Proof of Court Rolls.

In order to prove the title of a copyholder, the court rolls may be produced without producing the stamped copy; Doe d. Bennington v. Hall, 16 East, 208; or they may be proved by examined copies; Doe d. Cawthorn v. Mee, 4 B. & Ad. 617; Breeze v. Hawker, 14 Sim. 350; but by the Stamp Act, 1870, s. 81 (2), the entry on the court rolls of a surrender or grant is not available as evidence thereof, unless the surrender or grant, if made out of court, or the memorandum thereof, or the copy of court roll, if made in court, is duly stamped; but this is sufficiently proved by a certificate of the steward on the margin of the entry. See further, sub tit., Stamps, Copyhold and customary estates, post, pp. 249, 250, where the cases decided under the former Stamp Acts are collected. The title may also be proved by the stamped copy delivered and signed by the steward. Co. Litt. s. 75; Scriven, Copyh., 5th ed. 350, 351; Peake, Evid. 94. And where an admittance is more than 30 years old, proof of the signature of the steward is unnecessary. Ely, Dean and Chapter of v. Stewart, 2 Atk. 45; Rowe v. Brenton, 3 M. & Ry. 296; but see Somerset, Duke of v. France, Fortescue, 43. Whether court rolls of a manor may be proved by a copy certified by the steward having them in his custody, under stat. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 14, ante, p. 101, is open to question. The rolls need not be signed by the steward. Bridger v. Huett, 2 F. & F. 35. A surrender and presentment may be proved by the draft of an entry, produced from the muniments of the manor, and the oral testimony of the foreman of the homage jury who made the presentment. Doe d. Priestley v. Calloway, 6 B. & C. 484. And such a draft is admissible though there may have been a subsequent regular enrolment. Ibid. 495. And if the original roll be put in, it may be shown to be incorrect by producing the minute of the steward, or by other evidence. Ibid. 494; Scriven, Copyh., 5th ed. 137, 138, 353. Where a surrender was made in 1774, and there was no record of it on the court rolls, the books of the manor containing a record of the admission, which recited the surrender, were received as evidence of the surrender. R. v. Thruscross, 1 Ad. & E. 126. As to proof of a recovery in a manor of ancient demesne, see Green v. Proude, 1 Ventr. 257, cited ante, p. 108. A presentment in a manor book will not be rejected because part of it has been cut off, there being no ground for supposing the mutilation to be fraudulent. Evans v. Rees, 10 Ad. & E. 151.

Proof of Proceedings in Bankruptcy.

The proof of these proceedings will be found post, Part III., sub tit. Actions by trustees of bankrupts.

Proof of Foreign Law.

The courts cannot take cognizance of the laws of foreign states: they must be proved as facts. Mostyn v. Fabrigas, Cowp. 174; Sussex Peerage case, 11 Cl. & F. 114-117. The laws of Scotland-Male v. Roberts, 3 Esp. 163; Woodham v. Edwardes, 5 Ad. & E. 771; R. v. Povey, post, p. 120; of the Channel Islands; Brenan's case, 10 Q. B. 492, 498; and of the colonies; Astley v. Fisher, 6 C. B. 572; Wey v. Yally, 6 Mod. 194; The Peerless, Lush. 103; 29 L. J., P. M. & A. 49-fall within this rule; though in an appeal to the House of Lords, that tribunal will take judicial notice of the laws prevailing in each of the three kingdoms; Cooper

V. Cooper, 13 Ap. Ca. 88, D. P.; Lyell v. Kennedy, 14 Ap. Ca. 437, D. P.; and in an appeal from a colonial court, the judicial committee of privy council will take judicial cognizance of the laws of the colonies of Great Britain. As the laws of Ireland are substantially the same as those of England they would probably now be noticed. See Reynolds v. Fenton, 3 C. B. 187, 191, per Maule, J., explaining Ferguson v. Mahon, 11 Ad. & E. 179. By stat. 41 Geo. 3, c. 90, s. 9, the copy of the statutes of the kingdom of Ireland, made by the parliament there, printed by the king's printer, shall be received as conclusive evidence of the statutes enacted by the parliament of Ireland, prior to the union, in any court of civil or criminal jurisdiction in Great Britain. As to the manner of proving the ancient Welsh laws, see Att.-Gen. v. Jones, 2 H. & C. 347, 354, n.; 33 L. J., Ex. 249, 257, n.

It was formerly laid down that 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. Tr. 491. But this doctrine has been overruled on a trial at bar, in which oral evidence of a foreign advocate was admitted to prove a decree of the National Assembly of France, 1789. De Bode's case, 8 Q. B. 208. And in the Sussex Peerage case, ante, p. 120, it was held that the law is properly receivable only from such oral evidence, although a witness may refresh his own memory from the written law. If he state that any text-book, decision, code, or other legal document truly represents the foreign law, the court may regard such legal document as part of his testimony, and give effect to it accordingly. Concha v. Murrieta, 40 Ch. D. 543, 551, 554, following Bremer v. Freeman, 10 Moo. P. C. 306. A French vice-consul has been admitted to prove the French written law of marriage by referring to a printed edition of the Cinq Codes, and by his own testimony; Lacon v. Higgins, 3 Stark. 178; S. C., Dowl. N. P. 38; and a practising advocate attached to the consulate was admitted to prove the French law of bills of exchange. Trimbey v. Vignier, 1 N. C. 151.

