in the absence of such admission. And an admission by a person in one character is no evidence against him in another. Thus, declarations by a person before becoming an executor are not evidence against him in that office.2 Generally, however, it is a rule as laid down by Lord Ellenborough, that any recognition of a person standing in a given relation to others is primâ facie, but not conclusive, evidence against the person making the recognition, that such relation exists. The value of such evidence will depend also entirely on the circumstances.4 Conduct, manner, demeanor, or acquiescence, are also generally receivable as evidence of admissions, but subject to many qualifications. Thus, it has been said: "A declaration, in the presence of a party to a cause, becomes evidence, as showing that the party, on hearing such a statement, did not deny its truth. Such an acquiescence, indeed, is worth very little where the party hearing it has no means of personally knowing the truth or falsehood of the statement."5 Where a notice of dishonour, in an action on a bill, had been put by the plaintiff's attorney into the letter-box of the defendant's attorney, and the latter, shortly after, called on the former, in consequence, as he said, of what the former had written; it was held, there was sufficient evidence for a jury of an admission that notice had been given. But a merely conditional acknowledgment of liability in such a case, in the event of a party primarily liable not paying, will not dispense with the necessity of formal notice.7 In settlement cases, proof that a parish has relieved for seven years has been held to be evidence that the 5 Parke, J.: Hayslep v. Gyme, 1 A. & E. 163; Neile v. Takle, 2 C. & K. 709. • Curlewis v. Corfield, 1 Q. B. 814. 1 Hicks v. Duke of Beaufort, 4 Bing. N. C. 229. pauper was settled in the parish.1 So, evidence of relief given to a pauper residing out of the relieving parish admits a settlement.2 But mere relief of casual paupers is no evidence of a settlement.3 Nor even where the relieving parish has enabled the pauper to remove to another parish.* Acquiescence in an act is also evidence of an admission; but, to make it so, it has been said that it must exhibit some act of the mind, and amount to voluntary demeanor or conduct of the party.5 Thus, if an account be delivered and retained for any time without objection, it is presumed to be correct.6 So, where an account has been stated, and a bill given for the amount, the debtor cannot, in an action on the bill, impeach the charges. And an objection to one of several items in an account, without remark as to the others, is evidence of an admission that they are correct. So, in an action by a surety against his principal, the uncontradicted statement by the former to the latter, that he had paid a debt by cheque, is slight evidence of payment.9 A notice to quit lands, which has been served and not objected to, is evidence against the tenant that the tenancy commenced at the season of the year when the notice to quit expires. 10 So, in use and occupation, payment of rent is evidence of a holding, and of its terms.11 Admissions are implied from the form of pleadings;12 1 R. v. Bamsley, 1 M. & S. 377. R. v. Trowbridge, 7 B. & C. 252. 5 Tayl. 537. 6 Willis v. Jernegan, 2 Atk. 252. Knox v. Whalley, 1 Esp. 159. 8 Chesman v. Court, 2 M. & G. 307. Price v. Burva, 6 W. R. 40. 10 Thomas v. Thomas, 2 Camp. 647. "Harden v. Hesketh, 28 L. J. 137, Ex. 12 Boyle v. Webster, 21 L. J. 202, Q. B.; Hewitt v. Macquire, 21 L. J. 30, Ex. of judges' orders; from the attornments inferred from the relation of landlord and tenant;2 submission to a distress ;3 and in many cases unanswered letters are evidence of the statements which they contain. But their value will depend entirely on special circumstances. The mere fact of their not having been answered will amount to no recognition of their accuracy; but they will be receivable in conjunction with subsequent statements made with reference to them by the party to whom they are addressed.4 Payment into court. It is said, that payment of money into court admits everything which the plaintiff would be obliged to prove in order to recover the money.5 But this doc trine is controlled by later cases, which have settled that payment into court admits only a liability to the extent of the money paid on one or more of the contracts in the declaration; and it would appear that, practically, the contract must be proved." Admissions without prejudice. An admission cannot be given in evidence against a party who has made it with a declaration or intimation that it is to be regarded as confidential, or without prejudice; nor can the answer to such a communication, even though not guarded by similar words. But it must appear distinctly, that the communication was meant to be confidential; and an offer of compromise, unaccompanied by any such qualification, is strictly receivable in the nature of an admission. 8 114 Q. B. 202. 2 Stafford v. Till, 4 Bing. 75. Crowley v. Vitty, 21 L. J. 135, Ex. 5 Per Cur., Dyer v. Ashton, 1 B. & C. 3. Admissions before trial. In order to save expense and facilitate proceedings, it is now usual and right for each party, previous to trial, to call on the opposite party to make various admissions, by which the party so admitting cannot be prejudiced, and to which therefore he cannot reasonably object. These admissions are now regulated and required by the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, which enacts that "Either party may call on the other party by notice to admit any document, saving all just exceptions; and, in case of refusal or neglect to admit, the costs of proving the document shall be paid by the party so neglecting or refusing, whatever the result of the cause may be; unless at the trial the judge shall certify that the refusal to admit was reasonable; and no costs of proving any document shall be allowed unless such notice be given, except in cases where the omission to give the notice is, in the opinion of the master, a saving of expense:" (15 & 16 Vict. c. 76, s. 117.) "An affidavit of the attorney in the cause, or his clerk, of the due signature of any admissions made in pursuance of such notice, and annexed to the affidavit, shall be, in all cases, sufficient evidence of such admissions:" (s. 118.) "An affidavit of the attorney in the cause, or his clerk, of the service of any notice to produce, in respect of which notice to admit shall have been given, and of the time when it was served, with a copy of such notice to produce annexed to such affidavit, shall be sufficient evidence of the service of the original of such notice, and of the time when it was served:" (s. 119.) The form of notice to admit, under the 117th section, cited above, is regulated by the 29th rule of Hilary Term, 1853. And by the 30th rule of the same term, it is ordered that— "In all cases of trials, writs of inquiry, or inquisitions of any kind, either party may call on the other party by notice, to admit documents in the manner provided by, and subject to, the provisions of the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852; and in case of the refusal or neglect to admit after such notice given, the costs of proving the document shall be paid by the party so neglecting or refusing, whatever the result of the cause may be, unless at the trial or inquisition the judge or presiding officer shall certify that the refusal to admit was reasonable and no costs of proving any document shall be allowed unless such notice be given, except in cases where the omission to give the notice is, in the opinion of the master, a saving of expense." Notice to admit must be given even when the genuineness of the document itself is in issue, and although the opposite party have intimated that the admission will not be made.1 The form of admission under the above statute and rules is the same as that which was previously in force under the now repealed rules of Hilary Term, 4 Will. 4. Various decisions under these rules have established the principle, that a party, by admitting a document, does not thereby in any way recognise its legal validity, but merely enables the opposite party to dispense with the usual evidence which would otherwise be necessary to bring it before the court. Thus, when a party admitted his signature to a bill of exchange, he was still allowed to object to the insufficiency of the stamp.2 And an admission on notice of certain documents which were described as copies of, or extracts from, certain original documents, was held not to make such copies evidence, in the absence of sufficient reason for the nonproduction of the originals.3 But an admission of a bill of exchange drawn by the plaintiff, directed to the defendants, "and accepted by one H. B. for the defendant," has been held to estop the |