The venue need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.29 If the only rational conclusion from the facts in evidence is that the crime was committed in the county alleged, the proof is sufficient. 30 The venue may be proved by circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary that a witness expressly testifies that the crime was committed in the county as charged in the indictment. Such direct and positive testimony may be dispensed with.31 Territory (Okla.), 99 Pac. 1098; Walker v. State, 153 Ala. 31, 45 So. 640. 29 20 Keeler v. State, 73 Neb. 441, 103 N. W. 64; Wylie v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. App. 182, 109 S. W. 186; State v. Burns, 48 Mo. 438, 440; Boggs v. State (Tex. Cr. App.), 25 S. W. 770; State v. Benson, 22 Kan. 471; Warrace v. State, 27 Fla. 362, 8 So. 748; Hoffman v. State, 12 Tex. App. 406, 407; Achterberg v. State, 8 Tex. App. 463; Wilson v. State, 62 Ark. 497, 36 S. W. 842, 54 Am. St. 303. 30 State v. Sanders, 106 Mo. 188, 190, 17 S. W. 223; Weinecke v. State, 34 Neb. 14, 24, 51 N. W. 307; Abrigo v. State, 29 Tex. App. 143, 15 S. W. 408; Andrews v. State, 21 Fla. 598, 611; Commonwealth v. Costley, 118 Mass. 1, 27; People v. Smith, 121 Cal. 355, 53 Pac. 802. "The jury has a right to infer from the testimony before them whether it was done in the county. They know all the facts and the maxim vicini vicinorum præsumunter scire applies." Bryant v. State, 80 Ga. 272, 275, 4 S. E. 853; Wilson v. State, 62 Ark. 497, 36 S. W. 842, 54 Am. St. 303; Lewis v. State, 129 Ga. 731, 59 S. E. 782; Wilson v. State (Ga. App.), 64 S. E. 112; Howard v. State, 3 Ga. App. 659, 60 S. E. 328; Cooper v. State, 2 Ga. App. 730, 59 S. E. 20; State v. Dickerson, 77 Ohio St. 34, 82 N. E. 969, 122 Am. St. 479; Davis v. State, 134 Wis. 632, 115 N. W. 150; People v. Monroe, 138 Cal. 97, 70 Pac. 1072; Tolston v. State (Tex. Cr. App.), 42 S. W. 988; Vernon v. United States, 146 Fed. 121, 76 C. C. A. 547; Moore v. State, 130 Ga. 322, 60 S. E. 544; Smith v. State, 29 Fla. 408, 10 So. 89; Williams v. State, 168 Ind. 87, 79 N. E. 1079; Springer v. State, 121 Ga. 155, 48 S. E. 907; Stringfield v. State, 4 Ga. App. 842, 62 S. E. 569. 31 Bloom v. State, 68 Ark. 336, 58 S. W. 41; Wallis v. State, 54 Ark. 611, 16 S. W. 821; Brooke v. People, 23 Colo. 375, 48 Pac. 502; Robson v. State, 83 Ga. 166, 9 S. E. 610; Wilson v. State (Ga. App.), 64 S. E. 112; Dumas v. State, 62 Ga. 58; Harlan v. State, 134 Ind. 339, 33 N. E. 1102; State v. Thomas, 58 Kan. 805, 51 Pac. 228; Moore v. State, 55 Miss. 432; State v. Sanders, 106 Mo. 188, 17 S. W. 223; State v. Chamberlain, 89 Mo. 129, 1 S. W. 145; Hawkins v. State, 60 Neb. 380, 83 N. W. 198; Weinecke v. State, 34 Neb. 14, 51 N. W. 307; Harvey v. Territory, 11 Okla. 156, 65 Pac. 837; State v. Chaney, 9 Rich. (S. Car.) 438; State v. Gossett, 9 Rich. (S. Car.) 428; Tolston v. State (Tex. Cr. App.), 42 S. W. 988; Abrigo v. State, 29 Tex. App. 143, 15 S. W. 408; State v. Michel, 20 Wash. 162, 54 Pac. 995; Douglas v. State (Ark., 1909), 121 S. W. 923. For it has been repeatedly held where there is no direct testimony showing the venue that if there are references in the evidence to streets, public buildings or other landmarks at or near the scene of the crime, which are either known to the members of the jury or which may probably be familiar to them, the jury may safely presume that the venue has been proved. For as a general rule, the court will take judicial notice of streets, public buildings or public places which are known or which may probably be known to the residents of a certain locality and will also take notice that these streets or public buildings and places are within the county.32 So, if there is direct evidence that a crime was committed in a certain city, village or town, the judicial notice which the court will take of geographical facts will usually be sufficient and stand in place of actual proof that the place mentioned was in the county charged in the indictment.33 $37. Proof of venue in forgery and crimes done in retirement.That the venue shall be proved by circumstantial evidence is necessarily the case in respect to forgery and similar crimes, which are secretly planned and committed, out of sight of all but the accomplices of the criminal. Hence the venue of the crime of forging bank-notes or of uttering forged instruments may be correctly inferred by the jury from evidence that forged and coun "People v. McGregar, 88 Cal. 140, 26 Pac. 97; Sullivan v. People, 114 Ill. 24, 28 N. E. 381; Cluck v. State, 40 Ind. 263; Commonwealth v. Ackland, 107 Mass. 211. Duncan v. State, 29 Fla. 439, 451, 10 So. 815; Andrews v. State, 21 Fla. 598, 611; McCune v. State, 42 Fla. 192, 27 So. 867, 89 Am. St. 225; State v. Ruth, 14 Mo. App. 226; People v. McGregar, 88 Cal. 140, 143, 145, 26 Pac. 97; Cluck v. State, 40 Ind. 263, 273; Commonwealth v. Ackland, 107 Mass. 211; State v. Fetterly, 33 Wash. 599, 74 Pac. 810; State v. Kelly, 123 Mo. App. 680, 101 S. W. 155; State v. Kline, 50 Ore. 426, 93 Pac. 237; State v. Wheaton (Kan.), 99 Pac. 1132 Richardson v. Commonwealth, 80 Va. 124; Cooper v. State, 106 Ga. 119, 32 S. E. 23; State v. King, 111 Mo. 576, 20 S. W. 299; United States v. Richards, 149 Fed. 443. The evidence of one uncontradicted and credible witness to the venue is sufficient. Speight v. State, 80 Ga. 512, 5 S. E. 506; Laydon v. State, 52 Ind. 459. Some cases hold, however, that the jury can not assume that the street or public place in which the evidence shows the crime was committed is within a town, city or county within the jurisdiction, but that this fact must appear from the proof. Evans v. State, 17 Fla. 192; Dougherty v. People, 118 Ill. 160, 8 N. E. 673. 