evidence of facts of general notoriety;181 but such works and records and journals of the Mormon church are not admissible in Idaho to show the meaning of the term "sealing ordinance," as applied by the Mormons to the ceremony of marriage.182 Tables of life expectancy may be admitted without preliminary proof of authenticity and standard quality.183 § 1221. Deeds and contracts.-Corrections and interlineations which clearly appear to have been made before execution do not render a contract inadmissible.184 Nor does a clerical mistake in the dates of a deed render it inadmissible.18 185 Official county records of a release of mortgage may be introduced in evidence without accounting for the original.186 The organization of a corporation is properly proved by a certified copy of i certificate of incorporation, made by the secretary of state, the legal keeper of such record.187 In absence of proof to the contrary, a contract executed by the officers of a corporation, in reference to business within the scope of the company's business, may be admitted without direct proof of the authority of such officers to execute the same.188 § 1222. Letters, correspondence. It is sufficient if the one who receives a letter in answer to a letter sent, in due course of mail, identifies it.189 A letter, in the hands of plaintiff, containing the terms of agreement with defendant, may be introduced, upon proof of its having been sent to and received by defendant, even though it afterwards came back into the hands of plaintiff.190 § 1223. Public documents.-Printed rules delivered to a policeman as a part of the rules of the police department are competent evidence in an action to recover from the city for part of his 181 Utah Rev. Stats., § 3400; Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 1936. 182 Hilton v. Roylance, 25 Utah, 129, 95 Am. St. Rep. 821, 69 Pac. 660. 183 Keast v. Santa Ysabel Gold Min. Co., 136 Cal. 256, 68 Pac. 771. 184 Cowley v. United States Fidelity etc. Co., 29 Wash. 268, 69 Pac. 784. 185 Mosier v. Momsen, 13 Okla. 41, 74 Pac. 905. 186 Adams v. Hopkins, 144 Cal. 19, 77 Pac. 712. 187 Mont. Rev. Codes, § 3821; Western Iron Works v. Montana Pulp etc. Co., 30 Mont. 550, 77 Pac. 413. 188 Tague v. John Caplice Co., 28 Mont. 51, 72 Pac. 297. 189 Huber Mfg. Co. v. Claudel, 71 Kan. 441, 80 Pac. 960. 190 Cooney v. McKinney, 25 Utah, 329, 71 Pac. 485. salary, though such book of rules is not certified to.101 Entries made by a sheriff, in reference to levy of an attachment, made in regular course of business, though such entries are not required by law, is admissible as an original entry.192 If the original taxlist or roll is introduced, it need not be certified to as in case of a copy.193 Public records of sister states other than of courts must be certified in accordance with the United States statute, and a sealed certificate of the record of an instrument of adoption, made by the keeper of such records in a foreign state, is inadmissible to prove that the instrument was recorded.194 The original deed or declaration is admissible in place of a certified copy of the record of such instrument. 19 Parol evidence of a member of the council is not admissible to show the actual vote by which an ordinance in question was passed.19 The same rule applies to legislative acts. 197 1224. Court records.-The records and files of inferior courts are admissible.198 But a summons purporting to have been issued by a justice, and not in any way authenticated, is inadmissible.199 The opinion of the appellate court is not admissible in evidence to prove facts in issue.200 A judgment between the same parties is admissible as evidence of the right therein established, though such judgment is on rehearing before the supreme court.201 The exemplification of a decree of divorce must contain all the proceedings, and must show on its face that jurisdiction was acquired;202 of a record of a will must contain the proofs before the surrogate.203 The attestation of a foreign judgment must be signed by the clerk himself.20 A certificate of exemplification of 191 Bringgold v. City of Spokane, 27 Wash. 202, 67 Pac. 612. 192 Hesser v. Rowley, 139 Cal. 410, 73 Pac. 156. 193 State v. Nevada Cent. Ry. Co., 26 Nev. 357, 68 Pac. 294, 69 Pac. 1042. 194 James v. James, 35 Wash. 650, 77 Pac. 1080. 