OCR Text |
Show 5543 553 theory of the rule of evidence. But I suppose it is a practice rule, a departure from the general rule against the admission of hearsay, made necessary by practical conditions, and that a book of history written by a person of well- know reputation is admitted for one of several reasons, first, the practical necessity of proving in any other way matters of ancient happening, and second, I suppose it is admitted -- such a historical work is admitted on the ground that the facts have been in print a sufficient time and backed up by sufficient authority to allow their denial if the facts contained in this historical work were not true. And in case of recent historical works by persons of less well- known authority, I understand the court some-times consults them, possibly sometimes admits them, in matters which are not controversial in their nature. I do not see how either the Eddy or the Kolb book could be admitted for any such reason. Scientific works are admitted in evidence of more recent date, I think, than histo-rical works are; but even there they are admitted with some hesitation unless they are works of very well recognized |