existing in the case in issue, its discretion ought not to be interfered with."
In State r. Crow, 107 Mo. 341, 17 S. W. Rep. 745, a prosecution for theft of a cow, pieces of ears, and a dewlap cut from a cow, and a hide sold by defendant, were held ad missible to identify the animal stolen and killed, and show that the marks and brands had been mutilated. It has been held that whether articles are too cumbrous for exhibition in court is a question for the decision of the trial judge (Jackson v. Pool (Tenn.), 19 S. W. Rep. 324). And so, although under the Crow case in Missouri, a cow's ears may be exhibited, it might be a grave question whether those of a donkey would be admissible! On a prosecution for maliciously placing an obstruction on a railway track, it was held proper to exhibit a crowbar, left by the side of the track near the place in question, there being evidence that it was found under the defendant's house after his arrest (Mitchell v. State (Ala.), ю South. Rep. 518). It is hard to see how the production and exhibi tion of the article could be any more conclu sive than oral evidence of the facts. The prisoner ought to have put in a plea in bar! So it was held in People 1 Wright, 89 Mich. 70, 56 N. W. Rep. 792, that the clothing of two persons admitted to have been killed by the defendant is admissible on his trial for the murder of one of them, to show how near the parties were to one another when the fatal shots were fired. The most effective exhibition of the cloth ing of a murdered person recorded in litera ture was that of Caesar's toga by Antony, as recorded by Shakspeare : — "You all do know this mantle : I remember The first time ever Cîesar put it on : 'T was on a summer's evening, in his tent, That day he overcame the Nervii. Look! in this place ran Cassius' dagger through : See what a rent the envious Casca made : Through this the well-beloved Brutus stabb'd, And as he plucked his cursed steel away, Mark how the blood of Caesar followed it.
then burst his mighty heart; And in his mantle miirrling up his lace. Even at the base of Pompey's statua. Which all the while ran blood, great Ca.'sar fell. Kind souls! what! weep you when you but behold Our Ciesar's vesture wounded?"
In McGuire 7'. Joslyn, 31 N. Y. St. Rep. 990, an action by a tenant against his land lord for an injury sustained on a common stairway by reason of defective matting, the court refused the plaintiff's request to charge that if the defendant could produce the mat ting substantially in the same condition, his omission to do so might be considered like his omission to produce a witness; the court refused, but charged that the jury might give it such weight as they saw fit. Held, no error. The court said : " The matting was in possession of the defendant, and it was admissible as evidence before the jury." As to experiments in the jury-room, it was held error for the jury to send the constable out of the room, and have him talk in a somewhat loud tone, to test the accuracy of testimony given on the trial; and so in respect to experiments by them to ascertain whether the impression made by a man's foot was shorter in running than in walking (Jim v. State, 4 Hump. 290). In Hays ï'. Railway Co., 70 Tex. 602, an action for running over the plaintiff's foot, it was held error to exclude his boot offered to show the indentations made thereon. The court said : " Physical facts are always admis sible; and when the object itself can be brought into court and exhibited, it is more satisfactory than a description of it by wit nesses that have inspected it outside of court." In Cash Register Co. v. Blumenthal, 85 Mich. 464, the cash register, for the price of which the suit was brought, was exhibited and worked before the jury, and explained by a witness. In a recent murder case in New Jersey, "the defence was that the deceased frac tured his skull by a fall during the alter
