see the article Lunacy. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.