The record-union., 1895-12-02
LAW AND EVIDENCE.
The Result of the Wisdom of the
Ages.
Alvin j. Burners Interesting Dis
course Before the Sacramento
Law Club.

On last Saturday evening Alvin j.
Bruner delivered lecture before the
Sacramento Law Club. A large number
of the members were present to hear his
discourse. He chose as his subject the
Law of Evidence"
Mr.. Bruner said that the law of evil
dence as found in our code is the result
of the wisdom of the ages. That all
ages and peoples have assisted IN
bringing the law upon this subject to its
present stage of perfection. That its
growth was slow, but that when one of
its great principles was once discovered
and adopted it was never changed.
That judicial evidence as our code
lays down lis the means sanctioned by
law of ascertaining the truth respect
ing a question of fact"
Mr.. Bruner explained the intimate re-
lations existing betwixt pleading and
evidence. That pleadings are designed
to present issues of either law or fact,
and that the rules of evidence when
strictly followed will effectually aid the
court or jury in arriving at the truth OF
the fact in issue.
The lecturer then explained that the
rules of evidence were both written
and unwritten. That the written rules
of evidence were to be found in the
Code of Civil Procedure. That these
written rules were but a compilation of
the great principles of evidence as
found in the common law and enacted
by our Legislature. That the unwritten
rules We're to be found in the decision
of courts of the EngliSh-speaking
4 .r
That it was necessary to follow the
rules of evidence strictly in order not
only that legal evidence should be pro-
duced, but also that which is Illegal
should be excluded. That these rules
are the perfection of human wisdom,
and all lawyers should assist in
upholding them in all their purity.
That it was true the press and the pub
lie generally were continually carplng
at courts and lawyers for insisting up
on their observance but that all prop
ertv rights and human liberty and pro-
gresS depended upon their strict OBJ
serVance. The lecturer then took up
the subject Of those facts which courts
take judicial knowledge of, and said
this department of evidence should re-
ceive more attention than it usually
does. That these facts are great in
their variety and extent, and that a
thorough knowledge of them would be
of infinite Importance to the practicing
attorney That it was but necessary to
call the courts attention to their eX-
istence as they were conclusive when
in point with both Judge and jury.
Mr. Bruner next took up the rule
that the direct evidence of one witness
who is entitled to full credit is sufficient
for the proof of any fact except per
Jury and treason" This rule is a con-
tradiction of the rule of our code that
required corroboratiYe evidence of that
of the plaintiff in an action for a di-
vorce.
The lecturer then explained the differ
ence between direct and indirect evil
dence That in the former kind the evil
dence was without an inference or pre-
sumption and which in itself, if true,
cCnclusively established the fact in dis
pute. while, in the latter case, called
circumstantial, another fact was
proved upon which an inference or pre-
sumption was founded, which tends to
prove but does not conclusively prove
the fact in issue The code thus infer
entially lays down the rule that fact
cannot be proven by the indirect testi-
mCny of one witness, no matter how
credible The lecturer next explained
the rule that "a witness can testify of
those facts only which he knows of his
own knowledge" to which there are but
4
within the knowledge of a witness
when he sees or hears or feels them.
They are the facts which he perceiyes
with his own perceptions. That by
strictly following this rule sharp and
easily defined line is drawn between
competent and hearsay testimony.
The exclusion of hearsay testimony is
one of the greatest evidences of our adj
vanced civilization. The exceptions TO
this rule are the opinions of experts
upon questions of science, art or trade
upon such propositions as require great
and special learning or skill, and which
the average mind is supposed not to
possess.
The declarations of others are also
admissible in some few cases, such as
the declarations Of a decedent as to who
are his relatives, also when made
against his own interest, and a few
others. which the lecturer enumerated.
Mr.. Bruner then spoke Of the methods
adopted by various lawyers in the
cross-examination of witnesses. That
II is the statutory right of witness to
be protected from irrelevant, improper
and insulting questions and from harsh
and insulting demeanor, and to be ex-
amined only as to matters legal and
pertinent to the issue. That it was never
right to resort to broWbeating; that, in
addition TO the fact it was Illegal, it did
not pay. That with some witnesses VINO
were obviously attempting to eVade the
truth. it was necessary to be sharp,
quick and decisive in manner in asking
questions, yet the majority of witnesses
If fairly treated would tell the whole
truth, which should be the object of all
cross-examinations. In order TO be an
efectuaI cross examiner, 1t is neces-
sary to be a first-class judge of human
nature. and to study the disposition of
the witness in hand, so that the proper
course be followed to elicit the truth.
The lecturer then read extracts from
the REORGANIZATION of witnesses in
famous State trials and notably that of
the ross-examination by Sir Edward
Coke of Walter Raleigh, charged with
high treason. The report Of this case
shows the exceeding indulgence given
to counsel in cross-eXamination in those
days. It was brutal. cowardly and un
just. but in that particular case Raleigh
by his admirable command of temper
and acute wit completely discounted
the great lawyer.