Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 05.pdf/35

10 curacy; " but they were excluded in Tome v. Railroad Co., 39 Md. 693; s. c. 17 Am. Rep. 540, the court observing : " Photographers do not always produce exact fac-similes of the objects delineated, and however we may be indebted to that beautiful science for much that is beautiful as well as ornamental, it is at last a mimetic art, which furnishes only secondary impressions of the original, which vary according to the lights and shadows which prevail while being taken." And in Matter of Foster's Will, 34 Mich. 21, the court leaned to the same view, observing: " It is not always true that every photographic copy would be safe on any inquiry requiring minute accuracy. Few copies can be so satisfactory as a good photograph. But all artists are not competent to make such pictures on a large scale, and all photographs are not absolutely faithful resemblances. It is quite possible to tamper with them; and an impression which is at all blurred would be very apt to mislead on questions of handwriting where forgery is claimed. Whether it would or would not be permissible to allow such documents to be used, their use can never be compulsory. The original and not the copy is what the jury must act upon, and no device can properly be allowed to supersede it." This was said of the proposal to furnish the jury with photographic copies of a will alleged to be forged.

Photographs have been admitted to show premises, as a highway, Blair v. Pelham, 118 Mass. 421; a cellar floor, Cozzens v. Higgins, 33 How. Pr. 439; the grade of a street, Church v. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 512; the scene of an accident, Dyson v. Railroad Co., 57 Conn. 9, s. c. 14 Am. St. Rep. 82; Chestnut Hill, etc. Co. v. Piper, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1884; and to dispense with a view by the jury, Locke v. Railroad Co., 46 Iowa, 109. In Church v. Milwaukee the court said : —

"Of course, the main thing was to bring before the minds of the jury the location of the plaintiff's lot and improvements and all the surroundings; and this had to be done by the description of witnesses acquainted with the place, or by pictures or diagrams. If the photograph was a perfect representation of the premises, why should it not be admitted in evidence to aid the jury, in determining how they were affected by the alteration of the grade? It is said that the premises themselves were the highest evidence, and if the jury could have had a view of them, it would have greatly assisted them in passing upon the questions before them. So undoubtedly it would. But as a view was impracticable, the jury had to obtain the best idea they could of the location of the premises with reference to the changed grade. They were compelled to rely upon the description of witnesses, pictures and diagrams, and such means of information as they had before them. And it appears to us that it was no violation of the rules of evidence to allow the photograph of the premises to go to the jury with the other testimony."

So photographs have been admitted as likenesses of deceased persons. Udderzook v. Commonwealth, 76 Penn. St. 340; Ruloff v. People, 45 N. Y. 213.