Ap. Ca. 135, D. P. Where the question was, whether certain lands within a manor were subject to a right of common, counterparts of old leases, produced from among the muniments of the lord of the manor, from which it might be inferred that the land was demised by the lord free from such charge, were allowed to be evidence for the plaintiff claiming under him, though possession under the lease was not shown. Clarkson v. Woodhouse, 3 Doug. 189; 5 T. R. 412, n.; Bristow v. Cormican, 3 Ap. Ca. 641, D. P. And such counterparts are evidence of seisin, though only executed by the lessees. Doe d. El. of Egremont v. Pulman, 3 Q. B. 622; Magdalen Hospital v. Knotts, 8 Ch. D. 709, C. A. So old entries of licences on the court rolls of a manor, stating that the lords of the manor had the several fishery in a navigable river, and for certain rents had granted liberty of fishing, were held admissible to prove a prescriptive right in the lords of the manor without proof of payment under the licences; but such evidence is not entitled to much weight unless it be shown that in later times payments have been made under similar licences, or that the lords of the manor have exercised other more recent acts of ownership. Rogers v. Allen, 1 Camp. 309; see Musgrave v. Inclosure Commissioners, L. R., 9 Q. B. 162, 178. So an old table of tolls, kept by the town clerk of a corporation, by which the lessees of the tolls had always been guided in their collection, is admissible in favour of the claim of toll by the corporation. Brett V. Beales, M. & M. 419; R. v. Carpenter, 2 Show. 48. An ancient corporation book containing entries, showing what rents were due to the corporation, was held admissible as showing the exercise of acts of ownership. Malcolmson v. O'Dea, 10 H. L. C. 593. But mere entries in the corporation books of orders to grant leases, appointments of commissioners to manage them, &c., have been rejected as evidence. Brett v. Beales, M. & M. 429, and S. C., 5 M. & Ry. 433, 436. So an old entry of a resolution in the books of an eleemosynary corporation, being lay impropriators of tithes, that the tithe should, on default of payment of the accustomed payment in lieu of tithe, be taken in kind, is not evidence for them against a claim of modus, without proof that tithe in kind had in fact been taken in pursuance of such order. Att.-Gen. v. Cleeve, Somerset, Sum. Ass. 1841, per Rolfe, B. And generally, what any one writes or says in his own favour cannot be evidence for himself or his representative. Glyn v. Bank of England, 2 Ves. Sen. 43; R. v. Debenham, 2 B. & A. 185. Therefore, entries made by a deceased person, under whom the defendant claims, acknowledging the receipt of his rent for the premises in question, are not admissible for the defendant in proof of his title to them. Outram v. Morewood, 5 T. R. 121. So on a question whether the appointment of a curate belongs to the vicar or to a corporation, entries in old books belonging to the corporation are not evidence for them. Att.-Gen. v. Warwick, 4 Russ. 222. So, a survey of a manor, made by the owner, is not evidence against a stranger in favour of a succeeding owner. Anon., Stra. 95. But where A., seised of the manors of B. and C., causes a survey to be taken of the manor of B., which is afterwards conveyed away, and, after a time, there are disputes between the lords of the manors of B. and C. about their boundaries, this old survey may be given in evidence between them. Bridgman v. Jennings, 1 Ld. Raym. 734. So, property may be identified by the books of the deceased steward of a person from whom both plaintiff and defendant derive title. Doe d. Strode v. Seaton, 2 Ad. & E. 171.

Hence it appears that mere declarations of right, coupled with no other act, or actual exercise of it proved or presumable, are inadmissible as evidence in favour of the right asserted, except as against those who claim under the declarant. As to acts of ownership, see further, post, Actions for trespass to land.

Declarations of persons having no interest to misrepresent.] On this ground entries by a deceased rector, or vicar, as to the receipt of ecclesiastical dues are admissible for his successor. Legross v. Levemoor, 2 Gwill. 529; Armstrong v. Hewitt, 4 Price, 218; Young v. Clare Hall, 17 Q. B. 529. And even where the entries have been made by deceased impropriate rectors, they have been admitted as evidence for their successors, though objected to as coming from the owners of the inheritance. Anon., Bunb. 46; Illingworth v. Leigh, 4 Gwill. 1618. So they are admissible though the impropriator be a corporation aggregate; therefore, old receipts of tithe by the college of vicars-choral, Exeter, were admitted as evidence for them against a claim of modus. Short v. Lee, 2 J. & W. 478. Declarations of a deceased rector are admissible as evidence of the custom of appointing churchwardens in his parish. Bremner v. Hull, L. R., 1 C. P. 748. The reception of this evidence has given rise to much observation, and is to be regarded as an exceptional case. And it is certain that, as a general rule, the mere absence of interest will not make the declarations of a deceased party evidence; Sussex Peerage, 11 Cl. & Fin. 85, 103, 112, 113; Berkeley Peerage case, Id. 109, n., in which cases, the declarations made by deceased clergymen were rejected as evidence of marriage, and the ruling of Lord Kenyon, in Standen v. Standen, Peake, 45, was denied.

