, 1859-12-02


28th Feb, 1854, acknowledges the receipt
of the letter Of plaintilf,-complains that
the keeping is rather high, and accepts of
the plaintiffs offer to purchase, directing
him TO pay over the balance that should be
coming to the defendant, to one George
Henderson, the bearer Of the letter
We think that the letter should have
been admitted on two grounds:
In the first place, as the admission Of the
party of the justness of the claim for some
thing for the care Of the cattle.
The admissions of party are always
admissible against him These admissions
may be made either directly or by acqui-
.escence in statements, which if untrue,
should be denied
The weight to be given to these admiS-
sions or acquiescence, mast depend upon
the particular circumstances Of the case.
IA says to b. you owe @ 500, and B
makes no reply, it cannot ordinarily be
considered an admission Of the indebted
ness to c, because b may refrain from re-
plying to A's statement Of the dealings be-
tween himself and @, because Of its imper-
tinence. But if A states to B, you owe
me 500, and b makes no reply, in that
case it would be an admission upon BIS
part, in ordinary cases, or B should, and
naturally would have denied it, had it not
been true.
Admissions may be made by acquies-
cence in a written statement, as well as in
q verbal one. Indeed if there is any diff
ference in the value of the admission so
made, it is in favor of theadmission not de-
nying the written statement, or that in a
solemn statement, and one less likely to be
misunderstood or forgotten, by the party
to whom it was addressed. Had the plain
tiff said verbally to the defendant, "you
owe me two hundred and twenty dollars,
and l wish you would pay it and take
away the cattle which hold as security"
there is no question that he might have
given this declaration of his own in evi-
dence, together with the reply Of the de-
fendant, as an admission Of the facts stated
in the declaration and if the defendant
made no reply, then the declaration Of the
plaintiff was equally evidence to show what
the defendant ucquieseed in, BY no. deny
ing. And this doctrine is equally clear,
both upon the well established rules Of law
and the doctrine of common sense, upon
which rules Of evidence are based, in the
case Of declarations 10 writing traced home
TO the party.
On these principles it has been held, that
if A renders to B his account, showing on
Indebtedness Of B to A, and B, within
reasonable time, (Which some courts have
held to be two mail days, but which must
depend upon the peculiar circumstances Of
the case in most instances) does not reply,
objecting to it, the account may be offered
iu evidence, and with the silence of the
party, treated as an admission Of its just
ness.
This presents q similar case. An ae-
count Of the plaintiff against the defend
ant is traced to his hands A claim upon
the cattle is asserted, and what does the
dependant DO Does he reply denying the
indebtedness Of the claim No. He sits
down in silence and does not reply, when
had the claims in the letter been untrue or
unjust, be naturally 10ouLd and should have
done so.
We think that by the ordinary rules Of
law, the jury might have been justified 10
considering the conduct Of the party as an
admission by acquescence in the claims set
up in tbe letter; aud in order to show what
thse claims were and the extent of the ad-
mission, the letter itself was the only legit-
innate evidence, and should have been ad-
mitted on this ground.
There is another ground upon which the
right to offer the letter in evidence is
claimed, which is well worthy of eonsidera-
tiOn
The letter which is alIedged to be for
gerry by the defendant is in its date and
terms precisely an answer to the letter Of
fered in evidence and ruled out. The gen
uineness Of the letter brought by Hender-
son, is one of the issues in this case. The
plaintiff affirming aud the defendant deny
ing. It is perfectly evident, that had this
letter Of the plaintiff gone in evidence to
the jury, it would have afforded strong
grounds for coming TO the conclusion that
there was fraud in this case, to which the
defendant was party. II, as the defend
ant alledged, the letter was forgery, then
how was it possible that it could have been
so exact an answer TO the letter of the
plaintiff. Had the plaintiffs letter been
introduced, the jury would have required
some sort Of explanation from the defend
ant as to how a stranger became possessed
Of the information required to make SC
complete an answer to the plaintiff s letter
or they must have held bis declaration To
the contrary notwithstanding that he did
connive with this man Henderson to obtain
from him his note for SIP, and receipt fol
oil his claims, that be might afterWard.
deny the transaction, and when it had be
come impossible to the the plaintiff to pro
dUce bis note, take the cattle, and profess
;ng his willingness to pay on terms whicl
he knew il impossible for the plaintiff L
comply with, thus commit a fraud.
1t seems to US that on this ground tn,
letter should have been admitted, it il
the special duty Of courts so to administe
justice that the detection and punishment 0