be received from other persons who are capable of deposing to the facts, which intimate friends, inmates of the family, or even domestic servants may often be better acquainted with than relations, where they reside at a distance, or are in the habit of holding little intercourse with each other. But before a purchaser's solicitor consents to receive this secondary kind of evidence, he should require proof that diligent but fruitless search has been made in the parochial and other registers; and it should also appear upon the face of the statutory declaration, how, and in what manner the deponent is likely to be well acquainted with the facts deposed to, as well as reasonable grounds for his or her belief: (Randolph v. Gordon, 5 Pri. 316.)

Probate of will and letters of administration, how far evidence of death.]—Probate of a will, or the grant of letters of administration to the effects of a party alleged to be dead, is treated by conveyancers as sufficient proof of the death; and whenever it appears that such probate or administration has been acted on, a purchaser will have no right to insist upon being supplied with a certificate either of the death or burial of the testator or intestate.

Proof of the death of seamen.]—The books kept at the "Sick and Hurt Office," containing the copies of the returns of persons dying on board Her Majesty's ships, are evidence of the death of seamen : (Wallis v. Cook, 5 Esp. 116.)

Proof of the death of soldiers.]—The deaths of soldiers and privates in Her Majesty's regular service may be ascertained by reference to the books of the commanding officer of the regiment to which they belonged; but it does not appear that any return is made and kept of the deaths, or of the names of the particular individuals who happen to die in the service.

Proof of death of a party without issue.]—This fact, which can only be supported by negative proof, may be established by a statutory declaration made either by relations, or other persons well acquainted with the party, in the same manner as births, deaths, marriages, and other matters of fact we have already considered; or such proof may arise out of facts or circumstances irreconcileable with, or opposed to the hypothesis that there are any legitimate descendants of the supposed ancestor; such as proof that the party was

never married (Hemming v. Spiers, 15 Sim. 550); the nonmention of issue in wills, or any other documents in which issue, if existing, would naturally be noticed, and the descent of property, or of titles of dignity upon the assumption of want of issue.

Legitimacy.]-The presumption, prima facie, is that a child born in wedlock is legitimate; hence a certificate of the marriage of the parents, and proof of the birth of the child during the lifetime of the father, or within the period allowed for gestation after his decease (Co. Litt. 244 a; Parish of St. George v. St. Margaret, 1 Salk. 123; The Queen v. Inhabitants of Mansfield, 1 Ad. & El. (N. S.) 444), will be considered as satisfactory evidence of that fact, where no question or dispute appears ever to have arisen upon the subject.

Proof of redemption of land tax.]—When the property is contracted to be sold discharged from the land tax, the redemption must be shown by the certificate of the commissioners, the receipt of the cashier of the Bank of England, and memorandum of registration.

Annuities and rent charges.]—The last receipt from the party entitled to payment of the annuity or rent charge acknowledging such payment, affords satisfactory proof that all arrears have been duly paid up to that, the period mentioned.

Seisin and identity of parcels.]-Land tax and poor rate assessments (Smith v. Cartwright, Car. & P. 218; see also, Harrison v. Blades, 3 Camp. N. P. C. 457), are usually received as evidence of seisin and identity of parcels, as are also the receipts of rent, old leases, or counterparts of leases, also maps, terriers, and plans of the property. These facts may also be shown by the evidence of parties well acquainted with the property, as of present or former occupiers; and even the declarations of a deceased occupier, as to the person of whom he held the premises, have been holden sufficient evidence of that fact, such declarations being considered as made against his own interest, upon the recognised principle that the possession of every occupier is, prima facie, taken to be a seisin in fee, the identity of the lands being of course proved: (Peaceable ex dem. Uncle v. Watson, 4 Taunt. 16.)

Modern practice, where seisin is to be proved by evidence of parties acquainted with the property.]-Where it is necessary to prove the identity of parcels or seisin through the medium of persons acquainted with the property, the practice until recently was to require the facts so stated to be proved by affidavit; but now a declaration in pursuance of the statute 6 Will. 4, for the suppression of extra-judicial oaths is substituted.

How seisin is shown where the title is derived through an heir.]-Where the title is derived through an heir, it will be necessary to ascertain that he was seised of the property, either actually or constructively. An actual entry for the purpose of vesting such seisin may be made either by the heir in person, or by some other party in his behalf, as his guardian for instance; and even an entry by a stranger on behalf of an infant heir has been viewed in the same light as an entry by a guardian for that purpose. A constructive acquisition may be inferred where a person can be shown to have exercised acts of ownership over the property, as by receiving the rents and profits (Davies v. Lowndes, 7 Scott, 22); and even a continued possession by the tenant of the ancestor under a lease, by statute or by elegit, will supply sufficient evidence of seisin in the heir, without any actual receipt of the rent, or entry by him on the premises: (Co. Litt. 15 a.; Newman v. Newman, 3 Wils. 528; Bushby v. Dixon, 5 Dow. & Ry. 126.)