On a somewhat similar principle the declarations of a testator as to his intentions are admissible to support his will if disputed on the ground of fraud, circumvention, or forgery. Doe d. Ellis v. Hardy, 1 M. & Rob. 525; Doe v. Stevens, Q. B., E. T., 1849, MS. So they are admissible to impeach the will by proving such fraud; Doe d. Small v. Allen, 8 T. R. 147; and vide ante, p. 21. So such declarations by a testator made before execution of his will are admissible to prove that alterations to the will or any incorporated document were made prior to execution; In re Sykes, L. R., 3 P. & M. 26, and Dench v. Dench, 2 P. D. 60; following Doe d. Shallcross v. Palmer, 16 Q. B. 47; 20 L. J., Q. B. 367; but declarations made after execution cannot so be used. S. C. In the case of a lost will declarations by a testator as to its existence and contents, and whether made before or after execution, are admissible. Sugden v. S. Leonards, Ld., 1 P. D. 154, C. A. See on this case the observations in D. P. in Woodward v. Goulstone, 11 Ap. Ca. 469. Such declarations have been held admissible to show what papers constitute the will. Gould v. Lakes, 6 P. D. 1.

Hearsay of persons against their own interest admissible.] In a variety of cases, the declarations of deceased persons (not parties) made against their own interest have been admitted. See the cases collected, Barker v. Ray, 2 Russ. 67, n. And they are admissible as evidence of all the facts therein stated, though some of them may not have been within the party's own knowledge; for the whole declaration must be taken together. Crease v. Barrett, 1 C. M. & R. 919; Percival v. Nanson, 7 Exch. 1; 21 L. J., Ex. 1; and see R. v. Birmingham, 1 B. & S. 763; 31 L. J., M. C. 63. Thus the time of a child's birth was proved by production of the book of the deceased man-midwife referring to the ledger, in which ledger his charge for attendance was marked as paid, there being also evidence adduced that the work was done. Higham v. Ridgway, 10 East, 109. It seems that such an entry was admissible, though the party, if living, could not have been examined as being an interested party; Gleadow v. Atkin, 1 Cr. & M. 424, per Bayley, B. Accord. Short v. Lee, 2 J. & W. 489. So the book of a deceased mason, containing charges for repair of a bridge, marked as paid, was admitted to prove repairs, and so to fix a parish with an obligation. R. v. Lower Heyford, 2 Smith's L. Cases, 9th ed. 363; cor.

Parke, B. So an entry by a deceased person, J., "J. W. paid_me_3 months' interest," followed by other entries indicating a loan to J. W., is prima facie against J.'s interest, and admissible in evidence. Taylor v. Witham, 3 Ch. D. 605. In these last two cases the decision of Littledale, J., in Doe d. Gallop v. Vowles, 1 M. & Rob. 261, was disapproved. All the cases on the subject are collected in the note to Higham v. Ridgway, 2 Smith's L. Cases.

The statement, in order to fall within the above rule, must be against the interest of the person making it, at the time he makes it. Ex parte Edwards, 14 Q. B. D. 415, C. A. Thus an admission by a bankrupt in his statement of affairs, made after the commencement of the bankruptcy, is not after his death evidence against his creditors. S. C.

A letter from a deceased manager of the plaintiff's business, stating that the defendant had sent three cases to the office, and giving details of the transaction under which they were sent, is not admissible, the possibility of pecuniary loss to the manager, in the event of the loss of the cases, being too remote. Smith v. Blakey, L. R., 2 Q. B. 326. The daybook and ledger of a deceased broker, debiting himself with the price of shares bought, is not evidence of the purchase, as an entry made against interest, for it might have been to the advantage of the deceased. Massey v. Allen, 13 Ch. D. 558.

The admissibility of the book in Higham v. Ridgway, ante, p. 55, depended on the pecuniary interest of the deceased, and it is settled that an interest arising from the liability of the party to a prosecution, if his statement were true, is not such an interest as will make his declarations evidence; and for this reason the statement of a clergyman that he had celebrated an irregular marriage was held not to be evidence of the marriage. Sussex Peerage, 11 Cl. & Fin. 85, 107. Nor is the declaration of a party admissible merely because he would, if alive, have been excused from answering questions on the subject. S. C., Id. 110.

