RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS IN UNITED STATES COURTS AND DEPARTMENTS 399. Copies of records of United States courts. 400. Records and documents in United States departments. 401. Certificate of population by director of census. 402. Record of conveyance or mortgage of vessels as evidence. 403. Issuance of subpoena. 404. Service of subpoena issued out of a court. SUBPOENAS 405. Penalty for disobedience to subpoena or order. 406. Subpoena issued by judge, arbitrator, referee or other persons, in certain cases. 407. Qualification of preceding sections. 408. Discharge of witness from arrest. 409. Attendance of person when required by judgment. ORDER TO BRING UP PRISONER AS WITNESS 415. Order to bring up prisoner as witness. 416. Order to produce prisoner before officer or body. 417. Order to produce prisoner in certain inferior courts. 418. Order when prisoner is sentenced to death or for felony. 419. Remanding of prisoner after testifying. 420. Penalty for failure to obey order to produce prisoner. EVIDENCE PROVISIONS GENERALLY § 329. Form of certificate. Where a transcript, exemplification or certified copy of a record or other paper, is declared by law to be evidence, and special provision is not made for the form of the certificate, in the particular case, the person authorized to certify, must state in his certificate that it has been compared by him with the original and that it is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole of the original. Derivation.-Code civ. proc., § 957; originally revised from R. S., pt. 3, ch. 7, tit. 3, first part of § 59. In general.-Bounano v. Metz Brothers Co., 188 App. Div. 380, 177 N. Y. Supp. 51. Compliance with section essential.-People v. Todoro, 224 N. Y. 129; Nolan v. Nolan, 35 App. Dív. 339, § 330. Certificate attested by seal. 54 N. Y. Supp. 975; People ex rel. Crittenden v. Keenan, 31 Hun 625; Redford v. Snow, 46 Hun 370. Sufficiency of certificate.-Dunstan v. Higgins, 138 N. Y. 70; Gustavus v. Dahlmer, 98 Misc. 462, 163 N. Y. Supp. 132. Ömission of revenue stamps.-Gustavus v. Dahlmer, 98 Misc. 462, 163 N. Y. Supp. 132. If the officer, or the court, body or board, in whose custody an original paper specified in the last section is required to be, by the laws of the state or of another state or of the United States or of a territory thereof, or of a foreign country, has, pursuant to those laws, an official seal, the certificate must be attested by that seal. If the certificate is made by the clerk of a county within the state, it must be attested by the seal of the county. This section does not require the seal of a court to be affixed to a certified copy of an order or of a paper filed therein or entry made, where the copy is used in the same court or before an officer thereof. Derivation.-First two sentences are code civ. proc., 958; originally revised from R. S., pt. 3, ch. 7, tit. 3, § 59, in part. Last sentence is code civ. proc., § 959, as am. by L. 1877, ch. 416; originally revised from R. S., pt. 3, ch. 7, tit. 3, % 60. § 331. Proof of written instruments where subscribing witnesses. Except in the case of written instruments to the validity of which a subscribing witness or subscribing witnesses is or are necessary, whenever, upon the trial of any action or upon the hearing of any judicial proceeding, a written instrument is offered in evidence, to which there is a subscribing witness, it shall not be necessary to call such subscribing witness, but such instrument may be proved in the same manner as it might be proved if there were no subscribing witness thereto. Derivation.