As to incorporeal hereditaments.]—With respect to incorporeal hereditaments, such as rents, titles, and advowsons, as there can be no actual entry made upon any of the above kinds of property, the proof of seisin must be evidenced by showing acts of ownership, such as receiving the rents, or tithes, or making presentations to the advowson: (Com. Dig. tit. Seisin C.)

Wills.]-The probate of a copy of a will, we have already noticed, is all that a conveyancer requires, a custom which has grown into such general use, that a purchaser would not, it seems, be allowed to resist a specific performance on the ground of a vendor's refusal to produce the original will; neither can a purchaser insist on verifying the abstract with the original will at the vendor's expense, if the probate is ready for his inspection.

Probate best evidence with respect to personalty.]—With respect to leasehold property and personal estate, the

probate is the best evidence even in courts of law. If therefore the probate copy of the will appears to be duly executed, it will be considered to afford sufficient proof that the attestations are genuine: (Cov. Ev. 2, 93.) But it must be ascertained, in all cases where the will was prior to the operation of the act 1' Vict. c. 26, that it was made in conformity to the Statute of Frauds, 29 Car. 2, c. 3; and when made and published subsequently to the act of Victoria, that it was made in conformity to provisions of that act: (see 2 Hughes Con. Prec. 413, 418, 1st edition.) If the probate is lost, an official copy will afford evidence equally satisfactory to a conveyancer, as the probate, or even the original will.

VIII. OF THE COMPARISON OF THE DOCUMENTS OF TITLE WITH THE ABSTRACT.

How the deeds, &c. should be compared with the abstract.] -The comparison of the title deeds and other documents of title with the abstract is a very important duty, and requires the strictest scrutiny; for if done in a cursory or careless manner, the most serious consequences may ensue from it; as upon close investigation it is often discovered that an important clause in an instrument has been omitted, or else abstracted in so loose a way as to convey a very different signification from what the terms used in the abstracted document would really imply.

Propriety of making comparison previously to submitting abstract to counsel.]-Properly speaking, whenever an abstract is submitted to counsel, the title deeds and other documents should be previously compared with the abstract. By adopting this course considerable time as well as expense will often be saved in the end. It not unfrequently occurs that when the comparison of the various documents comes to be made with the abstract, some discrepancy is found between them, which often renders a second opinion of counsel necessary; thus increasing the costs, and adding to those vexatious delays which are too often incidental to the completion of a purchase. Another great advantage to be derived from a previous comparison of the documents with the abstracts, is, that it enables the purchaser's solicitor by short marginal remarks to draw the attention of counsel to many clauses, facts, and circumstances that are not sufficiently disclosed by the

abstract, but which at the same time are often important to the title. Still, notwithstanding the advantages to be derived from this course of proceeding, it is not the one that has been usually adopted by the profession, and some eminent writers on conveyancing have gone so far as to approve of the practice of deferring this examination until after the abstract has been perused by counsel, even in those cases where access to the various documents could be readily had in the first instance.

Vendor bound to produce all documents in verification of the abstract.]-The vendor, in the absence of an express stipulation to the contrary, is bound to produce all documents set out in the abstract, whether in his possession or otherwise, without any reference as to whether the purchaser is or is not to be entitled to have them delivered up to him on the completion of the purchase: (Relingall v. Lloyd, 2 Nev. & Man. 410; Jermain v. Eggleston, 172.) Still this relates only to documents of such a nature as are usually handed over to a purchaser, and does not include records, such as fines and recoveries, or wills of real estate; for in the latter case office extracts, probates, and copies are all a purchaser is entitled to call for.

Expenses of production, and of journeys thereby rendered nécessary, must be borne by vendor.]-The expenses of the production of all deeds and other documents of title which are not in the vendor's possession, as also of attested copies, as also of journeys for the purpose of examining and comparing them with the abstract, and all incidental costs connected therewith, must, in the absence of an express stipulation to the contrary, be borne by the vendor: (Boughton v. Jewell, 15 Ves. 176; and see also Dare v. Tucker, 6 ib. 460.) But this will not, generally speaking, comprehend attested copies of instruments of record. Still, there are some cases in which, it seems, a vendor will be required to supply attested copies even of instruments of record; for where he has not the instrument itself, and is unable to procure it, he is bound to obtain an attested copy of it to enable the purchaser to compare it with the abstract, and on the sale being perfected, the purchaser will be entitled to have it handed over to him with the other documents, unless indeed the vendor happens to retain other estates holden under the same title.

In what instances vendor is not bound to defray expenses