References: , [1838] EngR 710, (1838) 5 Cl & Fin 670, (1838) 7 ER 559
Links: Commonlii
On a question of the competence of a party to make a will, letters written to that party by person since deceased, and found (many years after their date) among his papers, are not admissible in evidence without proof that he himself acted upon them.
This case cites:

• See Also – Wright -v- Doe Dem Sandford Tatham KBD (, Commonlii, [1837] EngR 853, (1837) 7 Ad & E 313, (1837) 112 ER 488)
  The court was asked as to the understanding of th edeceased when he made his will. Letters, found in the house, were produced and the court now asked whether they could be used in evidence.
  Held: such letters were not admissible unless . .
• See Also – Wright -v- Doe Dem Tatham HL (, Commonlii, [1838] EngR 649, (1838) 4 Bing NC 489, (1838) 132 ER 877)
  In an issue on the sanity of a testator, who made his will in 1825, the devisee offered in evidence the following letters of deceased persons, which were found open, and addressed to testator, with other papers bearing his indorsements, in a . .

References: [1986] 1 WLR 1479, Times 28-Oct-1986
Evidence as to the content of a video recording might be admissible even though the tape itself was not made available.
This case is cited by:

• Cited – Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 2002) CACD (Times 17-Oct-02, Bailii, [2002] EWCA Crim 2373, [2003] 1 Cr App R 321, [2003] Crim LR 192)
  The defendants had been seen on video. The prosecution sought to admit, in addition to the video evidence itself, evidence from police officers as to the identity of persons claimed to be shown on the tape. The officers evidence was offered but not . .

References: [2001] 1 LPR 31
Coram: Judge Raymond Jack Q.C
The judge ruled on the admission of admissions made by the defendant at without prejudice meetings. There was acceptance of Mr Raffa’s involvement in the fraud though he raised the question of collaborators. If he did admit at least his involvement, any defence denying that would be dishonest and supporting it would involve perjury. It was the heart of the litigation. In Unilever the court referred to the exclusion of the evidence as a cloak for perjury. That situation would arise here. The admissions were admissible on that basis. It was a very clear case.
This case is cited by:

• Distinguished – Berry Trade Ltd and Another -v- Moussavi and others CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 715, Times 03-Jun-03, Gazette 17-Jul-03)
  A defendant appealed against an order admitting as evidence, records of ‘without prejudice’ conversations.
  Held: Written and oral communications, which are made for the purpose of a genuine attempt to compromise a dispute between the parties, . .
• Cited – Savings & Investment Bank Ltd (In Liquidation) -v- Fincken CA (Bailii, [2003] EWCA Civ 1630, Times 25-Nov-03, Gazette 15-Jan-04, [2004] 1 WLR 667, [2004] 1 All ER 1125)
  Parties to litigation had made without prejudice disclosures. One party sought to give evidence contradicting the dsclosure, and the other now applied for leave to amend based upon the without prejudice statements to be admitted to demonstrate the . .