Foreign law should be proved by witnesses of competent skill; thus a tobacconist was rejected as a witness of the law of Scotland respecting marriage, cited in R. v. Brampton, 10 East, 287. See also R. v. Povey, Dears. 32; 22 L. J., M. C. 19. But the Jewish marriage law has been allowed ex necessitate to be proved by persons in trade, and of inferior station. Lindo v. Belisario, 1 Hagg. Con. Rep. 216. And it has since been held that experience as a legal practitioner was in certain cases not necessary, and that a witness who was formerly a merchant and stockbroker in Belgium might be received as competent to inform the court on the law or custom of bills of exchange there; this was decided on the ground that the witness, from the course of his business, had necessarily become acquainted with the Belgian law of bills of exchange. Vanderdonckt v. Thellusson, 8 C. B. 812. But a jurisconsult, attached to the Prussian consulate, who had no other qualification than having studied law at Leipsig, was held incompetent to prove the stamp law of Cologne on the ground that he had had no practical acquaintance with the law in question. Bristow v. Sequeville, 5 Exch. 275. So the evidence of an English lawyer who has studied the foreign law here is not admissible. In re Bonelli, 1 P. D. 69. 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, Ly., Peake, 17; but Ld. Kenyon permitted the party divorced to give oral evidence of her divorce at Leghorn, according to the ceremony and custom of the Jews there. Ibid. A Roman Catholic vicar-apostolic in England has been admitted to prove the modern marriage law of the church of

Rome in Italy. Sussex Peerage case, 11 Cl. & F. 114, 117 et seq. The competency of the witness to prove foreign law is a question for the court, and the only general rule that can be collected from the reported cases is, that the witness must from his profession or business have had peculiar means of becoming acquainted with that branch of law which he is called to prove; see Vanderdonckt v. Thellusson, ante, p. 120. The evidence of a Persian ambassador has been admitted to prove the Persian law of inheritance. In re Dost Aly, 6 P. D. 6. And the certificate of a foreign ambassador under the seal of the legation was held sufficient evidence of the law of the country by which he was accredited. In re Klingemann, 3 Sw. & T. 18; 32 L. J., P. M. & A. 16; In re Prince Oldenburg, 9 P. D.

234.

Now by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 11, the High Court (see J. Act, 1873, s. 16), may remit a case for the opinion of a court in any foreign state with which her Majesty may have made a convention for that purpose; and by 22 & 23 Vict. c. 63, a case may be stated for the opinion of the superior court of any part of her Majesty's dominions, in order to ascertain the law of that part. A case may be stated thereunder for the opinion of the Court of Session in Scotland. De Thoren v. Att.-Gen., 1 Ap. Ca. 686, D. P.

Proof of Foreign Judgments.

A judgment duly verified by a seal proved to be that of the foreign court was presumed to be regular and agreeable to the foreign law until the contrary is shown. Alivon v. Furnival, 1 C. M. & R. 277. And now the stat. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 7, cited ante, p. 100, provides for the proof of a foreign or colonial judgment, &c., by means of a copy under the seal of the court, or signed by a judge thereof, with a certificate by him that the court has no seal, and proof of the seal or signature of the judge is unnecessary. See the cases decided thereon, ante, p. 101.

By the Judgments Extension Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 54), s. 1, certificates of Irish judgments for the payment of debt, damages, or costs may be registered in the Central Office of the High Court; see J. Act, 1873, s. 16, and J. (Officers) Act, 1879, s. 5; and the certificate "shall from the date of such registration be of the same force and effect, and all proceedings shall and may be had and taken on such certificate as if the judgment of which it is a certificate had been a judgment originally obtained or entered upon the date of such registration" in the High Court. Sect. 3 makes a similar provision with respect to Scotch decreets.

The report of an Irish judge to the Irish court, to be used on an application to set aside the verdict, is evidence in an action between the same parties of what took place at the trial before him and of his decision. Houstoun v. Sligo, Marquis of, 29 Ch. D. 448, C. A. And a shorthand note of the judgment, sworn to by the writer, is admissible to prove the grounds of the judgment. S. C.

