1594 ARTICLE 35

An. Code, 1924, sec. 6. 1912, sec. 6. 1904, sec. 6. 1888, sec. 5. 1864, ch. 109, sec. 5,

sub-sec. 1.

9. In all cases it shall be competent for any of the parties to the pro-
ceedings to prove by legal evidence any facts showing the interest of any
witness in the matter in controversy, or in the event of the suit or the con-
viction of such witness of any infamous crime, and in order to prove such
conviction it shall not be necessary to produce the whole record of pro-
ceedings containing such conviction, but the certificate, under seal of the
clerk of the court wherein such proceedings were had, stating the fact
of the conviction and for what crime shall be sufficient.

The application of the portion of this section relative to the impeachment of a wit-
ness by proof that he had been convicted of an infamous crime, pointed out. Richardson
v. State, 103 Md. 118.

Evidence of conviction of crime, to impeach credibility of witness, may be by record
or certificate authorized by statute or through admission of the witness. Green v.
State, 161 Md. 75...

Exclusion of evidence of conviction of witness of simple assault five years before,
was within discretion of court. Burgess v. State, 161 Md. 162.

1933, ch. 240.

10. If any person or corporation charged with committing any crime
is found guilty thereof, such fact shall be admissible as evidence in any
proceeding, criminal or civil, in which another person,:firm or corporation
shall be charged with committing the same crime or act.

An. Code, 1924, sec. 7. 1912, sec. 7. 1904, sec. 7. 1888, sec. 6. 1825, ch. 120. 1888, ch. 545.

11. In every suit or action at law or in equity in which it may be nec-
essary to prove the execution of any instrument of writing whatsoever,
attested by a subscribing witness or witnesses, it shall be lawful to prove
the execution of such instrument of writing in the same manner and by
the same evidence that the same might be proved by if not attested by a
subscribing witness; but this shall not apply to the proof of the execution
of any last will and testament. Comparison of a disputed writing with
any writing proved to the satisfaction of the court to be genuine shall be
permitted to be made by witnesses, and such writings and the evidence of
witnesses respecting the same may be submitted to the court and jury, or
the court, as the case may be, as evidence of the genuineness or otherwise
of the writing in dispute.

This section was not designed to deprive the court of all discretion in determining
the character of genuine writing to be used for the purpose of comparison, or to permit
the introduction before jury of extraneous matter calculated to prejudice opposite
party. Gambrill v. Schooley, 95 Md. 282.

The object and application of the portion of this section relative to proof of attested
instruments, pointed out. Keefer v. Zimmerman, 22 Md. 286; Gaither v. Martin, 3
Md. 159; Edelen v. Gough, 5 Gill, 106; Pannell v. Williams, 8 G. & J. 518; Shepherd v.
Bevans, 4 Md. Ch. 408.

A witness held to be competent to compare disputed signatures with those shown
to be genuine, as authorized by this section. Councilman v. Towson Bank, 103 Md. 479.

Evidence held admissible in accordance with last sentence of this section. Murdock
v. Schindel, 128 Md. 641; Citizens' Natl. Bank v. Custis, 153 Md. 245 (will case).

As to the production of books and writings, see art. 75, sec. 106, et seq., and art. 16,
sec. 27, et seq.

Comparison of handwriting should be made with original signatures and use of
photostatic copies permitted only where originals cannot be obtained; requirements
as to; discretion of court. Proof of marriage. Hansel v. Smith, 152 Md. 384.