INNOCENCE, The absence of guilt.

2. The law presumes in favor of innocence, even against another presumption of law: for example, when a woman marries a second hushand within the space of twelve months after her hushand had left the country, the presumption of innocence preponderates over the presumption of the continuance of life. 2 B. & A. 386 3 Stark. Ev. 1249. An exception to this rule respecting the presumption of innocence has been made in the case of the publication of a libel, the principal being presumed to have authorized the sale, when a libel is sold by his agent in his usual place of doing business. 1 Russ. on Cr. 341; 10 Johns. R. 443; Bull. N. P. 6; Greenl. Ev. 36. See 4 Nev. & M. 341; 2 Ad. & Ell. 540; 5 Barn. & Ad. 86; 1 Stark. N. P. C. 21; 2 Nov. & M. 219.

INNOCENT CONVEYANCES. This term is used in England, technically, to signify those conveyances made by a tenant of his leasehold, which do not occasion a forfeiture these are conveyances by lease and release, bargain and sale, and a covenant to stand seised by a tenant for life. 1 Chit. Pr. 243, 244.

2. In this country forfeitures for alienation of a greater right than the tenant possesses, are almost unknown. The more just principle prevails that the conveyance by the tenant, whatever be its form, operates only on his interest. Vide Forfeiture,

INNOMINATE CONTRACTS, civil law. Contracts which have no particular names, as permutation and transaction, are so called. Inst. 2, 10, 13. There are many innominate contracts, but the Roman lawyers reduced thein to four classes, namely, do ut des, do ut facias, facio ut des, and facio ut facias. (q. v.) Dig. 2, 14, 7, 2.

INNOTESCIMUS, English law. An epithet used for letters-patent, which are always of a charter of feoffment, or some other instrument not of record, concluding with the words Innotescimus per praesentes, &c. Tech. Dict. h. t.

INNOVATION. Change of a thing established for something new.

2. Innovations are said to be dangerous, as likely to unsettle the common law. Co. Litt. 370, b; Id. 282, b. Certainly no innovations ought to be made by the courts, but as every thing human, is mutable, no legislation can be, or ought to be immutable; changes are required by the alteration of circumstances; amendments, by the imperfections of all human institutions but laws ought never to be changed without great deliberation, and a due consideration of the reasons on which they were founded, as of the circumstances under which they were enacted. Many innovations have been made. in the common law, which philosophy, philanthropy and common sense approve. The destruction of the benefit of clergy; of appeal, in felony; of trial by battle and ordeal; of the right of sanctuary; of the privilege to abjure the realm; of approvement, by which any criminal who could, in a judicial combat, by skill, force or fraud kill his accomplice, secured his own pardon of corruption of blood; of constructive treason; will be sanctioned; by all wise men, and none will desire a return to these barbarisms. The reader is referred to the case of James v. the Commo wealth, 12 Serg. & R. 220, and 225 to 2 Duncan, J., exposes the absurdity of some ancient laws, with much sarcasm.