-Code civ. proc., § 961b, as added by L. 1909, ch. 65; originally revised from L. 1883, ch. 195, § 1. § 332. Proof of instrument by comparison of handwriting. Comparison of a disputed writing with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the court to be the genuine handwriting of any person claimed on the trial to have made or executed the disputed instrument or writing shall be permitted and submitted to the court and jury in like manner. Derivation.-Code civ. proc., § 961d, as added L. 1909, Standards of comparison.-Turnure v. Breitung, ch. 65; originally revised from L. 1880, ch. 36, § 1, as am. 195 App. Div. 200, 186 N. Y. Supp. 620. by L. 1888, ch. 555, § 1. § 333. Proof of lost negotiable paper. 1.' Where, upon the trial of an action, it appears that a negotiable promissory note or bill of exchange, upon which the action or a counterclaim interposed in the action is founded, was lost while it belonged to the party claiming the amount due thereupon, he may prove the contents thereof by parol or other secondary evidence and may recover or set off the amount due thereupon as if it was produced. 2. For that purpose, he must give to the adverse party a written undertaking, in a sum fixed by the judge or the referee, not less than twice the amount of the note or bill, with at least two sureties, approved by the judge or the referee, to the effect that he will indemnify the adverse party, his heirs and personal representatives, against any claim by any other person, on account of the note or bill, and against all costs and expenses, by reason of such a claim. 3. But where an action is prosecuted or defended by the people of the state, or by a public officer in their behalf, the people or the public officer may prove the contents of a lost note or bill of exchange, by parol or other secondary evidence, and may recover or set off the amount due thereupon, without giving any security to the adverse party. Derivation. Subds. 1, 2 are code civ. proc., § 1917; originally revised from R. S., pt. 3, ch. 7, tit. 3, §§ 75, 76. Subd. 3 is code civ. proc., § 1918, originally a substitute for L. 1855, ch. 85. In general.-Matter of Cook, 86 App. Div. 586, 83 N. Y. Supp. 1009. Application.-Frank v. Wessels, 64 N. Y. 155; Read v. Marine Bank, 136 N. Y. 454; Rolston v. Cent. Park, N. & E. R. Co., 21 Misc. 439, 47 N. Y. Supp. 650; Mills v. Albany Exch. Sav. Bank, 28 Misc. 251, 59 N. Y. Supp. § 334. Proof of age of child. 149; Zander v. New York Sec. & T. Co., 39 Misc. 98, 78 N. Y. Supp. 900, affd., 81 App. Div. 635, 81 N. Y. Supp. 1151; Terwilliger v. Terwilliger, 27 N. Y. Supp. 284. Who may sue.-Dupignac v. Quick, 27 Misc. 500, 58 N. Y. Supp. 341. Bond. Wright v. Wright, 54 N. Y. 437; Dupignac v. Quick, 27 Misc. 500, 58 N. Y. Supp. 341; Osterman v. Goldstein, 32 Misc. 676, 66 N. Y. Supp. 506; Church v. Stevens, 56 Misc. 572, 107 N. Y. Supp. 310. Whenever in any proceeding or trial it becomes necessary to determine the age of a child, such child may be produced and exhibited to enable the court or jury to determine its age by a personal inspection; and such court may direct an examination by one or more physicians, whose opinion shall also be competent evidence upon the question of such age. Derivation.-Code civ. proc., § 961a, as added by view of code crim. proc., § 392, which applies the rules in L. 1909, ch. 65; originally revised from L. 1892, ch. 340, civil cases to criminal cases. 