Proof of Foreign Laws and Judgments.

The written law of a foreign state should be proved by a copy duly authenticated. Clegg v. Levy, 3 Camp. 166. Picton's case, 30 How. St. Tri. 491. But it should seem that a copy examined with the original is not absolutely necessary. Thus, a French vice-consul has been admitted to prove the French written law of marriage by production of a printed edition of the Cinq Codes bought at a shop, and by his own testimony; Lacon v. Higgins, 3 Stark. 178., S. C. Dowl. Ni. Pri. 38.; and a practising advocate attached to the consulate was admitted to prove the French law of bills of exchange. Trimbey v. Vignier, 1 New Ca. 151. Where the plaintiff sued on an agreement expressly made subject to the regulations of the Russian marine, which were in writing, it was held necessary to produce an authenticated copy of them. Millar v. Heinrick, 4 Camp. 155. Foreign law must be proved by witnesses of competent skill: thus the law of Scotland respecting mar riage cannot be proved by a tobacconist. R. v. Brampton, 10 East, 287. But it is otherwise with respect to proof of the Jewish marriage law, which has been allowed ex necessitate to be proved by persons in trade, and of inferior station. Lindo v. Belisario, 1 Hagg. Con. Rep. 216. An instrument, purporting to be a divorce under the seal of the synagogue at Leghorn, is not admissible without previous proof of the law of the country; Ganer v. Lanesborough, Peake, 17.; but Lord Kenyon permitted the party divorced to give parol evidence of her divorce at Leghorn, according to the ceremony and custom of the Jews there. Ibid.

A paper purporting to be a copy of a judgment of a colonial court made by the clerk of the court, with a certificate of a notary public, and a certificate by the governor under the seal of the colony that the notary is a notary public, will be no proof of the judgment. Appleton v. Braybrook, 6 M. & S. 34. Semb., if the certificate under the colonial seal had exemplified the judgment, it would have been admissible. S. C. ibid. The genuineness of the seal of a foreign court must be proved; Henry v. Adey, 3 East, 221.; and if a foreign court has an official seal, it must be used for the purpose of authenticating its judgments, and a copy by an officer of the court is not sufficient. Black v. Braybrook, 2 Stark. 7. The seal should be used to authenticate its judgments, though so much worn as no longer to make any impression. Cavan v. Stewart, 1 Stark. 525. If there be no seal of the court, an examined copy must be obtained; per Lord Ellenborough in Appleton v. Braybrook, suprà; or distinct evidence should be given that the judgment produced is authenticated in the manner usual in that court; as by the signature of the judge, &c. Alves v. Bunbury, 4 Camp. 28. A judgment, duly verified by a seal proved to be that of the foreign court, is presumed to be regular and agreeable to the foreign law until the contrary is shown. Alivon v. Furnival, 1 C. M. & R. 277.

Proof of Entries in Public Books, Postmarks, &e.

Whenever an original is of a public nature and admissible in evidence, an examined copy is, on grounds of public convenience, also admissible. Lynch v. Clerke, 3 Salk. 154. Thus examined copies of the entries in the council book; or of a licence preserved in the Secretary of state's office; Eyre v. Palsgrave, 2 Camp. 606.; of entries in

the bank-books; Mortimer v. M'Callan, 6 M. & W. 58.; of a bank note filed at the bank; Man v. Cary, 3 Salk. 155.; of entries in the books of the East India Company; Lord G. Gordon's case, Doug. 593.; or in the books of the commissioners of land-tax ; R. v. King, 2 T. R. 234.; or of excise; Fuller v. Fotch, Carth. 346.; or in a poll book at an election; Mead v. Robinson, Willes, 424.; or a book kept in the chapter-house of a dean and chapter, purporting to contain copies of leases; Coombs v. Coether, M. & M. 398.; Wakeman v. West, 7 C. & P. 479.; are all good evidence. A copy of an old deed contained in one of the books of the Bodleian library (which the statutes of the university forbid to be removed) was allowed to be read in evidence. Downes v. Mooreman, Bunb. 189. An examined copy of a parish register is evidence; post, p. 84. But an examined copy of the register of a marriage in the Swedish ambassador's chapel at Paris is not evidence, Leader v. Barry, 1 Esp. 353.; nor, as it seems, the copy of any similar register not kept under the authority of the law of this country; (see post," Effect of Public Registers ;") for such registers themselves are not evidence of the facts stated in them. The books of the King's Bench and Fleet prisons, when they are admissible, are not such public documents that a copy of them may be given in evidence; for they are not kept by any public authority. Salte v. Thomas, 3 B. & P. 190. A collection of treaties published by the direction of the American government is not sufficient to prove a treaty; a copy examined with the archives should be produced. Richardson v. Anderson, 1 Camp. 65. (n).

The postmark on a letter is usually taken as genuine without proof; but, if disputed, it is not clear whether the person who made it must be called; or whether it may be proved by any postmaster; or by any one in the habit of receiving letters by the post; or, indeed, whether it requires any proof at all. Abbey v. Lill, 5 Bing. 299. Kent v. Lowen, 1 Camp. 178. Arcangelo v. Thompson, 2 Camp. 620. Fletcher v. Braddyll, 3 Stark. 64. In a criminal case, where it was offered in evidence against the defendant as proof of his having put a letter into the post at a particular place, Lord Ellenborough rejected it. R. v. Watson, 1 Camp. 215. In Plumer's case, R. & R. C. C. 264., the postmark was proved by a stamper at the post-office.

