§ 50. Mailing Letters Raises the Presumption of Receiv. ing.-Letters placed in designated repositories or delivered to a postman, when duly addressed and stamped, afford prima facie evidence that they were duly received by the addressee. Oaks v. Weller, 13 Vt. 106, 38 Am. Dec. 583; Connecticut v. Bradish, 14 Mass. 296; Oregon SS. Co. v. Otis, 100 N. Y. 446, 53 Am. Rep. 221; Breed v. First Nat. Bank, 6 Colo. 235; Durkee v. Vermont Cent. R. Co. 29 Vt. 127; Tanner v. Hughes, 53 Pa. 289; Plath v. Minnesota Farmers Mut. F. Ins. Co. 23 Minn. 479, 23 Am. Rep. 697; Howley v. Whipple, 48 N. H. 487; Sullivan v. Kuykendall, 82 Ky. 483, 56 Am. Rep. 901; Scott & Jarnagin, Telegraphs, §§ 340, 341; Allen, Teleg. Cas. passim; Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U. S. 193, 28 L. ed. 398.

A letter is presumed to reach its destination at the regular time, and to be received by the addressee, if living at the place and usually receiving letters there; as, in cases where notice of the protest of paper is to be sent to an indorser. Montelius v. Atherton, 6 Colo. 227.

If a letter offered in evidence purports to be a reply to a letter referred to, the letter must be called for, in order to put in evidence with it. Harvey v. Pennypacker, 4 Del. Ch. 454.

§ 51. Genuineness must be Shown.—The New York supreme court holds that secondary evidence of the contents of a written instrument, when allowed, does not obviate the necessity of proving the genuineness of the instrument, but renders it more imperative. When secondary evidence of the contents of a writing is admissible, it is indispensable that the person by whom it is proposed to prove it should have seen and read the writing, and can speak from personal knowledge. His having heard another person read it is not sufficient, and a party cannot be charged with notice of the contents of a letter written and sent to him, without proof that it was properly mailed and forwarded to his address. Dainese v. Allen, 14 Abb. Pr. N. S. 363.

The placing of a communication in a box used by the party for the deposit of letters creates a presumption that it reached him,and his denial that he received it raises a conflict of evidence. Dana v. Kemble, 19 Pick. 112; Bluck v. Thorne, 4 Campb. 192; Howard v. Daly, 61 N. Y. 362, 19 Am. Rep. 285.

When it is necessary to prove a demand by the introduction of

a letter containing other matter, only that part of the letter which contains the demand can be put in evidence, and if the demand is admitted the letter is properly excluded. Railway Pass. Assur. Co. v. Warner, 1 Thomp. & C. addenda, 21.

Where a letter is offered for the purpose of proving a notice contained in it, a general objection is not sufficient, but the inadmissible part must be objected to. Stokes v. Johnson, 57 N.Y. 673.

§ 52. Unanswered Letters.-The supreme court of Illinois held in a very celebrated case decided in 1887, that an unanswered letter is admissible in evidence against the person who received it and to whom it was addressed, if it appears to have been invited by him, and to have been written in response to some previous communication by him. Spies v. People, 122 Ill. 1, subsequently considered in the Supreme Court of the United States, Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 31 L. ed. 80.

§ 53. Failure to Answer as Admission.-An omission of one of the parties to a transaction, to answer a letter written to him after the transaction, by the other party thereto, giving the latter's version thereof, may not be taken as an admission to the truth of the statements in the letter; they are mere declarations of the writer in his own behalf, which do not demand an answer, and are not admissible against the party to whom the letter is sent. The mere ex parte statements of a party's case cannot be received as evidence simply on the ground that it remains unanswered. Learned v. Tillotson, 97 N. Y. 1. Reasons may exist why he may choose and has a right to remain silent and to vindicate himself at some future period and on some more opopportune occasion. Talcott v. Harris, 93 N. Y. 567.

But when part of an act, declaration, conversation or letter or other writing has been given or read in evidence by one party, so much of the remainder thereof as tends to explain or qualify what has been received may be given or read in evidence by the other. When a letter has been read in evidence, so much of the answer as tends to explain, qualify or deny material parts of the letter may be read in evidence; and when an act, declaration, conversation or writing has been given or read in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation or writing, which is necessary to make it understood, may also be given or read in evidence. See Roe v. Day, 7 Car. & P. 698; Gaskill v. Skene, 14 Q. B. 664.