1. Reference to magistrate omitted as unnecessary in § 335. Proof of ownership of unoccupied lands and timber thereon. In all actions to recover the possession of, or otherwise to determine the title to, or, for trespass upon or injury to unoccupied lands, timber, trees or underwood thereon, except an action in which any county or any state or county officer, board or commission is a party defendant, the plaintiff may show an unbroken chain of title or conveyance of the land to himself for thirty years next preceding the commencement of the action, or if an action for trespass, next preceding the commission of the trespass or injury, and such proof shall be presumptive evidence of ownership at the times respectively, of the commencement of such action or commission of such trespass or injury, but such presumption may be rebutted by the defendant by showing ownership of said lands at the times respectively, of the commencement of said action or the commission of said trespass or injury, in some person other than the plaintiff. Derivation.-Code civ. 1906, ch. 509. L. 1898, ch. 32, and am. by 1008960, as added by 667, 99 N. Y. Supp. 973; Ridgway v. Hawkins, 123 App. Div. 15, 107 N. Y. Supp. 416; Magnetite Mining Co. v. Wilmore Realty Co., 142 N. Y. Supp. 1094. § 336. Proof of payments by municipal corporation or officer thereof. 1. In any action or proceeding now pending or hereafter to be brought in any of the courts of this state, the payment of any sum of money by a municipal corporation or an officer thereof may be proved by a receipt purporting upon its face to be given therefor, and to entitle such receipt to be read in evidence no further or other proof shall be necessary than that it is produced from the files of the office of the chief financial officer of such municipal corporation or from the files of the office of the person or department charged with the duty of making the payment. 2. Every such receipt so read in evidence shall be presumptive proof of the fact of the payment to the person by or in whose behalf it purports to be signed of the sum of money and for the purpose therein expressed. 3. No such receipt shall be entitled to be read in evidence by virtue of the provisions of this section, unless it was given at least six years before the commencement of the action or proceeding in which it shall be offered as evidence. And the date or time appearing upon its face shall be presumptive proof that it was given at such date or time. 4. Nothing in this section contained shall be held to prevent any party to such an action or proceeding from proving affirmatively that the payment so appearing to have been made has not in fact been made. Derivation.-Code civ. proc., § 961c, as added by L. 1909, ch. 65; originally revised from L. 1884, ch. 376, §§ 1, 2. $337. Proof of malice in action for libel. An action, civil or criminal, cannot be maintained against a reporter, editor, publisher, or proprietor of a newspaper, for the publication therein of a fair and true report of any judicial, legislative or other public and official proceedings, without proving actual malice in making the report. This section does not apply to a libel contained in the heading of the report; or in any other matter added by any person concerned in the publication; or in the report of any thing said or done at the time and place of the public and official proceedings which was not a part thereof. Derivation.-First sentence is code civ. proc., § 1907, originally revised from L. 1854, ch. 130, parts of §§ 1, 2. Last sentence is code civ. proc., § 1908, originally revised from L. 1854, ch. 130, parts of §§ 1, 2. References.