lingame. 146 Mo. 207 48 S. W. 72: State v. Poten. so N. C. 701; Blough v. Parry, 144 Ind. 46.}, 43 N. E. 560. Evidence which sufiices for the proof of a particular fact until contradicted and overcome by other evidence. Code Civ. i’I'0C. Cal. 1903, § l8?3. Evidence which, standing aione and unexplained, would maintain the proposition and warrant the conciusion to support ivhir.-ii it is introduced. Emmons v. Bank, 97 Mass. 29.0. An inference or resumption of law, alfirmritire or negative of 21 act, in the ab- sence of proof, or until proof can he obtained or produced to ovcrcoine the inference. Pcnplc v. fhacher. ] Thnnip. & C. (N. Y.) 16'i'.—Prab- able evidence. Prrsiiuiptive evidence is so called. from its foundation in prohabiiity.— Real evidence. Evidence furnished by tiiings tlit-mscives, on view or inspection, as distin- guished from a description of them by the mouth of a witnese; e. 11., the physical appear- once of a person when exhibited to the Jury, marks. scars, wounds, finger-prints, etc. also the weapons or iinpleinents used in the commission of a crime, and other inanimate objects, and evidence of the physical appearance of a piece (the scene of an accident or of the coinmission of a crime or of property to be taken under condemnation proceedings) as obtained by a jury when tbey are taken to view it —Re- butting evidence. Evidence given to explain, repel, counteract, or disprove fact given in evi- dence by the adverse party. v. iiambiin, 51 Md. '9; Raiiway Co. v. Wai ‘, 5 O. G. D. 170: People v. I‘-ige, 1 Idaho, 195: State v. Fourclly, 51 La. Ann. 228. 25 South. 109. Also e\ idence given in opposition to a presumption of fact or a prima facie case; in this sense. it may be not only counteracting evidence, hut evidence aufficient to counteract. that is. conclusive. Fain v. Cornett. 25 Ga. 186.—Re1evant evidence. Such evidence as relates to, or bests directly upon, the point or fact in issue, and proves or has I1 tendency to prove the proposition aiieged: evidence which conduccs to prove a pertinent theory in II. case. Platner v. Platner. 78 N. Y. 95: Seiier v. Jenkins. Q7 Ind. 438: Levy v. Carnpbeii (Tex.) 20 S. IV. 196; State v O'Neil, 13 Or. 183. 9 Pac. 296: 1 “'hart. Ev. § 20—Satiii-factory evidence. Such evidence as is sufficient to produce a lislief that the thing is true: credihie evidence: that amount of proof which ordinariiy produces a moral certainty or conviction in an unprejudiced mind; such evidence as. in respect to its amount or weight. is adequate or sufficient to justify the court or jury in adopting the conclusion in support of which it is adduced. Thayer v. Boyle. 30 Me. 481; Wallcer v. Collins, 59 Fed. 74, S C. C. A. 1; U. S. v. Lee Hoes“ (D. S.) 118 Fed. 457: Peopie v. Stewart,
80 I. 1.9. 22 Pac. 124: Pittman v. Pitt- man. 72 Iil. App. 503.—Seeond-hand evi- dence. Evidence which has passed through one
or more media before renchins, the witness; hearsay evidence.—Sti1te's evidence. A pop- ular term for testimony given by an accomplice or ioint participant in the commission of a crime tending to criminate or convict the otbnrs. and given under nn rictual or implicii promise of immunity for hiniself—SnIzstantive evi- dence is tbut adduced for the purpose of proving it fact in issue. ns opposed to evidence given for the purpose of discretliting ll, witness. (i'. 0., showing that be is unwnitiiy of helief.) or of corroborating his testimony. Best, Ev. 246. Snlietitlltionax-y evidence. Such as is adm ted as a siihstitute for what would be the original or primary instrument of evi- dence: as where a “iU](!SS is permitted to teatify to the contents of a lost doeument.—Si:ifi‘icient evidence. Adequate evidence; such evi- dence. i_n cliaracter, wei-slit, or amount, as will lc,':nl|v Justify the iudiriai or official iiction de- inanded; according to circumstances, it may be “prima faeie" or ‘‘satisfactory evidence. according to the dcl-lnifinns of those teims given
Bl.Law Dict.(2d Ed.)—29
above. Moore v. Stone (Tex. Civ. App.) 36 S. W. 910; Peopie v. Stern, 33 Misc. Rep. 4 . 68 N. Y Sup 1. 732; Maliery v. Young. 94 Ga. 804, S. E. 42: Parker v. Qverman. 18 How. 141. 5 L. Ed. 318: State v. Newton, 33 Ark. 284.—Tr'adit:iona1-y evidence. Evidence de- rived from tradition or reputation or the state- _ments forrneriy made by persons since deceased, in regard to questions of pedigree, ancient boundaries, and the iilie, where no living wit- nesses can be produced having linoivledge of the facts. Lay v. Nevilie, 25 Cal. 554.
EVIDENCE OF DEBT. A term applied to written Instruments or securities for the payment of money, iinporting on
their face the existence of a debt. 1 Rev. St. N. Y. p. 599, § 55. EVIDENCE OF TITLE. A deed or oth-
er document establishing the titie to p1op- erty, especially reai estate
EVIDENTIARY. Having the quality of evidence; constituting evidence; evidencing. A term introduced by Bentham, and, from its convenience. adopted by other writers.
EVOCATION. In French law. The withdrawal of a cause from the cognizance of an inferior court, and bringing it before nnnther court or judge. In some respects this process resembles the proceedings upon cc1'ti'ora.ri.
swoon. (L. Fr. Ewe, water.) In old G
English law. The same as uquago.
Toll paid for water passage. Tomiins.
EWBRICE. Adultery; spouse breach; marriage breach. Cowell; Tomilns.
EWRY. An office in the royal house- hold where the table linen, etc., is taken care 01'. Wharton.
EX. 1. A Latin preposition meaning from. out of, by. on, on account of, or according to.
2. A prefix, denoting removal or cessation. Preiixed to the name of an odice, reintion. status. etc., it denotes that the pei-si-ii spoken or once occupied that office or relation, but does so no longer, or that he is now out of it. Thus, ea‘-nluyor, ea:-partner, etc-judze.
3. A prefix which is equivalent to "without." "reserving," or “evccpting.” In this use. proh-ibly an ahbrevi.-ition of "except." Thus. ea‘-interest. cm-coupons.
“A aaie of bonds ‘ex. July coupons‘ means a sale reserving; the coupons; tiiat is, a sale in wbich the seller receives, in addition to the pur- chase price, the benefit of the coupons, which henefit he may reniize either by dclntliing them or receiving from the buyer an equivalent consideration." il?ortcr v. \‘l ormser. 9-1 N. Y. -145.
4. Also used as an abbreviation for "e
hibit." See Dugan v. Trisler, 69 Ind. 555 M