SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

It will be seen from the record that not only was the testimony of this witness desired, but that in addition the application carried with it the demand to select from the papers on file in the court the check alleged to have been forged, and to forward that together with signatures of the deceased admitted to be genuine, in order that the witness might pass on these as an expert. It is apparent that the testimony of this witness could not have been taken without sending the check as requested by the attorney of the defendant. This check was not the property of the court, nor the property of the defendant, nor indeed was it the property of the plaintiff in the true sense of the term. It was a court paper and as such must remain among the files of the office, and the defendant had no inherent right to command its presence in New York City. Indeed it was the foundation of the action and the court would have been in error if it had assumed that it had the power to send it without the jurisdiction of the court.
The third exception is with regard to certain records kept at the Colon Hospital and i, hich were introduced in evidence. We can see no good reason as to xxhy these records should not have been admitted, and especially so in view of the fact that there was other testimony showing that about the time that the draft alleged to have been forged was dated, the deceased was in a very weak condition and had to be propped up in bed in order to sign his name to a paper.
The fourth exception is to the evidence of the manager of the bank, which the attorney terms "hearsay." It is well settled that "hearsay evidence" as a rule is inadmissible. However, admisssions made by parties against their interest are often admitted and these perhaps form an exception to the general rule. It appears that the manager, together with certain Canal Zone officials, went to the police station and court house in Cristobal for the purpose of examining into this alleged forged check, and that the manager was in full charge of the business of the defendant. While so acting, it is alleged that he made the statement excepted to. This statement amounts to very little and would not be sufficient to justify reversal even though it should be otherwise objectionable. However, considering the capacity in which the manager acted, it would appear that what he did and what he said was )&ithin the full scope of his authority.
Fifth, the witness Rochelle was asked by defendant's counsel his reasons for saying that he did not think the signature to the check in question was the signature of the deceased. This was

298