Admitted rent receipts and signatures can establish tenancy without further proof of execution or issuance.

Where rent receipts were produced, admitted in evidence, and bore the plaintiff's admitted signatures on the reverse, no further proof of their execution or issuance was required. Mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not by itself prove its contents, but that principle did not assist the plaintiff once the receipts and signatures were admitted. The defendant's tenancy plea, supported by the receipts and tenancy agreement, was therefore accepted, and the plaintiff's failure to amend the plaint or explain the admitted signatures weakened the trespass claim. The appellate court was entitled to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different view from the trial court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputed rent receipts, once admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits with the plaintiff's signatures on the reverse side admitted, required further proof of execution and issuance, and whether the defendant's tenancy plea based on those receipts was established.

Analysis: The defendant specifically pleaded tenancy and relied on the rent receipts and a tenancy agreement. The plaintiff did not amend the plaint to meet that plea or offer any explanation for his admitted signatures on the back of the receipts. The mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not by itself prove its contents, but where the document is produced, admitted by the opposite party, and the signatures are also admitted, no further burden remained on the defendant to lead additional evidence to prove the writing on the receipts or their execution by the landlady. The appellate court was entitled to reappreciate the evidence and to take a view different from the trial court.

Conclusion: The rent receipts were properly relied upon, the tenancy defence was accepted, and the plaintiff's claim of trespass failed.

---