1. I think I must hold that it is admissible under Section 33. In order to be admissible under that section it has to be proved that the proceedings were between the same parties and the issues were substantially the same. If this is shown, and if it is shown that the witness is dead, then his deposition in the prior proceedings becomes admissible in the subsequent proceedings..
2. According to the evidence of the plaintiff’s son the charge was made at the instance of his mother, the present plaintiff. Whether that evidence is true or not is another question; but it is in evidence that the person prosecuting was the plaintiff.
3. Then as to the issues. The issues in this case are whether the plaintiff was in possession of the premises in suit when the defendant entered into possession, and whether the defendant’s entry was an unlawful ouster of the plaintiff. The Police Court charge against the defendant was one of unlawful trespass. To establish that it was necessary to show that the plaintiff was in possession, that the defendant unlawfully ousted her, and that he did so with criminal intent. It thus appears that the issues in both proceedings were the same, except that there was an additional issue in the police proceedings.
4. For these reasons I think the evidence is admissible.