This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1914 edition. Excerpt: ...People v. Pease, 27 N. Y. 45, 84 Am. Dec. 242; People v. Thacher, 55 N. Y. 525, 14 Am. Rep. 312. 65 Black v. Pate, 130 Ala. 514, 30 South. 434; Dixon v. Orr, 49 Ark. 238, 4 Am. St. Rep. 42, 4 S. W. 774; Eggers v. Fox, 177 111. 185. 52 N. E. 269; Pedigo v. Grimes, 113 Ind. 148, even an illegal voter cannot be compelled to testify whether he voted at the election in question, when his answer would tend to criminate him.68 893 (896). Objections and exceptions to evidence.--It is undoubtedly the policy of the law to admit testimony when offered, unless some clear reason exists for its exclusion. Competency is presumed until the contrary is shown. Since parties are usually represented in court by attorneys presumed to be vigilant in the protection of their rights, it is the general practice of the courts to receive evidence which is offered, unless it is objected to. But the trial judge is not bound to wait for objections; he may exclude improper testimony of his own motion." As the appellate courts are not organized to hear causes de novo but to review the errors of the inferior courts, if a party would take advantage of the admission of improper testimony on appeal or on motion for new trial, it is necessary to make objection at the time it is offered.70 When the question is 68 State v. Olin, 23 Wis. 309. And if he cannot be found, or fails to remember the contents of the illegal ballot, such contents may be shown by other evidence: People v. Cicott, 16 Mich. 283, 97 Am. Dec. 141; McCrary, Law of Elec, 196, 293, 301. See, also, note to People v. Pease, 84 Am. Dec. 268. 69 See 172, ante. 70 Ladd v. Smith (Ala.), 10 South. 836; Rush v. French, 1 Ariz. 99, 25 Pac. 816; Willeford v. Bell (Cal.), 49 Pac. 6; Bennett...