Proof of Entries in Corporation Books.

The books of public corporations are allowed to be given in evidence when they have been publicly kept as such, and when the entries have been made by the proper officer, or by a third person in the absence or sickness of the proper officer. R. v. Mothersell, 1 Stra. 93. A book kept by a clerk who was not an officer of the corporation, containing minutes of corporate proceedings, but which had not been kept as the public book of the corporation, was rejected in evidence. Ibid. To make the books evidence, it must be shown that they come from the proper custody, as from a chest which has always been in the custody of the clerk of the corporation; ibid. Mercers of Shrewsbury v. Hart, 1 C. & P. 114. When the entries in the books are admissible as being of a public nature, examined copies are evidence. Brocas v. Mayor of London, 1 Stra. 308, And where, in order to prove the defendant a freeman, a copy upon stamped paper was produced of a loose paper upon a file, which the witness said was also on a stamp, and was kept with other similar stamped entries on a file among the

corporation papers, and it appeared that there was also a book in which the acts of the corporation were kept, and where there was an entry more at large of the freeman's admission, made when he was originally admitted, but there was no stamp in the book, it was held that the loose paper being the only effectual act, as having that which the law requires, viz. the proper stamp, must be looked upon as the proper and original act of the corporation, and that a copy of that was good evidence. Per Noel J., R. v. Head, Peake Ev. 92. (n). Papers or entries of a private nature which do not relate to corporate acts must, if admissible, be produced; and copies of them are not evidence, however long they may have been kept among the corporate muniments. R. v. Gwyn, 1 Stra. 401.

Proof of Public Registers.

Registers of baptisms, marriages, and deaths, may be proved by examined copies, or by production of the register itself. B. N. P. 247. In order to prove the register of a marriage it is not necessary to call the attesting witnesses; but as the register affords no proof of the identity of the parties, some evidence of that fact must be given, as by calling the minister, clerk, or attesting witnesses, if they were ac quainted with the parties; or the bell-ringers to prove they rang the bells and were paid by the parties; or the handwriting of the parties may be proved; or persons may be called who were present at the wedding dinner, &c. Birt v. Barlow, 1 Doug. 172. To prove the handwriting of the parties in the register it is not necessary to call the subscribing witness. Per Lord Mansfield, S. C. ib. If a marriage is proved by a person who was present, it is not necessary to prove the registration, or licence, or banns. Allison's case, R. & R., C. C. R. 109.

The act, still in force for the registration of baptisms and burials by ministers of the church of England, is 52 Geo. 3. c. 146. It provides that verified copies shall be annually sent to the register of the diocese. It seem that the latter, being public documents, are evidence as well as the former, and may be proved by examined copies; Walker v. Countess of Beauchamp, 6 C. & P. 552, per Alderson, B.; and see AttorneyGeneral v. Oldham, cited in Burn on Parish Registers, 209. But quære, whether the bishop's transcripts, made before that act, can be used, except as secondary evidence? S. C. 6 C. & P. 552. By 3 & 4 Vict. c. 92., certain non-parochial registers of births, baptisms, deaths, burials, and marriages, transferred to the custody of the registrar general, are made admissible in evidence, either by producing them, or certified extracts from them, after previous notice to the opposite party of the intention to use them.

The registration of marriage is now regulated by 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 86. (passed 17 August 1836) which provides that certified copies of entries, purporting to be sealed with the seal of the registrar general's office, shall be evidence of the birth, death, or marriage to which it relates without other proof of such entry. Sect. 38. It should seem that under the same act, the entries of other registrars besides the registrar general may be evidence under certain limitations; sects. 22, 23. 28.; and as well they, as all rectors, curates, &c. are bound to give certified copies; sect. 35; but it is not expressly provided that these latter certificates shall be evidence without further verification.

The act 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 85., for amending the law of marriage, pro

vides for the registration of marriages solemnized under that act, and is also incorporated with the above act, c. 86., and it enacts that the provisions of the act, c. 86., relating to the register of marriages, or certified copies thereof, shall extend to marriages under the act, c. 85.

Proof of Ship's Register.

By stat. 6 Geo. 4. c. 110. s. 43., it is enacted, "that the collector and comptroller of his Majesty's customs at any port or place, and the person or persons acting for them respectively, shall, upon every reasonable request by any person whomsoever, produce and exhibit for his inspection and examination any oath or affidavit, taken or sworn by any owner or proprietor" (of the vessels mentioned in the act), " and also any register or entry in any book of registry required by that act to be made or kept relative to any ship or vessel; and shall, upon every reasonable request by any person whomsoever, permit him to take a copy or an extract thereof respectively; and that the copy of any such oath or affidavit, register, or entry, shall, upon being proved to be a true copy thereof respectively, be allowed and received as evidence upon every trial at law, without the production of the original, and without the testimony or attendance of any collector or comptroller, or other person or persons acting for them respectively, in all cases as fully, and to all intents and purposes, as such original or originals, if produced by any collector, comptroller, or other person or persons acting for them, could or might legally be admitted or received in evidence." This act is repealed, but the above clause is re-enacted by 3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 55. s. 40., substituting the word "declaration" for "affidavit."

