§ I. Froof of Document,

We come now to the first heading: to the proof of the

document which purports to be the contract, or to be a

memorandum of its terms.

Proof of A contract under seal is proved by evidence of the

undefseal. Sealing and delivery. Formerly it was necessary to call one

' of the attesting witnesses where a contract under seal was

x7&i8VicL attested, but the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, enacted

that this should no longer be required save in those exceptional

cases in which attestation is necessary to the validity of the

Ante, p. 37. deed. A warrant of attorney and a cognovit afford instances

of instruments to which attestation is thus necessary.

Of simple The mode of proof of a simple contract is by evidence of

contract, ^j^^ signature of the parties if it be signed by them, or by

evidence that it is in fact a written exposition of the contract,

or of so much of it as is in writing^. And oral evidence must

^ As a matter of practice,- written contracts are commonly admitted

by the parties, either upon the pleadings, or upon notice being given

by one party to the other to admit such a document. Such admissions

are regulated by the Judicature Act 1873, Order xxxii. Or one

Chap. I. § I. BULES BELATING TO EVIDENCE. ^29

of course supplement tbe writing where the writing odIj Supple*

constitutes a part of the contract* For instance : AB in ^^^

Oxford writes to X in London, ' I will give £50 for your ^^^

where con-

horse ; if you accept send it by next train to Oxford. (Signed) tract writ-

AB: To prove the conclusion of the contract it would be ^^"^^ *"

necessary to prove the despatch of the horse. And so if J.

puts the terms of an agreement into a written offer which X

accepts by word of mouth ; or if, where no writing is neces-

sary, he puts a part of the terms into writing and arranges the

rest by parol with X, oral evidence must be griven in both

these cases to show that the contract was concluded upon Ham« r.

Rkkett,

those terms by the acceptance of X. *^-^ ^' «•

So too where a contract consists of several documents, but or where

their connection does not appear from the contents of the ^^j^^^o

documents, oral evidence may be given to connect them one °<>^ appear

, _ ^_ • 1 _i 1 1 1 from docu-

with another. This last rule does not apply to contracts ments.

required to be in writing under 29 Car. H. c. 3. § 4- There

the connection of the documents must need no oral evidence

to establish its existence, as is apparent from the case of

Bayddl v. Drummand. But that case was distinguished Ante. p. 50.

from ordinary simple contracts in writing in a recent judg-

ment in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court. l.r.iq.b.i>.

< That case ' {Boydell v. Drummond)^ said Brett, J., ' was de- u East. 142.

cided on the Statute of Frauds. The ground of decision was,

that separate documents in writing could not be joined

together to make a memorandum in writing within that

statute, unless there was a sufficient reference from one

writing to another contained in the documents themselves to

show that they were- intended to be jointly the memorandum,

without being obliged to have recourse to parol evidence to

show such intention ; for otherwise the danger from parol

pduij may call upon the other to produce certain docnmenta, and upon

his Culing to do so, and npon proof having been given of the notice to

prodaoe, the puty calling for prodnctioo may g^ve secondary evidence

of the contentB of the do^mient.

230 INTEBPRETATION OF CONTBACT. Part IV.

evidence would arise, which it was the intention of the

statute to obviate. That ground of decision is applicable

only when the question is, whether there is or is not a suffi-

cient memorandum within the Statute of Frauds. It does

not seem to me to be applicable to a question whedier there

is a sufficient policy of assurance in writing, or as to what

documents form that policy. I see no reason ^hy parol

evidence should not he admitted to show -what documents

Edwards r.

mSTJSut- ^^^^ intended by the parties to form an allied contract of

^L^T^ insurance.'

There are circumstances, such as the loss or inaccessibility

of the written contract, in which parol evidence of the con-

tents of a document is allowed to be given, but these are a

part of the general law of evidence. The reader is referred

for a summary of the rules existing upon this subject to Sir

J. Stephen's Digest of the Law of Evidence, pp. 68-73.