Sec 639

In construing informal memoranda much greater latitude is allowed in the admission of parol proof for the purpose of explanation, and extrinsic facts of all kinds may be put in evidence for the purpose of explaining phrases which are used as mere short-hand and elliptical expressions.4 Under this head fall the memoranda of auctioneers5 and brokers6 as well as entries consisting merely of initial letters, such as I. O. U.7 On the same principle, when a letter or other informal unilateral document is before the court, it is admissible, in order to get at the real meaning, to put in evidence the sense in which the writer was in the habit of using particular words,8 as well as to make allowance for the informality and carelessness incident to familiar private correspondence.9

In memoranda and private letters allowance is to be made for individual characteristics.

1 Parker V. Gossage, 2 C. M. & R. 617; Biddlecombe V. Bond, 4 A. & E. 332.

2 Ford V. Beech, 11 Q. B. 852.

3 Warfield V. Booth, 33 Md. 63. That a conjectural meaning, no matter how plausible, must give way to the obvious practical meaning, see Great West. R. R. V. Rous, L. R. 4 H. L. 650.

4 Wh. on EV. sec 926.

5 Ibid. sec 922.

6 Ibid. sec 75, 968.

7 Wh. on EV. sec 1337.

8 Wh. on EV. sec 954.

9 "The only safe and just rule for the interpretation and construction of private letters, is, that we discard everything which is not a bare statement of fact, or which does not carry along with it irresistible evidence of truth. Even the statement of facts ought to be given, so as not to require any completion, on the side of the receiver of the letter, such as the letter-writer knew would be added during the perusal by the person addressed. As to everything else, the language of a private letter is so entirely founded upon the relation between its writer and the receiver, their acquaintance with each other's character, use of words, nay, sometimes with the very accent with which the writer is in the habit of pronouncing certain sentiments or words, and upon a knowledge of so many details, which, though un-meutioned, serve to give the right meaning to the words, that a letter, destined to remain private, frequently changes its whole character as soon as it is made public, and when a third person attempts to interpret whatever can be doubtful or ambiguous. The relation between two persons forms a key to their correspondence, for which nothing else can be substituted. There is a private usus loquendi between friends, husband and wife, members of a family, etc., which cannot be known to others." Lieber, Hermeneutics, 145. 1 Wh. Cr. PL & Pr. sec 209, 237; M'Cully's Case, 2 Lew. C. C. 272; R. V. Spicer, 1 C. & K. 699; Packard V. Hill, 7 Cow. 434; State V. Tootle, 2 Harring. 541; State V. Dunnevant, 3 BreV. 9; People V. Soto, 49 Cal. 09.

Sec 640

A nomen generalissimum, when used as such, is to he largely interpreted.1 Thus where a document speaks of "cattle," and does not further specify, or of "machinery," and does not further specify, or of "men," and does not further specify, then "cattle" is to be construed as including all kinds of cattle,2 and "machinery" as including all kinds of machinery,3 and "men" as including women and children.4 It is otherwise, however, when the document goes on to particularize.5 Thus, if the document specifies "horses" and "geldings" it would not include "mares."6