looked upon as equal to the effect of an oath upon the conscience. The sense or conviction of approaching death must be perfect and certain, although the declarant need not be in articulo mortis, or even think he is, provided he thinks there is no hope of a continuance of life, and is under an impression of almost immediate dissolution.1 The declarations must have been made by a person who, if alive, would have been a competent witness.2

Dying declarations will still be admissible although the attendant surgeon has given some hope of living to the dying person before the declarations are made, and such declarations may be taken in evidence if the deceased believed he should not recover in spite of the hope expressed by the surgeon.3

Before receiving dying declarations as evidence, the coroner should inquire into the circumstances under which they were made, and exclude them if there is any reasonable doubt as to the veracity, sanity, consciousness or sense of religious responsibility and impending dissolution in the mind of the deceased.1

Prof. Tidy, states,

It may fall to the lot of a medical man to be present when dying declarations are made which

13 C. & P. 629; Roscoe's Cr. Ev. 3; and see Regina v. Howell, Law Times, Jan. 25, 1815, 317; Regina v. Barret, Leeds Lent Assizes, 1869; Jenkins' case, C. C. reserved April, 1869, L. R. 1 C. C. 187; Regina v. Harvey, Exeter Sum. Assizes, 1854; Regina v. Wanstall, Leeds Au. Assizes, 1869; Regina v. Pettingill, C. C. C. April, 1872.

2 Powell's Ev. 121.

3 Regina v. Bayley, Ex. Cham. Jan. 1857.

4 Powell's Ev. 124.

may become of great importance. In such cases, if a magistrate is present, he should not interfere beyond calling the attention of the magistrate to what is said if he is not attending to it, and by giving professional opinions as to the dying person's state-whether it is hopeless, whether the person is capable of understanding what he is saying, &c. But if no magistrate is present, the medical attendant is the most proper person to receive the dying declaration. He should first ascertain the views of the party as to his chances of recovery and record what is said in the actual words, and then take down, also in his actual words, his dying declaration, and have the statement signed by the party if possible. If there is no possibility of taking down the words at the time of utterance, they should be recalled, and put in writing, as soon as, and as accurately as possible. And if they have been heard by others, they should be read to them, and signed by the physician and all the parties. No additions should be made to these notes. Any afterthoughts or recollections, may be the subject of separate notes and be kept for what they may be worth.1

(e) When a prisoner makes a statement of the circumstances of the crime with which he is charged it is evidence against him, unless elicited by a person who had at the time actually or presumably power to forgive, or who in that capacity induced the prisoner to confess by holding out to him an offer or prospect of forgiveness.

1 1 Tidy, Vol. I, p. 12; and see Taylor, Vol. I, p. 481; Reese, p. 25.

If the prosecutor or his wife has obtained the confession by any threat or promise, it is inadmissible, or if the confession was made under similar circumstances to the master or inistress of the prisoner when the crime has been committed against either of them, or to the attorney of the person in authority, or to a constable or any one acting under a constable, or to a magistrate. But the inducement must be held out by a person who has presumably power to shield the criminal. If the inducement be made in the presence of such a person who stands by and does not object, his silence will exclude the confession. But inducements held out by persons who have no authority in the matter will not make the confession inadmissible.

If a party accused wishes to make any statement, the evidence against him should be first read over, and then he should be cautioned according to the form No. 52, in appendix.' He may then make his statement, which should be read over to him, and be signed by the coroner. He is not to be

Sworn.

(f) Statements having reference to the health or sufferings of the person who makes them, form another exception to the general rule rejecting hearsay evidence. If it becomes necessary to inquire into the state of health at a particular time of a person who is deceased, a witness may detail

1 This caution the writer has applied to coroners' inquests by analogy, a similar caution being requisite at investigations before magistrates. See 55-56 V. c. 29, s. 591, Dom.

what the deceased person said on that subject at the time.1

SEC. 7.-RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE.

The evidence must be confined to the matter in issue, and must tend directly to the proof or disproof thereof. Under this rule, evidence that a prisoner has committed a similar crime before, or that he has a disposition to commit such crimes. is inadmissible. Evidence of good character is admissible in criminal cases, but as coroners' juries have no power to try the party suspected, such evidence need not be taken at inquests.

2

SEC. 8.-LEADING QUESTIONS.

On an examination in chief a witness must not be asked leading questions; or, in other words, a witness must not be asked by the person calling him, questions so shaped as to suggest the answers he is expected to make. When he is cross-examined, that is, examined by the opposite party to the one who called him, he may be asked leading questions. Generally, questions which may be answered by "Yes" or "No" are leading questions. If, however, the witness proves hostile to the party calling him, the coroner may, in his discretion, allow leading questions to be asked, or

1 Roscoe's Cr. Ev. 30.

2 Powell's Ev. 225.

if a question from its nature cannot be put except in a leading manner, the coroner should allow it to be asked; or if the witness has forgotten a circumstance, and it cannot otherwise be recalled to his mind, it may be asked him in a leading form.

SEC. 9.-PROOF OF HANDWRITING.

If it becomes necessary to prove handwriting, the following methods are admissible:

(a) By a witness who saw the party write or sign the document.

(b) By a witness who knows the party's handwriting. Such knowledge may have been obtained merely by having seen him write once (provided it was not for the purpose of making the witness. competent to give evidence) or by having seen documents purporting to be written by him, and which, by subsequent communications with him, he has reason to believe are the authentic writings of such party.

(c) By the comparison by witnesses of a disputed writing with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the coroner to be genuine. Such writing and the evidence of witnesses respecting the same, may be submitted to the coroner and jury, as evidence of the genuineness, or otherwise of the writing in dispute.2

1Powell's Ev. 439.

255-56 V. c. 29, s. 698.