Demonetize

To divest of the Cha racter of standard money; to withdraw from use as currency. Stand. Diet DEMONSTRATIO f Lat). Description; adfalse description does not harm). 2 Bla. Com. 382, n.; 2 P. Wins. 140; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 291: Wigr. Win- ! DEMONSTRATION I Lat. <!■ point out). Whatever is -aid or written to designate a thing °r person, Several descriptions may be employi denote the same person or object; and I rule of law in such cases is that if oi the descriptions he erroneous it maj jected, if, after it is expui:h will remain to identify the person or thing intended, for falsa demonstratio non noc< t. The meaning of this rule is, that if there be an adequate description with convenlei tainty of what was contemplated, a subsequent erroneous addition will not vitirfte it. The complement of tins maxim is. non <i<> ii>i de0( nt verba in demonstratiom m falaam -. competent in Umitationem veramj which means that if it stand doubtful upon the words whether they Import a false ref< or demonstration, or whether they be words of restraint that limit the generality of the former words, the law will never intend error or falsehood, if, therefore, there is some object wherein all the demonstrations are true, and some wherein part are true and part false, they shall be intended words of true limitation to ascertain that person or thing whereof all the circumstances are true; 4 i:.\eh. 604; 8 Bingh. 244; Broom. L. Max. 490; I'ettis v. Kellogg, 7 Cush. (Mass.) 460. Parol and extrinsii •■ for the construction of wills misdescribing the subject of the devise is admitted. Its office is to enable a court to reject whatever part of the description is false; Fairfield v. Laws Conn. 501, -17 Am. Rep. 669; Doe v. R Wend. (N. Y.) 541; Benham v. Hendrickson, 32 \. -T. Eq. 441: Ro e v. Hale. 185 HI. 379, 56 N. 0. 1073, 76 Am. St. Hep. 40; Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 36 la. 674, 11 An 53S; Wales v. Ten- 33 Mich. 177. 47 X. w. 238; Seebroeb v. Fedawa, 33 Neb. 413, 50 X. W. 270, 29 Am. St. Rep. 488; but not where there is a property which every part of the description fits; 10 C. B. X. s nor where the will contains no iangui connect the description in such devise with any land of the testator; idj Lbmax v. Lomax. 218 ill. 629, 75 X. B. 1076, 6 L. R. A. (X. S.) 942. The rule that falsa demonstratio does not vitiate an otherwise good description applies ry kind of statement of fact. Some of the particulars of an averment in a declaration may be rejected if the declaration is sensible without them and by their presence is made insensible or defective; Yelv. 182. In Evidence. That proof Which excludes all possibility of error. nstniiiic evidence of negligence has been applied to that kind of negligence which