54. Extract from a Lost Letter.-The New York courts hold that an extract from a lost letter is not evidence, unless the witness can testify as to the contents of the whole document. Walbridge v. Kilpatrick, 9 Hun, 135.

Where the person to whom the letter is written testifies that he does not know where it is, but believes it has been destroyed, its contents are admissible in evidence. Green v. Disbrow, 7 Lans. 381. And it further appears from the decisions that mere possession of letters addressed to one does not render them competent against him. Willett v. People, 27 Hun, 469.

In this connection it is well to observe the constant tendency on the part of the courts of last resort throughout this country to admit evidence of any facts which tend to elicit the truth. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Lathrop, 111 U. S. 612, 28 L. ed. 536.

55. Decoy Letters.-A decoy letter sent by one engaged in larceny to the porter of a warehouse for the purpose of alluring the latter from his place, is admissible against one who is shown to be connected with such larceny. McCarney v. People, 83 N. Y. 408, 38 Am. Rep. 456.

§ 56. Miscellaneous Authorities.-Letters written by the president of a bank concerning business of the bank are admissible in evidence against the bank, though written in his individual capacity and though at the time they are offered in evidence his interests are adverse to those of the bank. Panhandle Nat. Bank v. Emery, 78 Tex. 498.

On the issue as to actual membership of a firm, letters written by the party sought to be charged as a member, pertaining to the partnership business, are admissible in evidence, although they were written after the transaction as to which he is sought to be charged. Davenport Woolen Mills Co. v. Neinstedt, 81 Iowa,

226.

Letters from the mother of an illegitimate child to its nurse may be admitted in evidence for the purpose of showing her assent to the disposition that is being made of the child, and the manner in which it is being provided for, but are incompetent for the purpose of proving paternity. Re Jessup's Estate, 6 L. R. A. 594, 81 Cal. 408.

The genuineness of a private letter is not sufficiently proved by the testimony of the receiver that he received it by mail, and that

it is the signature of a certain person, of whose signature he has no knowledge. Sweeney v. Ten Mile Oil & G. Co. 130 Pa. 193. And the mere receipt of letters purporting to be from a person never seen, and with whom no subsequent relations existed, which were based on them as genuine, does not qualify the recipient to prove the handwriting of the signer. Pinkham v. Cockell, 77 Mich. 265.

The exclusion of a letter written by a third person to an agent, introduced in evidence against the principal, is not error where there is no evidence that the principal authorized the letter to be written. Hargrove v. John, 120 Ind. 285.

A copy of a letter cannot be received in evidence over the objection of the first party, unless it is shown that the original is lost or destroyed. Watson v. Roode, 30 Neb. 264.

Secondary evidence of the contents of a lost letter is incompetent unless the witness is shown to be acquainted with the handwriting of the alleged writer of the letter. Bone v. State, 86 Ga. 108.

Parol evidence is admissible to prove the subject-matter of a letter which cannot be produced on the trial. Hagan v. Merchants & B. Ins. Co. 81 Iowa, 321.

A letter written by a third person is inadmissible against a party who is not shown to be bound by its contents. Zeigler v. Henry, 77 Mich. 480.

In an action for false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, a letter of the prosecuting attorney authorizing the commencement of the proceedings, tending to show motive and probable cause that an offense has been committed, and that the usual course was taken in such cases, is admissible. Thurston v. Wright, 77 Mich. 96.

A party cannot introduce in evidence in his own behalf letters purporting to have been written by him, to show that a contract is as he claims it to be, where there is nothing to show that the one to whom they were written ever received or acted upon them. Griffith v. Lake (Tex.) Oct. 28, 1889.

Where letters and postal cards have been put in evidence for the purpose of showing a partnership between defendant and another, he may, for the purpose of showing that some of them. related to other matters, put in evidence other letters and postals between the same parties. Morgan v. Farrel, 58 Conn. 413.

Upon an indictment for larceny in obtaining goods by means of a false representation or pretense, evidence of other similar transactions at or about the same time is competent as bearing upon the question of intent. Letters written by the prisoner to other dealers, and their replies thereto, and the procuring of the goods by means thereof, are admissible for such purpose, but letters written long after the transaction has taken place are not admissible for any purpose. People v. Luke, 27 N. Y. Week. Dig. 51.