-Action for libel to be brought within two years, C. P. A., § 50; joinder of causes of action, Id., § 258; sufficiency of complaint, and pleading mitigating circumstances, Id., § 338. Application.-Sanford v. Bennett, 24 N. Y. 20; Sarasohn v. Workmen's Pub. Assn., 44 App. Div. 302, 60 N. Y. Supp. 640; Lent v. Underhill, 54 App. Div. 609, 66 N. Y. Supp. 1086; McCabe v. Cauldwell, 18 Abb. Pr. 377. Fair and true report.-Moore v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 123 N. Y. 420; Garbey v. Benn., 166 N. Y. 392, affg. 40 App. Div. 163, 37 N. Y. Supp. 853; Lee v. Brooklyn Union Pub. Co., 209 N. Y. 245, affg. 151 App. Div. 921, 135 N. Y. Supp. 1123; Gray v. Sampers, 35 App. Div. 270, 55 N. Y. Supp. 3; Stuart v. Press Pub. Co., 83 App. Div. 467, 82 N. Y. Supp. 401; Smith v. New Yorker Staats-Zeiting, 154 App. Div. 458, 139 N. Y. Supp. 325; D'Auxy v. Starr Co., 31 Misc. 388, 64 N. Y. Supp. 283; Salisbury v. Union Advertiser Co., 45 Hun 120; Bissell v; Press Pub. Co., 62 Hun 551, 17 N. Y. Supp. 393; Hart v. Sun Printing & Pub. Assn., 79 Hun 358, 29 N. Y. Supp. 434. Defamatory headlines.-Lawyers' Co-operative Pub. Co. v. West Pub. Co., 32 App. Div. 585, 52 N. Y. Supp. 1120; Gallagher v. Bryan, 44 App. Div. 527, 60 N. Y. Supp. 844, affd., 162 N. Y. 662. When article not privileged.-MacDonnell v. Press Publishing Co., 150 App. Div. 918, 135 N. Y. Supp. 822. Waiver of privilege.-Dinkelspiel v. Evening Journal Co., 91 App. Div. 96, 86 N. Y. Supp. 375. Headlines.-Walling v. Commercial Advertiser Assn., 173 App. Div. 491, 159 N. Y. Supp. 329. Evidence.-Griebel v. Rochester Printing Co., 8 App. Div. 450, 40 N. Y. Supp. 759. § 338. Proving mitigating circumstances in action for libel or slander. In an action for libel or slander, the defendant may prove mitigating circumstances, notwithstanding that he has pleaded or attempted to prove a justification. Derivation.-Code civ. proc., § 535, last sentence. First sentence of § 535 is covered under "Pleadings." $535, originally revised from code of proc., §§ 164, 165. Mitigating circumstances.-Cruikshank v. Gordon, 118 N. Y. 178; Mattice v. Wilcox, 147 N. Y. 624; Rober V. New York Staats-Zeitung, 1 App. Div. 427, 37 N. Y. Supp. 255; Brush v. Blot, 16 App. Div. 80, 44 N. Y. Supp. 1073; Palmer v. Palladium Printing Co., 16 App. Div. 270, 44 N. Y. Supp. 675; Hess v. New York Press Co., 26 App. Div. 73, 49 N. Y. Supp. 894; Doyle v. Fritz, 86 App. Div. 515, 83 N. Y. Supp. 762; Shank v. Stumpf, 23 Misc. 264, 51 N. Y. Supp. 154; McCue v. Survey Associates, 106 Misc. 160, 175 N. Y. Supp. 346; Ball v. Evening Post Pub. Co., 38 Hun 11; Knox v. Commercial Agency, 40 Hun 508; McKane v. Brooklyn Citizen, 53 Hun 132, 6 N. Y. Supp. 132; Lanpher v. Clark, 77 Hun 506, 29 N. Y. Supp. 107, revd. on other grounds, 149 N. Y. 472; Kingsley v. Kingsley, 79 Hun 569, 29 N. Y. Supp. 921. Plea of justification.-Wachter v. Quenzer, 29 N. Y. 547; Lanpher v. Clark, 149 N. Y. 472, revg. 77 Hun 506, 29 N. Y. Supp. 107; Brush v. Blot, 16 App. Div. 80, 44 N. Y. Supp. 1073; Young v. Fox, 26 App. Div. 261, 49 N. Y. Supp. 634; Baldwin v. Genung, 70 App. Div. 271, 74 N. Y. Supp. 835; Zavier v. Oliver, 80 App. Div. 292, 80 N. Y. Supp. 225; Tully v. New York Times Co., 78 Misc. 165, 137 N. Y. Supp. 962; Vosberg v. Utica Daily Press Co., 105 Misc. 134; McCue v. Survey Associates, 106 Misc. 160, 175 N. Y. Supp. 346; Hathorn v. Congress Spring Co., 44 Hun 608; Fletcher v. Jones, 64 Hun 274, 19 N. Y. Supp. 47; Lanpher v. Clark, 77 Hun 506, 29 N. Y. Supp. 107, revd. on other grounds, 149 N. Y. 472; Tilson v. Clark, 45 Barb. 178; Lewis v. Kendall, 6 How. Pr. 59; Anibal v. Hunter, 6 How. Pr. 255; Billing v. Wallis, 28 How. Pr. 97; Robinson v. Hatch, 55 How. Pr. 55. Failure to establish justification.