evidence, that the original was properly stamped, if it required to be stamped (h), and an unstamped copy will be good secondary evidence; but neither at law (i) nor in equity (k) can secondary evidence of the contents of an unstamped agreement be given, even though it was destroyed by the wrongful act of the party objecting to such evidence. When the destruction of a document is alleged to have been by the opposite party, notice to produce is necessary to let in secondary evidence (1). When a copy is tendered as secondary evidence, it must be proved to be accurate by a witness who made it, or who actually read it and compared it with the original (m); but drafts from which, by indorsements upon them, it appeared that certain deeds were engrossed, have been held good secondary evidence of the contents of such deeds (n). All originals must be accounted for before secondary evidence can be given of any one (o). It may be remarked that secondary evidence of the contents of a lost will may be adduced as well as of the contents of any other lost instrument (p). (h) Marine Investment Co. v. Haviside, L. R., 5 E. & I. 624; 42 L. J., Ch. 173. (i) Rippiner v. Wright, 2 B. & Al. 478. (k) Smith v. Henley, 1 Phil. 391. (1) Doe v. Morris, 3 A. & E. 46. (m) Fisher v. Samuda, 1 Camp. 193. (n) Waldy v. Gray, L. R., 20 Eq. 250; 44 L. J., Ch. 394; 23 W. R. 676. (0) Per Parke, B., Alevon v. Furnival, 1 C. M. & R. 292. (p) See Sugden v. Lord St. Leonards, L. R., 1 P. D. 154; 45 L. J., P. D. & A. 49; 24 W. R. 860. If a witness attends on a subpoena duces tecum, with a document which he refuses to produce on the ground of privilege, secondary evidence will be admissible. If he does not attend on such a subpoena or attends and refuses to produce the writing on any other ground but that of privilege, secondary evidence will not be admissible, but the witness will be punishable for contempt (q). PROOF OF HANDWRITING. The proof of signatures, or handwriting, is the essential part of the proof of private writings. There are various admissible kinds of such proof. 1. Handwriting may be proved by calling the party who wrote or signed. This is the most satisfactory evidence. 2. By a witness who actually saw the party write or sign. 3. By a witness who has seen the party write on other occasions, even if it be but once only. Such witness must swear to his belief that the writing produced is the writing of the person, and it is not sufficient for him to swear that he thinks that it is (†). 4. By a witness who has seen documents, purporting to be written by the same party, and which, by subsequent communications with such party, he has reason to believe the authentic writings of such party. (a) R. v. Llanfaethly, 2 E. & B. 940. 5. Under the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (s), in civil cases, and under the Criminal Evidence and Practice Amendment Act, 1865 (t), in criminal cases, a witness may give his opinion as to the authenticity of a disputed document by comparing the handwriting with any document which has been proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be the genuine writing of the party. The practical principles of this department of evidence are well illustrated in the subjoined judgment of Patteson, J., in Doe v. Suckermore (u). He said, "All evidence of handwriting, except where the witness sees the document written, is in its nature comparison. It is the belief which a witness entertains upon comparing the writing in question with an exemplar in his mind derived from some previous knowledge. That knowledge may have been acquired, either by seeing the party write, in which case it will be stronger or weaker according to the number of times and the periods and other circumstances under which the witness has seen the party write; but it will be sufficient knowledge to admit the evidence of the witness (however little weight may be attached to it in such cases), even if he has seen him write but once, and then merely signing his surname; or the knowledge may have been acquired by the witness having seen letters or other documents professing to be the handwriting of the party, and having after (s) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 135, s. 27. wards personally communicated with the party upon the contents of those letters or documents, or having otherwise acted upon them by written answers producing further correspondence or acquiescence by the party in some matter to which they relate; or by any other mode of communication between the party and the witnesses, which, in the ordinary course of transactions of life, induces a reasonable presumption that the letters or documents were the handwriting of the party; evidence of the identity of the party being of course added aliunde, if the witness be not personally acquainted with him. These are the only modes of acquiring a knowledge of handwriting which have hitherto, as far as I have been able to discover in our law, been considered sufficient to entitle a witness to speak as to his belief in a question of handwriting. In both the witness acquires his knowledge by his own observation upon facts coming under his own eye, and as to which he does not rely on the information of others; and the knowledge is usually, and especially in the latter mode, acquired incidentally, and, if I may say so, unintentionally, without reference to any particular object, person or document." Where it is desired to prove the handwriting of an ancient document, it may be proved by the evidence of a witness who has in the course of business examined documents admitted to be written by the same party, but not by a witness who has merely inspected some such documents for the purpose of giving evidence (x). (x) Fitzwalter Peerage case, 10 C. & F. 193. On these common law principles, the Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, and the Criminal Evidence and Practice Amendment Act, 1865, have engrafted the principle numbered 5, supra. The 27th section of the former act and the 8th of the latter enact, that-" Comparison of a disputed writing with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine shall be permitted to be made by witnesses; and such writings, and the evidence of witnesses respecting the same, may be submitted to the court and jury as evidence of the genuineness or otherwise of the writing in dispute." Before any writing is admissible under these sections as a standard of comparison, its genuineness must be proved to the satisfaction of the judge (y), but it need not be relevant to the issue (z). Where an attesting witness swore clearly and distinctly that a deed was executed in his presence by R. and his wife, both of whom he knew, this evidence was held not to be counterbalanced by the evidence of experts who expressed an opinion that the signature purporting to be that of R. was not in the character of his handwriting (a). Where the handwriting of any part of a document provable by a copy is in dispute, the original must be produced (b). (y) Hughes v. Lady Dinorben, 32 L. T. 271. |