Author Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1917 Excerpt:... made a general examination for such as were of importance, and that he had found no such written request, and that it might possibly be among the papers, secondary evidence of the contents of such request is inadmissible in evidence, since the law requires bona fide and diligent search for the paper itself, in the place where it is most likely to be found, before secondary evidence of its contents can be received.--Glenn v. Rogers, 3 Md. 312. (1) Where the only evidence tending to show defendant was the party last in possession of an inventory of property, the contents of which he wished to show, was the declaration of a witness which should not (28) have been admitted, defendant's testimony as to its loss was inadmissible.--Gaither v. Martin, 3 Md. 146. Cited and annotated in 35 L. R. A. 325, on necessity for calling subscribing witnesses to prove attested instruments. (m) Where, according to the best of witness' recollection, he had given an inventory and appraisement to a certain person, who was too sick to come into court, but who stated that he did not have them, but was under the impression that he handed them over to defendant, together with witness' testimony that he had made diligent search, is not sufficient proof of their loss.--Gaither v. Martin, 3 Md. 146. Cited and annotated, see supra. (n) The certificate of a county clerk that a note was deposited in his office on a certain date, and the deposition of another clerk that at the request of the plaintiff he had made search for the note and could not find it, both certificate and deposition being ex parte, were incompetent evidence to establish the loss of the note.--Young v. Mackall, 3 Md. Ch. 398. (o) Where a witness stated that a letter written to himself was either lost or delivered to one...