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

Whenever an original is of a public nature and admissible in evidence as such, an examined copy is, on grounds of public convenience, also admissible. Lynch v. Clerke, 3 Salk. 154, vide ante, p. 97. 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; so of a record deposited in the Land Revenue Office, under 2 Will. 4, c. 1, though it be

only a rental of a crown grantee, and not a judicial record; Doe d. William IV. v. Roberts, 13 M. & W. 520; of entries in the bank books; Mortimer v. M'Callan, 6 M. & W. 58; of a bank-note filed at the bank; Man v. Carey, 3 Salk. 155; of entries in the books of the East India Company; R. v. Gordon, 2 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, Car. 346; or in a poll-book at an election; Mead v. Robinson, Willes, 424; Reed v. Lamb, 6 H. & N. 75; 29 L. J., Ex. 452; or the register of voters; S. C., Id.; or an old 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 of the originals. The rules of savings banks under 26 & 27 Vict. c. 87, may be proved by an examined copy, sect. 4. 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 admitted in evidence under the special circumstances (but query if the original would itself have been admissible? ante, pp. 102, 103). Downes v. Mooreman, Bunb. 189. A collection of treaties, published by the direction of the American government is not sufficient to prove a treaty; an examined (or authenticated) copy should be produced. Richardson v. Anderson, 1 Camp. 65, n. Early treaties were enrolled in Chancery; more recent treaties are deposited at the State Paper Office. As to how examined copies are made, vide Proof by examined copy, ante, pp. 97, 98.

The postmark on a letter is usually taken as genuine without proof; but, if disputed, it has been doubted 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 through the same post-office. Abbey v. Lill, 5 Bing. 299; Kent v. Lowen, 1 Camp. 177; Arcangelo v. Thompson, 2 Camp. 620; Fletcher v. Braddyll, 3 Stark. 64; R. v. Plumer, R. & Ry. 264; Woodcock v. Houldsworth, 16 M. & W. 124. Probably it may be verified in any of those ways; and the person who stamped the letter is not likely to recollect that he did so, or to be better qualified to speak of it than any one who happens to be acquainted with the particular post-office mark.

There are various provisions by Act of Parliament for proving instruments in the custody of registrars of public companies, or other public officers, by certified copies. See Proof by certified copy, ante, pp. 98 et seq. Of this kind are the registers of joint-stock and banking companies; as to these, vide post, Part III., sub tit. Action by and against companies. Proceedings under Bankruptcy Acts are also facilitated by office copies which prove themselves.

Proof of Entries in Bankers' Books.

The Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 11), repealing and replacing the Act of 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 48), contains important special provisions relating to the means of proving entries in bankers' books and to their effect in evidence. Its provisions are mainly as follows:

By sect. 3. Subject to the provisions of this Act, a copy of any entry in a banker's book shall in all legal proceedings be received as prima facie evidence of such entry, and of the matters, transactions, and accounts therein recorded." The expression "legal proceeding includes an arbitration;" sect. 10.

Sect. 3 makes copies of entries in bankers' books, evidence of the matters therein recorded even inter alios. Harding v. Williams, 14 Ch. D. 197.

By sect. 4. "A copy of an entry in a banker's book shall not be received in evidence under this Act unless it be first proved that the book was at the time of the making of the entry one of the ordinary books of the bank, and that the entry was made in the usual and ordinary course of business, and that the book is in the custody or control of the bank. Such proof may be given by a partner or officer of the bank, and may be given orally or by an affidavit sworn before any commissioner or person authorised to take affidavits."

By sect. 5. "A copy of an entry in a banker's book shall not be received in evidence under this Act unless it be further proved that the copy has been examined with the original entry and is correct. Such proof shall be given by some person who has examined the copy with the original entry, and may be given either orally or by an affidavit sworn before any commissioner or person authorised to take affidavits."

By sect. 9. "In this Act the expressions 'bank' and 'banker' mean any person, persons, partnership, or company carrying on the business of bankers, and having duly made a return to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, and also any savings bank certified under the Acts relating to savings banks, and also any post-office savings bank.

"The fact of any such bank having duly made a return to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue may be proved in any legal proceeding by production of a copy of its return verified by the affidavit of a partner or officer of the bank, or by the production of a copy of a newspaper purporting to contain a copy of such return published by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; the fact that any such savings bank is certified under the Acts relating to savings banks may be proved by an office or examined copy of its certificate; the fact that any such bank is a postoffice savings bank may be proved by a certificate purporting to be under the hand of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General or one of the secretaries of

the Post Office.

'Expressions in this Act relating to 'bankers' books' include ledgers, day books, cash books, account books, and all other books used in the ordinary business of the bank."

By 45 & 46 Vict. c. 72, s. 11 (2), the expressions "bank" and "bankers" in the above Act, "shall include any company carrying on the business of bankers to which the provisions of the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1880, are applicable, and having duly furnished to the registrar of joint stock companies a list and summary with the addition specified by this Act, and the fact of such list and summary having been duly furnished may be proved in any legal proceedings by the certificate of the registrar or any assistant registrar for the time being of joint-stock companies." By sect. 11 (1), this list and summary is that specified in the Companies Act, 1862, Part II., and "the addition" is a statement of the names of the places where the company carries on its business.

Proof of Entries in Corporation Books.

The official acts of a municipal corporation, registered in books, may be proved by production of them. Thetford case, 12 Vin. Ab. 90. To make the books evidence, it must appear 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.; Shrewsbury, Mercers of 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. London, Mayor of, Stra. 307. 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