-Klinck v. Colby, 46 N. Y. 427; Willard v. Press Pub. Co., 52 App. Div. 448, 65 N. Y. Supp. 73; Doe v. Roe, 32 Hun 628. § 339. Proving mitigating circumstances in action for wrong. In an action to recover damages for the breach of a promise to marry, or for a personal injury, or an injury to property, the defendant may prove, at the trial, facts not amounting to a total defense, tending to mitigate or otherwise reduce the plaintiff's damages, if they are set forth in the answer, either with or without one or more defenses to the entire cause of action. A defendant, in default for want of an answer, may prove facts of that description upon a reference or inquiry to ascertain the amount of the plaintiff's damages. Derivation.-Code civ. proc., § 536, as am. by L. 1877, ch. 416; originally revised from code of proc., § 165. Intent of section.-Hatfield v. Lasher, 81 N. Y. 246. Application. Bradner v. Faulkner, 93 N. Y. 515; Brush v. Blot, 16 App. Div. 80, 44 N. Y. Supp. 1073; Dunton v. Hagerman, 18 App. Div. 146, 46 N. Y. Supp. 758; Stevenson v. Ward, 48 App. Div. 291, 62 N. Y. Supp. 717; Billings v. Albright, 66 App. Div. 239, 250, 73 N. Y. Supp. 22; American Farm Co. v. Rural Pub. Co., 78 App. Div. 268, 79 N. Y. Supp. 911; Bassett v. French, 10 Misc. 672, 31 N. Y. Supp. 667; Wandell v. Edwards, 25 Hun 498; Ball v. Evening Post Pub. Co., 38 Hun 11; Newell v. Butler, 38 Hun 104; Knox v. Commercial Agency, 40 Hun Alienation of affections.-Strock v. Russell, 148 Breach of promise.-Lynch v. Figge, 194 App. Div. 126, 185 N. Y. Supp. 777. Libel.-Gressman v. Morning Journal Assn., 197 N. Y. 474, affg. 126 App. Div. 913, 110 N. Y. Supp. 1130; Xavier v. Oliver, 80 App. Div. 292, 80 N. Y. Supp. 225; Osterheld v. Star Co., 146 App. Div. 388, 397, 131 N. Y. Lasher, 81 N. Y. 246; Lanpher v. Clark, 149 N. Y. 472; § 340. Admission by member of corporation. The admission of a member of an aggregate corporation, who is not a party, shall not be received as evidence against the corporation unless it was made concerning and while engaged in a transaction in which he was the authorized agent of the corporation; or unless it was made while a member of such corporation and testifying as a witness concerning a transaction of the corporation, when the official record of such testimony shall be received. Derivation.-Code civ. proc., § 839, as am. by L. 1903, ch. 384; originally revised from R. S., pt. 3, ch. 7, tit. 3, § 80. § 341. Presumption of death in certain cases. A person possessed of personal property in this state or upon whose life an estate in real property depends, who remains without the United States, or absents himself in the state or elsewhere for seven years together, is presumed to be dead, in an action or special proceeding concerning such property or the administration of the estate of such person, unless it is affirmatively proved that he was alive within that time. Derivation.-Code civ. proc., § 841, first sentence. Last sentence has been placed with sections on partition actions, § 1065, post. § 841, as am. by L. 1889, ch. 40, L. 1891, ch. 364, L. 1918, ch. 318; originally revised from R. S., pt. 3, ch. 1, tit. 5, § 6. Reference.-Presumption of death of tenant for life, real property l., § 578. Application.