10|The Green Bag.|}}

curacy; " but they were excluded in Tome v. gins, 33 How. Pr. 439; the grade of a street, Railroad Co., 39 Md. 693; s. c. 17 Am. Rep. Church v. Milwaukee, 31 Wis. 512; the scene 540, the court observing : " Photographers of an accident, Dyson v. Railroad Co., 57 do not always produce exact fac-similes of Conn. 9, s. c. 14 Am. St. Rep. 82; Chest the objects delineated, and however we may nut Hill, etc. Co. v. Piper, Pennsylvania be indebted to that beautiful science for Supreme Court, 1884; and to dispense with much that is beautiful as well as ornamental, a view by the jury, Locke v. Railroad Co., it is at last a mimetic art, which furnishes 46 Iowa, 109. In Church v. Milwaukee the only secondary impressions of the original, court said : — which vary according to the lights and '• Of course, the main thing was to bring before shadows which prevail while being taken." the minds of the jury the location of the plaintiff's And in Matter of Foster's Will, 34 Mich. 21, lot and improvements and all the surroundings; and the court leaned to the same view, observ this had to be done by the description of witnesses ing: " It is not always true that every pho acquainted with the place, or by pictures or dia tographic copy would be safe on any inquiry grams. If the photograph was a perfect represen requiring minute accuracy. Few copies can tation of the premises, why should it not be ad be so satisfactory as a good photograph. mitted in evidence to aid the jury, in determining But all artists are not competent to make how they were affected by the alteration of the such pictures on a large scale, and all photo grade? It is said that the premises themselves were the highest evidence, and if the jury could graphs are not absolutely faithful resem blances. It is quite possible to tamper with have had a view of them, it would have greatly them; and an impression which is at all assisted them in passing upon the questions before blurred would be very apt to mislead on them. So undoubtedly it would. But as a view questions of handwriting where forgery is was impracticable, the jury had to obtain the best claimed. Whether it would or would not be idea they could of the location of the premises permissible to allow such documents to be with reference to the changed grade. They were compelled to rely upon the description of witnesses, used, their use can never be compulsory. pictures and diagrams, and such means of infor The original and not the copy is what the mation as they had before them. And it appears jury must act upon, and no device can prop to us that it was no violation of the rules of evi erly be allowed to supersede it." This was dence to allow the photograph of the premises to said of the proposal to furnish the jury with go to the jury with the other testimony." photographic copies of a will alleged to be So photographs have been admitted as forged. Photographs have been admitted to show likenesses of deceased persons. Udderzook premises, as a highway, Blair v. Pelham, 118 v. Commonwealth, 76 Penn. St. 340; Ruloff Mass. 421; a cellar floor, Cozzens v. Hig- v. People, 45 N. Y. 213.