195 Smith v. Veysey, 30 Wash. 18, 70 Pac. 94. 196 Gove v. Tacoma, 34 Wash. 434, 76 Pac. 73. 197 Andrews v. People, 33 Colo. 193, 108 Am. St. Rep. 76, 79 Pac. 1031. 198 Keenan v. Washington Liquor Co., 8 Idaho, 383, 69 Pac. 112. 199 Chapman v. Duffy, 20 Colo. App. 471, 79 Pac. 746. 200 Work Bros. v. Kinney, 8 Idaho, 771, 71 Pac. 477. 201 Salt Lake etc. El. Co. v. Salt Lake City, 25 Utah, 441, 71 Pac. 1067. 202 Lawrence's Case, 18 Abb. Pr. 347. 203 Hill v. Crockford, 24 N. Y. 128. 204 Morris v. Patchin, 24 N. Y. 394, 82 Am. Dec. 311. As to authentication of a Canada judgment, see Lazier v. Westcott, 26 N. Y. 146, 82 Am. a judgment rendered in another state, when attested by the clerk under the seal of the court, and when the presiding judge of the court certifies to that attestation as in due form of law, is sufficient, under the act of Congress of May 26, 1790, to sustain an action upon the judgment in another state.205 Where certain preliminary proof is necessary to the introduction of any kind of documentary evidence, the sufficiency of such proof is to be determined in the first instance by the trial judge, and his determination of the matter will not be disturbed, unless there has been an abuse of discretion.20 206 § 1225. Impeachment of witness.-A witness may be impeached by the party against whom he is called, by contradictory evidence, or by evidence that his general reputation for truth, honesty, and integrity is bad, but not by evidence of particular wrongful acts, except that it may be shown by the examination of the witness, or the record of the judgment, that he had been convicted of a felony. But conviction of a felony must be proved by the record; parol evidence of the fact is inadmissible.20% However, one accused of an offense and of a previous conviction may be asked by the prosecution if he has ever been convicted of a felony.208 A witness who is called to impeach another may answer that he would not believe such other witness on oath. This is the uniform practice in California 209 Evidence of bad character for chastity is not admissible for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of a witness. It must be restricted to her character for truth and veracity.210 Dec. 404. Of a judgment of English 205 Thompson v. Manrow, 1 Cal. 428; Parke v. Williams, 7 Cal. 249. Consult, also, Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1887, 1951; Eltzroth v. Ryan, 89 Cal. 135, 26 Pac. 647; Green v. Green, 103 Cal. 108, 111, 37 Pac. 188. 206 Webster v. San Pedro Lumber Co., 101 Cal. 326, 35 Pac. 871; Bryce v. Joynt, 63 Cal. 378, 49 Am. Rep. 94. 207 People v. Scheniek, 65 Cal. 625, 4, Pac. 675; Cal. Code Civ. Proc. $ 2051. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 2052; People v. Reinhart, 39 Cal. 449; Newcomb v. Griswold, 24 N. Y. 298; People v. Murray, 41 Cal. 67; People v. Ah Who, 49 Cal. 32; People v. Parton, 49 Cal. 632. 208 People v. Oliver, 7 Cal. App. 601, 95 Pac. 172. 209 Stevens v. Irwin, 12 Cal. 306. See, also, People v. Tyler, 35 Cal. 553. 210 People v. Yslas, 27 Cal. 630. Consult, also, the following cases: Jones v. Duchow, 87 Cal. 109, 23 Pac. 371, 25 Pac. 256; Evans v. De Lay, 81 Cal. 103, 22 Pac. 408; Barkly v. Copeland, 86 Cal. 483, 25 Pac. 1; Sharon v. Sharon, 79 Cal. 633, 22 Pac. 26, 131: Davies v. Oceanic Steam A sound discretion will never sanction inquiries the sole object of which is to disgrace the witness, and not to test his credibility 211 A witness, whichever party calls him, cannot be impeached unless he has given testimony against the impeaching party 212 And a witness cannot be impeached by evidence showing him to be a person without religious belief.213 § 1226. Party not bound by statements.-A party is not bound by, or held to admit as true, statements made by his witnesses during the trial, because he does not deny or contradict them at the time.21 If a party offers a witness to prove the sale of a mining claim, under which he claims, and the witness says the sale was in writing, the party is bound by the statement of the witness, and must produce the writing or account for its loss.215 A party calling a witness is not precluded from proving, by another witness, the truth of any particular fact in direct contradiction to what the first witness may have testified.216 § 1227. Recalling witness.