-Matter of Board of Education, 173 N. Y. 321; Matter of Benjamin, 155 App. Div. 233, 139 N. Y. Supp. 1091; Karstens v. Karstens, 20 Misc. 247, 45 N. Y. Supp. 966; Czeth v. Bean, 35 Misc. 729, 72 N. Y. Supp. 402; Matter of Matthews, 75 Misc. 449, 136 N. Y. Supp. 636; Matter of Smith, 77 Misc. 76, 136 N. Y. Supp. 825; Matter of Rowe, 103 Misc. 111, 170 N. Y. Supp. 742; Sheldon v. Ferris 45 Barb. 124. Proof of facts.-Butler v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 225 N. Y. 197; Matter of Board of Education, 173 N. Y. 321; Cromwell v. Phipps, 6 Dem. 60. Rebuttal of presumption.-Matter of Benjamin, 77 Misc. 434, 137 N. Y. Supp. 758. Effect of section.-Sackheim v. Pigueron, 215 N. Y. 62. Not retroactive.-De Baud v. Long Island R. R.'Co., 163 App. Div. 600, 148 N. Y. Supp. 581; Skelton v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 164 App. Div. 789, 150 N. Y. Supp. 97. § 342. Seal on executory instrument as evidence of consideration. A seal upon an executory instrument is only presumptive evidence of a sufficient consideration, which may be rebutted as if the instrument was not sealed. Derivation. Code civ. proc., § 840, as am. by L. 1877, ch. 416; originally revised from R. S., pt. 3, ch. 7, tit. 3, § 77. Effect of seal generally.-Harris v. Shorall, 230 N. Y. 343; Hazelton v. Webster, 20 App. Div. 177, 46 N. Y. Supp. 922, affd., 161 N. Y. 628. Bonds.-Thompson v. De Visser, 106 Misc. 165, 175 N. Y. Supp. 276. On release.-Gray v. Barton, 55 N. Y. 68; Torry v. Black, 58 N. Y. 185; Finch v. Simon, 61 App. Div. 139, 70 N. Y. Supp. 361. On assignment of insurance policy.-Von Schuckmann v. Heinrich, 93 App. Div. 278, 87 N. Y. Supp. 673. On mortgage.-Wood v. Travis, 24 Misc. 589, 54 N. Y. Supp. 60; Smith v. Wagner, 106 Misc. 170, 174 N. Y. Supp. 205; Beard v. Beard, 81 Hun 300, 30 N. Y. Supp. 785, affd. 145 N. Y. 665. Presumption of consideration.—Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Yates County Bank, 35 App. Div. 218, 54 N. Y. Supp. 743; Williams v. Whittell, 69 App. Div. 340, 74 N. Y. Supp. 820; Hull v. Hull, 172 App. Div. 287, 158 N. Y. Supp. 743; Hocking Valley Railway Co. v. Barbour, 192 App. Div. 654, 183 N. Y. Supp. 163; Matter of Allen, 111 Misc. 93, 133, 181 N. Y. Supp. 398; Gein v. Little, 43 Misc. 421, 89 N. Y. Supp. 488; Fuller v. Artman,169 Hun 546, 24 N. Y. Supp. 13. Pleading.-Recknagel v. Steinway, 58 App. Div. 352, 69 N. Y. Supp. 132. § 343. Testimony of party may be rebutted. The testimony of a party taken at the instance of the adverse party orally or by deposition may be rebutted by other evidence. Derivation.-Code civ. proc., § 838; originally revised from code of proc., § 393. Application. Clifford v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. Co., 188 N. Y. 349, revg. 111 App. Div. 513, 97 N. Y. Supp. 707; Engel v. Dicter, 31 Misc. 793, 65 N. Y. Supp. 296; Crouse v. Frothingham, 27 Hun 123; Kelley v. Jay, 79 Hun 535, 29 N. Y. Supp. 933. § 344. Proof by common law proof instead of documentary evidence. Nothing in this article, relating to documentary evidence, prevents the proof of a fact, act, record, proceeding, document or other paper or writing, according to the rules of the common law, or by any other competent proof. Derivation.-Code civ. proc., § 962; originally revised from R. S., pt. 3, ch. 7, tit. 3, § 28, in part; and L. 1846, ch. 240, § 2. In general.-Rosenbaum v. Podolsky, 162 N. Y. Supp. 227. Certificate of cause of death.-Woolsey v. Trustees of Ellenville, 84 Hun 236, 32 N. Y. Supp. 543, affd., 155 N. Y. 573. Record of baptism.