Custody of Ancient Writings.

In general the admissibility of ancient writings, which are incapable of direct proof, depends upon the custody from which they are produced, and from which their genuineness may be inferred. Thus ancient ecclesiastical terriers are not admissible unless found in the proper repository, viz., the registry of the bishop, or of the archdeacon of the diocese; Atkins v. Hatton, 2 Anstr. 386.; Potts v. Durant, 3 Anstr. 795.; or, as it seems, the church chest; Armstrong v. Hewitt, 4 Price, 216.; which are also the proper repositories for the vicar's books. Ibid. A terrier found in the registry of the dean and chapter of Lichfield has been admitted as against a prebendary of Lichfield. Miller v. Foster, 2 Anstr. 387 (n). But mere private custody is not sufficient. Potts v. Durant, 3 Anstr. 789. A terrier 4. D. 1693 in an old register, pur porting to be a parish register, produced from the vicarage house, kept exclusively by the vicar and signed by the vicar and three others not described, was considered inadmissible evidence against a modus. Atkins v. Drake, M'Cl. & Y. 213. On an issue respecting the boundaries of two parishes, certain old papers were produced by the plaintiff (the rector of one of the parishes), which had come into the possession of the son of a former rector on his father's death, and which had been delivered by him, as papers belonging to the parish, to the witness (an attorney); it was held that the papers were sufficiently authenticated without calling the son of the former rector. Earl v. Lewis, 4 Esp. 1. Where a book, purporting to be the book of a former rector, came out of the custody of the defendant, the grandson of the former rector, the proof was held insufficient; it not appearing how it came into the de

fendant's possession. Randolph v. Gordon, 5 Price, 312. In a suit for tithes, a receipt purporting to be a receipt given by a former rector forty-five years ago to a person of the same name as the defendant, and produced from the custody of the defendant, has been held admissible. Bertie v. Beaumont, 2 Price, 303. Where A., the defendant in a tithe suit, offered in evidence a receipt purporting to be a receipt from one B, to one A. fifty years before, without showing who B. was, or where the paper had been kept, it was rejected. Manby v. Curtis, 1 Price, 225, Wood B. dissentiente. An ancient writing, enumerating the possessions of a monastery, produced from the Herald's Office, is inadmissible. Lygon v. Strutt, 2 Anstr. 601. So an old grant to an abbey, contained in a manuscript entitled "Secretum Abbatis" in the Bodleian library, was rejected, as not coming from the proper repository. Michell v. Rabbetts, 3 Taunt. 91.; The Bank v. Anderson, 4 Scott, 83. So an ancient grant to a priory from the Cottonian manuscripts in the British Museum was rejected; it not appearing that the possession of the grant was connected with any person having an interest in the estate. Swinnerton v. Marquis of Stafford, 3 Taunt. 91.

In order to make an ancient document, as a manor book, evidence, it is not enough that it is produced in court by the counsel of the party to whose custody it belongs, or by his steward, or by the party himself: some witness, who can speak as to the custody of it, must be sworn in court. Evans v. Rees, 10 A. & E. 151. And if any suspicion arises as to the genuineness of it, the judge, before he admits it in evidence, will require information where it has been kept for some years back; when it was first seen, &c. R. v. Mothersell, 1 Stra. 93. Indeed, in this, as in other cases, the admissibility of the evidence is for the determination of the court, and a party cannot insist on submitting to the jury such an instrument as a matter of right, until he has given satisfactory grounds for assuming it to be genuine.

The proper custody means that in which the document may be reasonably expected to be found, although in strictness it ought to be in another place; thus a cartulary in the possession of the owner of a part of the abbey lands is admissible, though not owner of the greater part; yet the Augmentation Office is the proper place of deposit. Bullen v. Michel, 2 Price, 413. So a collector's book, produced from the possession either of his executor or his successor. Jones v. Waller, 3 Gwill. 847. So a document relating to a bishop's see may be produced from the custody either of his descendants, or his successors in the see. Bishop of Meath v. Marquis of Winchester, Dom. Proc. 3 New Ca. 183.; and see observations, ibid. 201.; Doe v. Samples, 8 A. & E, 151.; Doe v. Pearce, 2 M. & Rob. 240.

In a suit for tithes by a rector against occupiers, the defendants pleaded a modus payable to the vicar for the tithes claimed. It was held, first, that a copy of a vicar's endowment, contained in an old book recording the acts of former bishops of the diocese, was admissible for the plaintiff (the bishop's registry having been searched for the original without success), and that no search was necessary either in the Augmentation Office, or in the vicar's house, although it was expressed in the instrument that one part of it was to remain with the vicar; secondly, that a terrier, appearing to be signed by a former incumbent who was both rector and vicar of the parish, and whose handwriting was proved by the churchwardens, was admissible for the