Entries by a deceased steward, of money received by him from different persons in satisfaction of trespasses committed on the waste, and thereby charging himself to the amount received, are admissible to prove that the right to the soil of the waste was in his master. Barry v. Bebbington, 4 T. R. 514. And if the entries be old and the document come from the proper custody, the handwriting need not be proved. Wynne v. Tyrwhitt, 4 B. & A. 376. So a receiver's entry of a receipt of separate rents from A., due from himself and two others, B. and C., is a proof of payment not only by A., but also by B. and C., although the rents of B. and C. do not appear to have been paid directly to the receiver; Percival v. Nanson, 7 Exch. 1; 21 L. J., Ex. 1; and it is enough if a steward's account be signed by a third person for the real steward, where the authority to sign for him appears on the books containing the arrears to have been recognized, and the person so signing debits himself with the balance. Doed. Ashburnham v. Michael, 17 Q. B. 276; 20 L. J., Q. B. 480. A bill of lading, signed by a deceased master of a vessel, for goods deliverable to a named consignee, is evidence of property in the consignee, even in trover for the goods against a third person. Per Lawrence, J., Haddow v. Parry, 3 Taunt. 305. Receipts of rent by a steward, specifying the tenure of the land in respect of which it is paid, have been held evidence of the tenure. Doe d. Harpur v. Dodd, 3 Wooddeson Comm. 332. So where the deceased agent of the owner A., of the servient tenement, paid 6d. to A., stating that it was for the lights of the dominant tenement, this was held to be evidence, against a subsequent owner of the latter, of payment of the rent. Bewley v. Atkinson, 13 Ch. D. 283, C. A. The same point was raised but not decided in Fursdon v. Clogg, 10 M. & W. 572. In an action against

a co-surety for contribution, a receipt given by the deceased creditor, professing to acknowledge a payment by the plaintiff of a sum of money, originally advanced to E. H.," is evidence not only of the payment, but also of the original advance to E. H. as principal debtor. Davies v. Humphreys, 6 M. & W. 153.

A declaration by a deceased occupier of land, that he rents it under a certain person, is evidence of that person's seisin. Peaceable d. Uncle v. Watson, 4 Taunt. 16; see also Carne v. Nicholl, 1 N. C. 430. The principle is, that occupation being presumptive evidence of a seisin in fee, any declaration claiming a less estate is against the party's presumed proprietary interest; Crease v. Barrett, 1 C. M. & R. 931 ; and, therefore, a declaration by a deceased copyholder, that he held only for his life, is evidence of such limited interest; Doe d. Welsh v. Langfield, 16 M. & W. 497; and such declaration may be proved by production of the official books of an inclosure commission kept under an Act of Parliament, and containing an entry of a claim made by the declarant. S. C. Or, by the recital in a deed to which deceased was a party. Slyv. Sly, 2 P. D.91. But the declaration of a party in possession as to what he heard a third person say, is not evidence to cut down his estate, unless he has himself expressed his own belief of the statement. Trimlestown v. Kemmis, 9 Cl. & Fin. 780. A declaration by a person in the management of an estate that he managed for his son is evidence of the son's interest. De Bode's case, 8 Q. B. 208. A deed by a deceased party, shown to be in the receipt of the rents and profits, in which S. is stated to be the legal owner in fee, is evidence of such ownership for a party claiming under S. Doe d. Daniel v. Coulthred, 7 Ad. & E. 235. So, a written attornment to L. by a tenant in possession is evidence of L.'s seisin. Doe d. Lindsey v. Edwards, 5 Ad. & E. 95. Acceptance by A. of an allotment under an inclosure award is evidence that previously the allotment was not A.'s land. Gery v. Redman, 1 Q. B. D. 161.

66

Land was held by A., B., C., &c., as successive tenants for life, with power to lease for 21 years, reserving the ancient rent. A paper in which the rent of the land was stated, indorsed by A., a particular of my estate," was held admissible to show what the ancient rent was, for A. had an interest to make the rent as low as possible, and so increase the fine upon renewal. Roe d. Brune v. Rawlings, 7 East, 279. A declaration by a deceased person, that he held certain land as tenant at a rent of 201. a-year, was held to be evidence, in a question of settlement of a pauper, that the rent was over 10l. a year. R. v. Birmingham, 1 B. & S. 763; 31 L. J., M. C. 63; R. v. Exeter Union, L. R., 4 Q. B. 341.