-If the ends of justice require, it is both the right and duty of a court to permit a witness to be recalled after a party has closed his case.217 Where plaintiff had testified that she had not had previous trouble with her ankles, and one of her witnesses later, on cross-examination, testified of her having told of an accident to her ankle in early life, it is proper to allow plaintiff to be recalled to testify that it was the other ankle that was injured before.218 The question is one left to the sound discretion of the court, and its action will not be ship Co., 89 Cal. 280, 26 Pac. 827; Redington v. Pacific Postal Cable Co., 107 Cal. 317, 48 Am. St. Rep. 132, 40 Pac. 432; State v. Manville, 8 Wash. 523, 36 Pac. 470; Wimer v. Smith, 22 Or. 469, 30 Pac. 416; State v. Hunsaker, 16 Or. 499, 19 Pac. 605; Steeples v. Newton, 7 Or. 110, 33 Am. Rep. 705. As to laying foundation, see United States v. Fuller, 4 N. Mex. 358, 20 Pac. 175; Young v. Brady, 94 Cal. 128, 29 Pac. 489; Clavey v. Lord, 87 Cal. 413, 25 Pac. 493; Krewson v. Purdom, 13 Or. 563, 11 Pac. 281; Sheppard v. Yocum, 10 Or. 402. As to impeachment by use of stenographer's notes, see Klepsch v. Donald, 8 Wash. 162, 35 Pac. 621. 211 State v. Bacon, 13 Or. 143, 57 Am. St. Rep. 8, 9 Pac. 393. 212 People v. Mitchell, 94 Cal. 550, 29 Pac. 1106. See Langford v. Jones, 18 Or. 307, 326, 22 Pac. 1064. 213 People v. Copsey, 71 Cal. 548, 12 Pac. 721. 214 Wilkins v. Stidger, 22 Cal. 231, 83 Am. Dec. 64. 215 Patterson v. Keystone Min. Co., 30 Cal. 360. 216 Norwood v. Kenfield, 30 Cal. 393. 217 Fairchild v. California Stage Co., 13 Cal. 599; People v. Keith, 50 Cal. 139; Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 2050. 218 Bailey v. Scattle etc. Ry. Co., 32 Wash. 640, 73 Pac. 679. 219 disturbed unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown.2 The refusal of the court to permit the recalling of a witness, after the evidence was closed, to contradict a statement drawn from another witness on cross-examination, is not erroneous.220 It is within the discretion of the court to permit further evidence, when it sets aside the verdict in an equity case. 221 § 1228. Order of proof.-As a general rule, the mere order in which evidence may be introduced is very much in the discretion of the court, and will not be interfered with by the appellate court, except in cases of abuse of discretion.222 Even the application of the rule that a defendant should not open the defense by a cross-examination of the plaintiff's witnesses, must rest largely in the sound discretion of the trial court.223 In the trial of an adverse mining suit, it is not error for the court to decline to direct counsel for the defendant as to the order in which he should produce certain of his proofs.224 § 1229. Limiting number of witnesses.-The court may, in its discretion, limit the number of expert witnesses that may be called upon the trial.225 And it was held to be within the discretion of the trial court, in the particular case, to limit the respective parties in the number of witnesses as to any particular point to three upon a side.226 § 1230. Refreshing memory of witness.-A witness is allowed. to refresh his memory respecting a fact by anything written by himself or under his direction at the time when the fact occurred, or immediately thereafter, or at any other time when the fact was fresh in his memory and he knew that the same was correctly 219 Rea v. Wood, 105 Cal. 314, 38 Pac. 899; Briswalter v. Palomares, 66 Cal. 259, 5 Pac. 226; McGrath v. Wallace, 85 Cal. 622, 24 Pac. 793. 220 Layton v. Kirkendall, 20 Colo. 236, 38 Pac. 55. 221 Clavey v. Lord, 87 Cal. 413, 25 Pac. 493. Evidence in rebuttal, discretion of court as to introduction of, see Charles v. Varian, 4 Colo. App. 227, 35 Pac. 672. Redirect examination of witness, as to scope of, see Robinson v. Peru Plow etc. Co., 1 Okla. 140, 31 Pac. 988. 222 Bates v. Tower, 103 Cal. 404, 37 Pac. 385; Lee Silver Min. Co. v. Englebach, 18 Colo. 106, 31 Pac. 771; Hutchins v. Kimmell, 31 Mich. 126, 18 Am. Rep. 164; Bowman v. Eppinger, 1 N. Dak. 121, 44 N. W. 1000. 223 Hopkins v. Utah etc. Ry. Co., 2 Idaho, 300, 13 Pac. 343. But compare Haines v. Snedigar, 110 Cal. 18, 42 Pac. 462. 224 Bushnell v. Crooke etc. Smelting Co., 12 Colo. 247, 21 Pac. 931. 225 Huett v. Clark, 4 Colo. App. 231, 35 Pac. 671. 226 Skeen v. Mooney, 8 Utah, 157, 30 Pac. 363. |