-Hartshorn v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 55 App. Div. 471, 67 N. Y. Supp. 13. Effect of failure to produce documents on notice. -Bissell v. Myton, 160 App. Div. 268, 145 N. Y. Supp. 591. § 345. Ancillary action for discovery abolished. An action cannot be maintained to obtain a discovery under oath in aid of the prosecution or defence of another action. Derivation.-Code civ. proc., § 1914; originally revised from code of proc., § 389, in part. References.-Discovery of books and papers, C. P. A., $$ 324-327; of property of attachment debtor, Id., § 922; of property of decedent, Surr. Ct. A., §§ 205, 206. Application. Montrose v. Wanamaker, 21 Abb. N. C. 478; In re Sickle, 5 N. Y. Supp. 703, 17 Civ. Proc. Rep. 138. Bill of discovery.-C. & C. Elec. Co. v. Walker Co., 35 App. Div. 426, 428, 54 N. Y. Supp. 810. COMPETENCY OF WITNESSES § 346. Exclusion of witness by reason of interest. Except as otherwise specially prescribed, a person shall not be excluded or excused from being a witness, by reason of his or her interest in the event of an action or special proceeding; or because he or she is a party thereto; or the husband or wife of a party thereto, or of a person in whose behalf an action or special proceeding is brought, prosecuted, opposed or defended. Derivation.-Code civ. proc., § 828; originally revised from code of proc., § 398; and L. 1867, ch. 887, § 1. Effect of interest of parties.-Goldsmith v. Coverly, 75 Hun 48, 27 N. Y. Supp. 116. Wife not interested witness.-Green v. Altenkirch, 176 App. Div. 320, 162 N. Y. Supp. 447. § 347. Personal transaction or communication between witness and decedent or lunatic. Upon the trial of an action or the hearing upon the merits of a special proceeding, a party or a person interested on the event, or a person from, through or under whom such a party or interested person derives his interest or title by assignment or otherwise, shall not be examined as a witness in his own behalf or interest, or in behalf of the party succeeding to his title or interest against the executor, administrator or survivor of a deceased person of the committee of a lunatic, or a person deriving his title or interest from, through or under a deceased person or lunatic, by assignment or otherwise, concerning a personal transaction or communication between the witness and the deceased person or lunatic, except where the executor, administrator, survivor, committee or person so deriving title or interest is examined in his own behalf, or the testimony of the lunatic or deceased person is given in evidence, concerning the same transaction or communication. A person shall not be deemed interested for the purposes of this section by reason of being a stockholder or officer of any banking corporation which is a party to the action or proceeding, or interested in the event thereof. Derivation. Code civ. proc., § 829, as am. by L. 1877, ch. 416, L. 1881, ch. 703; originally a substitute for code of proc., § 399. In general.-Heyne v. Doerfler, 124 N. Y. 505; Whitnab v. Foley, 125 N. Y. 651; Lawyer v. White, 198 N. Y. 318; Matter of Sherman, 227 N. Y. 350; Little v. Johnson, 117 App. Div. 500, 102 N. Y. Supp. 754. Purpose.-Cole v. Sweet, 187 N. Y. 488, 491, affg. 112 App. Div. 777, 98 N. Y. Supp. 625; Lawyer v. White, 198 N. Y. 318, affg. 132 App. Div. 943, 117 N. Y. Supp. 1139; Abbott v. Doughan, 204 N. Y. 223; Funson v. Salisbury, 15 App. Div. 214, 44 N. Y. Supp. 205; Matter of Gratton, 195 App. Div. 32, 185 N. Y. Supp. 472. Application.