109. Idem est non esse et non apparere. Not to be and not to legally prove are the same thing.
According to the laws of evidence, where he, on whom the onus of proving the affirmative lies, fails in such proof, the contrary is presumed, though there be no evidence in support of such presumption.
* 110. Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris (quod quisque tenetur scire) neminem excusat. Ignorance of fact excuses, ignorance of the law (which every one is presumed to know) excuses no one.
Applicable only to the general laws of the country “quod quisque tenetur scire.” No action can be maintained to recover money paid under process of law. (See Marriot v. Hampton, 2 Sm. L. C. 421, and Snell’s Eq. 16th ed. p. 393, and Max. No. 176.)
111. In consimili casu, consimile debet esse remedium. In similar cases, the remedy should be similar.
(See Max. No. 265.)
* 112. In contractu tacite insunt quæ sunt moris et consuetudinis. Those things which are customary and of general usage are tacitly implied in a contract.
As a general rule, the law of the country in which a contract is entered into presumably governs its interpretation in the absence of a contrary and express intention of the parties. (Jacob v. Crédit Lyonnaise, 12 Q. B. D. p. 600.)
113. In criminalibus probationes debent esse luce clariones. In all criminal charges the proofs should be as clear as day.
An accused person is always entitled to receive the benefit of the doubt if any such exists on the evidence.