
    Sleight v. Rhinelander. In S. Ct. 1 J. R. 192.
    In Ct. of E. 2 J. R. 534.
    
      Evidence ; What may be Proved by Parol.
    
    Assumpsit on policy of insurance.
    In this case the Supreme Court held, that parol evidence was inadmissible to prove what was commonly understood by a term to which it was held that the law had affixed a precise and definite meaning. The term in this case was “ sea-letter,” as used in a policy of insurance.
   . The Court of Errors reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court, and held that parol evidence was properly ad-: missible to show that the particular paper offered in evidence in the case was also commonly understood to be a sea-letter.  