-Matter of Hennessey, 157 App. Div. 136, 141 N. Y. Supp. 736; Newcomb v. La Roe, 167 App. Div. 566, 152 N. Y. Supp. 635; Palmer v. Fybush, 169 App. Div. 907, 157 N. Y. Supp. 442; Bambauer v. Schleider, 176 App. Div. 562, 163 N. Y. Supp. 186; Griggs v. Renault Selling Branch, 179 App. Div. 845, 167 N. Y. Supp. 355. Transactions with incompetent.-Clark v. Dada, 183 App. Div. 253, 171 N. Y. Supp. 205; Matter of Benioff, 73 Misc. 493, 133 N. Y. Supp. 413; Matter of Neil, 90 Misc. 537, 153 N. Y. Supp. 647; Matter of Fingar, 101 Misc. 516, 168 N. Y. Supp. 361. Negative testimony.-Matter of Babcock, 85 Misc. 256, 147 N. Y. Supp. 268. "Interested in the event."-Moore v. Oviatt, 35 Hun 216; Matter of Rossell, 126 App. Div. 607, 110 N. Y. Supp. 706. "Testimony."-Matter of Calllster, 153 N. Y. 294, modig. 88 Hun 87, 34 N. Y. Supp. 628. "Concerning the same transaction."-McLaughlin v. Webster, 141 N. Y. 76; Martin v. Hillen, 142 N. Y. 144; Jones v. Perkins, 29 App. Div. 37, 51 N. Y. Supp. 380; Ward v. Plato, 23 Hun 402; Rogers v. McGuire, 90 Hun 455, 37 N. Y. Supp. 76, affd., 153 N. Y. 343. Objection, sufficiency.-Stevens v. Brennan, 79 N. Y. 254, 259; Ham v. Van Orden, 84 N. Y. 257, 271; Sanford v. Ellithorp, 95 N. Y. 48, 52; Hoag v. Wright, 174 N. Y. 36, revg. 69 App. Div. 381, 74 N. Y. Supp. 1069; Stern v. Ladew, 47 App. Div. 331, 62 N. Y. Supp. 267; Hickok v. Bunting, 67 App. Div. 560, 73 N. Y. Supp. 967; Ralley v. O'Connor, 71 App. Div. 328, 75 N. Y. Supp. 925; affd., 173 N. Y. 621; Hamlin v. Hamlin, 117 App. Div. 493, 102 N. Y. Supp. 571, revd. on other grounds, 192 Proof of incapacity. Abbott v. Doughan, 204 N. Y. 223; Farrar v. Farmers' L. & T. Co., 85 App. Div. 367, 83 N. Y. Supp. 218; Steele v. Ward, 30 Hun 555. Competency at time testimony given sufficient.— Collins v. McGuire, 76 App. Div. 443, 78 N. Y. Supp. 527; Eighmie v. Taylor, 68 Hun 573, 23 N. Y. Supp. 248. Person interested-In general.-Beakes v. Da Cunha, 126 N. Y. 293; Hobart v. Hobart, 62 N. Y. 80; Carpenter v. Soule, 88 N. Y. 251, 257; Nearpass v. Gilman, 104 N. Y. 507; Wallace v. Straus, 113 N. Y. 238; Eisenlord v. Clum, 126 N. Y. 552, 556; Matter of Lasak, 131 N. Y. 624, affg. 57 Hun 417, 10 N. Y. Supp. 844; Albany Co. Sav. Bank v. McCarty, 149 N. Y. 71, 84; Franklin v. Kidd, 219 N. Y. 409; Savercool v. Wilsey, 5 App. Div. 562, 39 N. Y. Supp. 413; Baxter v. Baxter, 13 App. Div. 65, 43 N. Y. Supp. 94; Rix v. Hunt, 16 App. Div. 540, 44 N. Y. Supp. 988; Bopple v. Supreme Tent, 18 App. Div. 488, 45 N. Y. Supp. 1096; Carpenter v. Romer & Tremper Steamboat Co., 48 App. Div. 363, 63 N. Y. Supp. 274; Andrews v. Reiners, 112 App. Div. 378, 98 N. Y. Supp. 658; Griswold v. Hart, 142 App. Div. 106, 126 N. Y. Supp. 1011; Matter of Blaine, 143 App. Div. 687, 128 N. Y. Supp. 186; Matter of Weed, 143 App. Div. 822, 127 N. Y. Supp. 966; Glennan v. Rochester Trust & Safe Deposit Co., 152 App. Div. 316, 136 N. Y. Supp. 747; Matter of Hennessey, 157 App. Div. 136, 141 N. Y. Supp. 736; West End Brewing Co. v. Utica Trust & Deposit Co., 175 App. Div. 477, 162 N. Y. Supp. 537; Matter of Wood, 185 App. Div. 936, 172 N. Y. Supp. 927; Matter of Woods, 189 App. Div. 324, 178 N. Y. Supp. 573; Matter of Wentworth, 190 App, Div. 829, 181 N. Y. Supp. 442; Harrington v. Schiller, 190 App. Div. 892, 179 N. Y. Supp. 925; Kalman v. Keubel, 191 App. Div. 402, 181 N. Y. Supp. 471; Frisbie v. Lucas, 192 App. Div. 583, 183 N. Y. Supp. 308; Matter of Herrington, 73 Misc. 182, 132 N. Y. Supp. 486; Blass v. Linsley, 78 Misc. 422, 139 N. Y. Supp. 540; Murray v. Fox, 39 Hun 108, affd. 104 N. Y. 832; Keller v. West. |