ABSTRACT
This was an old rule requiring that ‘the best evidence must be given of which the nature of the thing is capable’. It did not require the greatest amount of evidence that could possibly be given of any fact. The object of the rule was to prevent the introduction of any evidence which, from the nature of the case, suggested that better evidence was in the possession of the party producing it. Thus, in Chenie v Watson (1797), oral evidence of the physical condition of certain objects was rejected because the objects themselves could have been produced in court. The rule is generally considered to have fallen into abeyance (Garton v Hunter (1969)).
