Richardson v. Milburn

Bartol, J., delivered the opinion of this court. The only question presented by this appeal, arises upon the objection of the appellant (who was the defendant below) to the testimony of the witness Drury. The facts deposed to by the witness, and the purpose for which they were admitted, as well as the nature and history <?f the case, will be found fully stated ante 68, 69. It is contended that the testimony ought to have been ex-' eluded: first, because it was not the best evidence of the fact sought to be established; and secondly, because it was too vague and indefinite in its character to be submitted to the jury for any purpose.

A brief examination of these objections will show that they ought not to be sustained. The rule which requires that the best evidence must be adduced to prove the fact sought to be established, and which excludes secondary evidence, is often misunderstood, and, in our opinion, has been misapplied by the appellant in the argument of this case. “The rule relates not to the measure and quantity of evidence, but to the quality. It is not necessary to give the ⁷¹ fullest proof of which a fact may admit.” Powell on Ev., 40, (96 Law Lib.) (Decided March 26th, 1861.) “ The rule does not operate in any case to exclude evidence mereljr because it is not all, nor the most satisfactory, which might be adduced, when the evidence which is offered, and that which is withheld, is all of the same quality or grade.” See 1 Phil.Ev., 668,