for he might have parted with the documents before he was served with the warrant.

In some cases committees refuse to allow a witness, though sworn, to be cross-examined on any other matters besides those which he is called to prove (a).

When not allowed to be cross-examined.] When a witness has been called merely to produce the poll books, or other formal documents, the committee will not allow him to be then cross-examined generally as to the conduct of the election.

In the Ipswich case, K. & O. 339, the counsel for the sitting member proposed to cross-examine the returning officer, who had produced the poll, as to the conduct of the election; this was objected to, and the committee resolved, "That they cannot allow the cross-examination of the returning officer in this stage of the business, such returning officer having been called by the petitioners simply to establish the authenticity of the poll-books, which has been done." And see Roxburgh, F. & F. 470. In the Weymouth case, Bar. & Aust. 106, the committee resolved, "That the witness, having been examined merely to prove the authenticity of the poll-books, the counsel for the sitting members should confine their cross-examination to that point."

A similar resolution was come to in the Blackburn case, Bar. & Aust. 321, the petitioner in this case undertaking to recall the witness, and the sitting.

(a) For the reason given at the commencement of this Chapter it has been considered advisable not to embarrass the reader with the consideration of a multitude of conflicting decisions, which were come to when committees acted in an arbitrary manner.

member undertaking to pay his expenses." And see note to this case, Bar. & Aust. 322, acc. North Cheshire, 1848, Minutes, p. 3.

Mode of cross-examining.] Although leading ques tions may be put to a witness on his cross-examination, this does not sanction the putting of a question, which assumes that facts have been proved which have not been proved, or that particular answers have been given contrary to the fact. Stark. Ev. 188. Nor is it right for the counsel to put the very words into the witness's mouth, which he is to echo back again. R. v. Hardy, 24 St. Tr. 659-725; and see Taylor on Evid. 1115, where it is observed by the learned author, "There surely must be some restriction, where the witness betrays a vehement desire to serve the crossexamining party."

4. Evidence confined to Matters in issue.] Neither in the examination in chief, nor in cross-examination, will parties be allowed to examine a witness to other matters than those which are material to the point in issue before the committee. It is sometimes necessary, in the cross-examination of a witness, to travel into matters, the relevancy of which may not in the first instance be apparent. This often is the case where it is sought to attack the credit of a witness.

Petitioners have been allowed to prove, in the course of their case, the abduction of witnesses; this, though not directly material, is often necessary to enable the committee to take steps to procure the attendance of the witnesses, and may sometimes throw light upon the question of agency. This was done in the Leicester case, 1848, Minutes, p. 92, and in the St. Alban's

case, 1851, Minutes; see 2nd Cheltenham, 1 P. R. & D. 230, contrà.

It has been observed before (a) that the committee usually, at the commencement of their proceedings, come to certain preliminary resolutions, one of which is, in general, that counsel will not be allowed to go into matters not referred to in their opening statement without a special application to the committee for permission to do so. In the Southampton case, Bar. & Aust. 400, the counsel for the petitioners applied to the committee for leave to proceed with a case of bribery, the circumstances of which had not come to their knowledge until after the opening speech. The committee refused the application, and said, “This was not a case falling within that reservation which was confined to cases transpiring in the course of the examination of witnesses, or in the words of the resolution, 'to cases, the knowledge of which has been brought out before the committee in the progress of the investigation.'

5. Objections must be proved by the party making them.] A voter had been registered for a house and iron foundry; it was admitted that the voter had parted with the house subsequent to the registration, but that he retained the foundry at the time of the election; the only question raised was, on whom lay the burden of proving the value of the remaining part of the qualification. It was resolved, "that the party impugning the vote shall prove the insufficiency of the value." And see Evesham, F. & F. 533.

(a) "Practice."

But in another case, Part's case, Wigan, Bar. & Aust. 163, where the voter had been registered in respect of two different qualifications, and the entry on the pollbook had been made in such a manner as to render it ambiguous in respect of which of the qualifications he had voted, it being admitted by the party defending the vote that one of the qualifications was bad, the committee decided that it lay upon those defending the vote to shew that the voter was qualified to vote for the other premises for which he was registered.

In charges of personation, they who make the objection must disprove the identity of the voter with the person on the poll. Southampton, P. & K. 221. So also where want of qualification is alleged against the sitting member, the petitioners are bound to prove the negative. Dover, P. & K. 418; Tavistock, 2 P. R. & D. 10.

6. Best Evidence to be given.] It is a general rule (a) that the best, or rather the highest kind of evidence that the nature of the case admits of, must be given. Therefore, when anything has been reduced to writing by the parties, the writing is in general the best evidence of it, and must be produced. But it is not in every case necessary, where the matter to be proved has been committed to writing, that the writing should be produced. If, for instance, the narrative of an extrinsic fact has been committed to writing, it may yet be proved by parol evidence. Upon this principle, a receipt for money will not exclude parol evidence of the payment. Rambert v. Cohen, 4 Esp.

(a) Roscoe on Evidence, 1; Taylor on Evidence, 340.

213. The fact of tenancy, though there is a lease, may be proved by parol; but the parties to the contract, the amount of rent, and terms of the tenancy, can only be shewn by production of the lease. R. v. Inhabs. of Holy Trinity, 7 B. & C. 611.

A witness cannot be asked whether certain resolutions were published in the newspapers, neither can he be questioned as to the contents of his account books; but in both these cases the papers and the books, as being the best evidence, must be produced (a).

Inscriptions on flags, banners, and placards, paraded in public, and the contents of resolutions read at public meetings, may be proved by oral testimony. R. v. Hunt, 3 B. & Ald. 556 (b).

Printed copies struck off in one common impression, though they are themselves only secondary evidence of the contents of the document from which they were printed, are primary evidence, each of them of the contents of the others. R. v. Watson, 32 St. Tri. 82, 86.

Whenever, therefore, a printed notice or paper has been distributed at an election, any printed copy, struck off at the same time, will be primary evidence. See Wakefield, Bar. & Aust. 307, where notice of disqualification, which had been given to the electors in a printed hand-bill, was proved by the production of another printed copy.

If it is sought to affect the party by means of the contents of a written document, the original writing must be produced; a printed copy will not be admissible until the manuscript is accounted for. R. v.

(a) Taylor on Evidence, 355.

(b) Ibid. 360.