KFLCC Kingdom Law 2nd Ed.

394

DOUBLB

DOUBT

Oowell.— Double costs.

See COSTS.— Dou

then actually seised, whereas, if the recovery were had against another person, and the ten ant in tail were vouchee, it barred every latent right and interest which he might have in the lands recovered. 2 Bl. Comm. 359.— Double waste. When a tenant bound to repair suf fers a house to be wasted, and then unlawfully fells timber to repair it, he is said to commit double waste. Co. Litt. 53.— Double will. A will in which two persons join, each leaving his property and estate to the other, so that the survivor takes the whole. Evans v. Smith, 28 Ga. 98, 73 Am. Dec. 751. Uncertainty of mind; the ab sence of a settled opinion or conviction; the attitude of mind towards the acceptance of or belief in a proposition, theory, or statement, in which the judgment is not at rest but inclines alternately to either side. Rowe v. Baber, 93 Ala. 422, 8 South. 865; Smith v. Railway Co., 143 Mo. 33, 44 S. W. 718; West Jersey Traction Co. v. Camden Horse R. Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 452, 29 Atl. 333. Reasonable doubt. This is a term often used, probably pretty well understood, but not easily defined. It does not mean a mere possi ble doubt, because everything relating to human affairs, and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and consideration of all the evi dence, leaves the minds of jurors in that condi tion that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge. Donnelly v. State, 26 N. J. Law, 601, 615. A reasonable doubt is deemed to ex ist, within the rule that the jury should not convict unless satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, when the evidence is not sufficient to sat isfy the judgment of the truth of a proposition with such certainty that a prudent man would feel safe in acting upon it in his own important affairs. Arnold v. State, 23 Ind. 170. The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor. All the presumptions of law independent of evi dence are in favor of innocence; and every person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. If upon such proof there is reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is entitled to the benefit of it by an acquittal; for it is not sufficient to establish a probability, though a strong one, arising' from the doctrine of chances, that the fact charged is more likely to be true than the contrary, but the evidence must establish the truth of the fact to a rea sonable and moral certainty,—a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. This is proof beyond reasonable doubt; because if the law, which mostly depends upon considera tions of a moral nature, snould go further than this, and require absolute certainty, it would exclude circumstantial evidence altogether. Per Shaw, C J., in Com. v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 320, 52 Am. Dec. 711. And see fur ther, Tompkins v. Butterfield (O. C.) 25 Fed. 558; State v. Zdanowicz, 69 N. J. Law, 619, 55 Atl. 743; U. S. v. Youtsey (C. C.) 91 Fed. 868; State v. May, 172 Mo. 630, 72 S. W. 918; Com. v. Childs, 2 Pittsb. R. (Pa/) 400; State v. Hennessy, 55 Iowa, 300, 7 N. W. 641; Harris v. State, 155 Ind. 265. 58 N. E. 75; Knight v. State, 74 Miss. 140, 20 South. 860; Carleton v. State, 43 Neb. 373, 61 N. W. 699; State v. Reed, 62 Me. 129; State v. Ching Ling, 16 Or. 419, 18 Pac. 844; Stout v. State, 90 Ind. 1; Bradley v. State, 31 Ind. 505; Allen v. State, 111 Ala. 80, 20 South. 494; State v. Rover, 11 DOUBLES. Letters-patent Cowell. DOUBT.

ble damages. See DAMAGES.— Double ea gle. A gold coin, of the United States of the •atoe of twenty dollars.— Double entry. A system of mercantile book-keeping, in which the entries in the day-book, etc., are posted twice into the ledger. First, to a personal ac count, that is, to the account of the person with whom the dealing to which any given en try refers has taken place; secondly, to an im personal account, as "goods." Mozley & Whit ley.— Double fine. In old English law. A fine &ur done grant et render was called a "double fine," because it comprehended the fine sur cog nizance de droit come ceo, etc., and the fine sur concessit. 2 Bl. Comm. 353— Double insur ance is where divers insurances are made up on the same interest in the same subject against the same risks in favor of the same assured, in proportions exceeding the value. 1 Phill. Ins. §§ 359, 366. A double insurance exists where the same person is insured by several insurers separately in respect to the same subject and interest. Civ. Code Cal. § 2641; Wells v. In surance Co., 9 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 107; Insurance Co. v. Gwathmey, 82 Va. 923, 1 S. E. 209; Perkins v. Insurance Co., 12 Mass. 218; Low ell Mfg. Oo. v. Safeguard F. Ins. Co., 88 N. Y. 597.— Double plea, double pleading. See DUPLICITY ; PLEA ; PLEADING.— Double possibility. A possibility upon a possibility. 2 BL Comm. 170.— Double rent. In English law. Rent payable by a tenant who continues in possession after the time for which he has given notice to quit, until the time of his quit ting possession. St. 11 Geo. II. c. 19.— Double taxation. The taxing of the same item or piece of property twice to the same person, or taxing it as the property of one person and Again as the property of another; but this does not include the imposition of different taxes concurrently on the same property (e. g., a city tax and a school tax), nor the taxation of the same piece of property to different persons when they hold different interests in it or when it represents different values in their hands, as when both the mortgagor and mortgagee of prop erty are taxed in respect to their interests in it, or when a tax is laid upon the capital or prop erty of a corporation and also upon the value of its shares of stock in the hands of the sep arate stockholders. Cook v. Burlington, 59 Iowa, 251, 13 N. W. 113, 44 Am. Rep. 679; Cheshire County Tel. Co. v. State, 63 N. H. 167; Detroit Common Council v. Detroit As sessors, 91 Mich. 78, 51 N. W. 787, 16 L. R. A. 59.— Double use. In patent law. An ap plication of a principle or process, previously known and applied, to some new use, but which does not lead to a new result or the production of a new article. De Lamar v. De Lamar Min. Co. (C. C.) 110 Fed. 542; In re Blandy, 3 Fed. Gas. 671.— Double value. In English law. This is a penalty on a tenant holding over after his landlord's notice to quit. By 4 Geo. II. c. 28, § 1, it is enacted that if any ten ant for life or years hold'over any lands, etc., after the determination of his estate, after de mand made, and notice in writing given, for delivering the possession thereof, by the land lord, or the person having the reversion or re mainder therein, or his agent thereunto law fully authorized, such tenant so holding over shall pay to the person so kept out of possession at the rate of double the yearly value of the lands, etc., so detained, for so long a time as the same are detained. See Woodf. Landl. & Ten. (12th Ed.) 717, et seq.— Double vouch er. This was when a common recovery was had, and an estate of freehold was first con veyed to any indifferent person against whom the pracipe was brought, and then he vouched the tenant in tail, who vouched over the com mon vouchee. For, if a recovery were had im mediately against a tenant in tail, it barred only the estate in the premises of which he was