34 terfeit notes and implements for their manufacture were found in the possession of the accused in the county as alleged, or that he had always resided in the county and confessed the forgery there.35 Though proof of the finding of a dead body in the county alleged is not, taken alone, sufficient proof of the venue, it is a circumstance to go to the jury to be considered by them with other evidence. If a corpse is found in a river with the marks of mortal injuries on it in such a situation that from the evidence it is clear that it was not borne there by the current, but that it was thrown in the stream by the hand of man, the jury may infer the homicide was committed in the county where the corpse is found.37 2 * * Spencer 35 Johnson v. State, 62 Ga. 299, 301; Murphree v. State (Tex. Cr. App.), 115 S. W. 1189, 1191. The court by Story, J., in United States v. Britton, 2 Mason (U. S.) 464, 470, 24 Fed. Cas. 14650, said: "If its existence in a forged state is not proved in any other place, it must, from the necessity of the case, be presumed to have been forged where its existence in such state is first made known. If the law were otherwise it would be almost impossible to convict any person of a forgery, for such acts are done in retirement and concealment, far from the sight of all persons but confederates in guilt." As to the venue in conspiracy, see Dawson v. State, 38 Tex. Cr. App. 9, 40 S. W. 731. 36 Beavers v. State, 58 Ind. 530, 537; Marion v. State, 20 Neb. 233, 245, 57 Am. 825; Lancaster v. State, 91 Tenn. 267, 18 S. W. 777. 37 Commonwealth v. Costley, 118 Mass. 1, 2, 6. § 38. Definition of primary evidence.-Primary evidence may be defined as the highest or best evidence which, from the abstract nature of the facts to be proved, is procurable, and which, under circumstances of the particular case, affords the greatest certainty of the fact, that is, renders the probability of its existence most evident to the understanding. It is that evidence which does not indicate the existence of other evidence nearer the facts to be proved.1 The rule requiring primary evidence of a fact refers most frequently to offers of oral evidence, to prove the contents of a writing, where the writing itself ought to be produced. Hence, usually, unless it is shown that the party claiming under the writing is unable to produce it after a diligent search, oral, or in fact any 1 Anderson's Law Dictionary. other evidence of its contents, will be rejected. So where a letter, if produced, would be primary evidence of a relevant fact, a press copy, even though an exact chirographical reproduction, is inadmissible, except as secondary evidence and after the loss or the destruction of the original is shown.3 If a writing has been executed by all parties in several parts, or copies, each is primary evidence of the contents of the writing." A letter press copy of a letter found in the possession of and proved to be in the handwriting of a defendant may be received as original evidence to show the writer's state of mind without proof that the original was sent to the person to whom it was addressed.5 If a writing was executed in counterpart—that is, in duplicate, either part, though substantially the same as the other, but signed by one party only, is primary evidence only when offered against the party who signed it. Each of a number of copies made by printing, lithography, photography, or by any process which will secure exact uniformity, is primary evidence to prove the contents of any or of all the others. Though all are from a common original, none is primary evidence of that original. And where the loss of the original and of a press copy of a letter is proved, a copy of the press copy is admissible, where its correctness as a reproduction of the original letter is vouched for upon the oath of a witness having competent knowledge." § 39. Primariness of witnesses-Proof of handwriting. As the production of witnesses who will give the strongest, most credit Underhill on Evid., 88 30, 31. "Whether evidence is primary or secondary has reference to the nature of the case in the abstract, and not to the circumstances under which the party, in the particular cause on trial, may be placed. It is a distinction of law and not of fact; referring only to the quality and not to the strength of the proof. Evidence which carries on its face no indication that better remains behind is not secondary but primary." I Greenl. on Evid., § 84. A letter-press copy of a designa |