An oral declaration is as admissible as a written one. S.CC.; Bewley v. Atkinson, 13 Ch. D. 283, C. A.

Entries by a deceased collector of rates, charging himself with the receipt of money, and made by him in the books of his office, are admissible against his surety to prove the receipt. Goss v. Watlington, 3 B. & B. 132. And the same has been held with regard to the entries of a clerk as against his surety. Whitnash v. George, 8 B. & C. 556. So, entries in the land-tax collector's book stating A. B. to be rated for a particular house, and his payment of the sum rated, are evidence to show that A. B. was occupier of the premises at the time. Doe d. Smith v. Cartwright, Ry. & M. 62. See also Doe d. Strode v. Seaton, 2 Ad. & E. 171. So, entries made by a deceased collector of taxes in a private book, charging himself with the receipt of money, are evidence against a surety of the receipt of the money, though the parties who paid it are alive, and might be called. Middleton v. Melton, 10 B. & C. 317.

It seems that the entries of receipts by a deceased accountant are admis

sible, though the balance may be discharged or be in his own favour. Rowe v. Brenton, 3 M. & Ry. 268; Acc. per Patteson, J., Williams v. Geaves, 8 C. & P. 593. And ancient ministers' accounts, rendered to the lord of the manor, and debiting themselves with the issues and profits of the manor, are admissible evidence in favour of a successor to show the possession of port dues, though the roll shows the account balanced and a quietus at the end of it; per Lord Denman, C. J., in Brune v. Thompson, London Sittings after M. T. 1841; Acc. Erskine, J., S. C., Bodmin Sp. Ass. 1842. So, ancient receivers' accounts of a city, though unsigned, and in the third person, are admissible on behalf of the city, to prove the receipt of port dues. Exeter, Mayor of, v. Warren, 5 Q. B. 773. So, old accounts rendered to the corporation of vicars-choral, Exeter, by their officers, showing receipt of tithe, and balanced by payment, and a quietus, are evidence for them, against a modus. Short v. Lee, 2 Jac. & W. 464. In Beaufort, Dk. of, v. Smith, 4 Exch. 450, accounts rendered to the plaintiff's ancestors, lords of Gower, by his receivers, showing the receipt of a manorial toll on coal exported out of the manor, formed the principal evidence upon which the plaintiff's right to it was established. So, in Waddington v. Newton, Wint. Sum. Ass. 1850, Coleridge, J., admitted the ministers', or receivers', accounts of the bishopric of Winchester, extending from the reign of John to Hen. 8, to show a right of fishery in the lord, by continual receipt of the issues of the fishery, value of fish sold, &c. In Doe d. Kinglake v. Beviss, 7 C. B. 456, the same series of accounts was tendered, to show the lord's ownership of a certain wood, as against the copyholder, who claimed it; for this purpose, the lord relied upon entries of receipts on the sale of timber, and also entries in the same roll in which the accountant discharged himself by payment of wages to the woodward of the same wood: the court held the receipt admissible, but not the discharge; and they cited Knight v. Waterford, 4 Y. & Coll. 293, in which the accounts of a deceased receiver were admitted to prove the receipt of rent for tithes by the lord of the manor, but not to prove his liability to pay land-tax and poor-rate on them, by showing that the account had always allowed the amount to the person paying the rent, the two entries being separate and unconnected. Accord. Whaley v. Carlisle, 15 W. R. 1183, July, 1867, Ir. Ex. Ch. In Bullen v. Michel, 2 Price, 399, certain account rolls of the Abbey of Glaston were tendered, to prove payment of tithe by certain lands of the abbey; the account showed receipts by the reeve, and payments out of the moneys received, which accounts were allowed at the foot by the bailiff of the abbey; among the payments were payments in respect of the tithe in question: they were put in evidence by the vicar to disprove a modus set up by the defendant, and other landowners who did not claim under the abbey, but whose claim was shown to be inconsistent with the above payments by the abbey; they were held admissible both as to charge and discharge, because the two were part of one account, and because the discharge had been allowed by the bailiff of the abbey. Whether this case can be reconciled with Doe d. Kinglake v. Beviss, and Knight v. Waterford, supra, by any sound distinction, may be questionable. It is observable on this class of documents, that old computi, i.e., accountants' rolls, are almost invariably written in the third person, and name the accountant only at the head of the roll, and sometimes refer to particulars of the account elswhere. It is further observable, that a distinction has been taken between the public accounts of crown officers and the accounts of private persons in favour of the superior credit due to the former, as public records.

In order to show title to a quit rent, a party put in evidence a signed