in your possession? A. Aboutyears that I know of.Then he was asked these Nike Argentina questions: You may state whether or not this paper not referring to any personal transaction with your deceased grandfather A. W. Harlan was given to you by some one. A. It was.You may state whether or not this paper not referring to any personal transactions between yourself and A. W. Harlan was given to you by any person other than A. W. Harlan. A. It was not.You may state as nearly as you can the contents of that paper. A. This paper was to me and said A. Polo Outlet Online W. Harlan had changed his mind in regard to two deeds covering land that had been given to me personally and North Face Outlet Store he intended that this land should be given to me and that I should share Polo Ralph Lauren Outlet in his estate equally with the other three heirs.State whether or not you have The North Face Outlet searched for this paper. A. I have time and again.In the safe where you usually kept papers? A. Yes sir.Have you searched in every place that you ever kept any such papers? A. Yes sir.Have you exhausted every means of finding that paper? A. I have.The witness gave other Nike Free Run testimony touching the loss of the paper. Thereupon the plaintiff crossexamined this witness touching the possession of the paper which he claimed to have its date where Nike Free he got it and then proceeded as follows:You state that you got that paper before yon went to the house? A. No sir.Did you learn anything about it? A. I asked grandfather to give mc a paper of that kind before we North Face Outlet went to the house.You aRked him to give you the paper? A. Yes sir.Was the paper in pencil or ink? A. In ink.Who wrote it? A. A. W. Harlan.Did he write it that day? A. Yes sir; that day.At the house? A. At the house.After you went to the house? A. Yes.You say you were present and your wife and mother? A. Yes.And you had it ever since? A. I had it in my possession untU . That was the last time I saw it.Then he proceeded on crossexamination to state the contents of the paper substantially as set out on his direct examination and he was asked this Nike Max Air question:That is what the paper said? A. That I should share equally with the other heirs.Is that all that was in it? A. Practically all. I don't think it was signed before a notary public. The only name on the paper was A. W. Harlan If we concede that under the rule laid down hi McElheuneyHendricks S Iowa N. W foUowed In CampbellCollinsIowaN. W and other cases Mark T. Harlan was competent notwithstanding the provisions Nike Max Air 90 of section to testify that he had a paper In his possession after the summer of made with reference to his interest in his grandfather's estate; that this paper was in his grandfather's handwriting; that Itwas given to him by some one; that it was not given to him by any person other than A. W. Harlan a concession difficult to make even under these authoritieswe still believe that the witness went beyond The North Face Outlet Store the limit of these authorities and directly Ralph Lauren Outlet Online violated the Nike Shop inhibition of the statute when he stated or attempted to state the contents of the instrument so held by him. The evidence leading up to the giving of the contents of the instrument under the rule laid down In the McElhenney Case can only be justified on the theory that the statute does not exclude proof of facts from which by Inference other facts may be found even though the fact found by inference be a fact to which the witness is not competent under the statute Ralph Lauren Outlet to testify to directly. In the McElhenney Case it was said:The question and answer expressly exclude; any personal transaction between the plaintiff and the deceased.The same is