ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ACT.

13

construed, must apply to a copy of a part of the journals as well as to a copy of the whole; and that, although it did not directly appear that Mr. Hansard was the printer to the House of Commons, yet this fact might fairly be inferred from the statement that the book was printed by the permission of the Speaker. Mr. Baron Platt intimated an opinion, that the evidence was not admissible, but it became unnecessary expressly to decide the point, as the counsel for the plaintiff waived his objection, and the book was put in by consent.

§ 9. With regard to the first section of the act, it may well be doubted whether the language there employed would be held to apply to apothecaries' certificates. Under the act of 55 Geo. 3, c. 194, § 21, an apothecary not in practice on, or prior to, the 1st of August, 1815, cannot recover the amount of his bill, unless he can prove at the trial, that he has obtained a certificate to practise from the Society of Apothecaries. The act is silent as to the mode of proving this certificate, but it seems that at common law the document may be authenticated, either by proving the corporate seal, if such were attached to it (y), or by proving the handwriting of the examiners, or of some of them, if their signatures alone were appended (z). Then came the act of 6 Geo. 4, c. 133, which by § 7 enacted, that the common seal of the Society should be deemed sufficient proof of the authenticity of the certificate to which it was affixed. The intention of the legislature in passing this act obviously was, that no other proof should be required than the production of the certificate; but by the omission of the word "purporting," the language used became illusory (a). Still, if the act were now in force, a certificate purporting to bear the seal of the Society would unquestionably be admissible under the Documentary Evidence Act. Unfortunately, however, the act of 6 Geo. 4, was merely a temporary one, which was allowed to expire on the 1st of August, 1826 (b); and consequently, as the 55 Geo. 3, c. 194, is the only statute now in force, and that act does not

(y) Steavenson v. Oliver, 8 M. & W. 242, per Parke, B.

(2) Walmsley v. Abbott, 3 B. & C. 218.

(a) Steavenson v. Oliver, 8 M. & W. 242; Chadwick v. Bunning, Ry. & M. 306; 2 C. & P. 106, S.C. (b) § 11.

14

FOREIGN SEALS, HOW FAR NOTICED.

require, or direct, that the certificate should be scaled or signed in any particular manner, it would seem that the certificate is not such a document as would fall within the purview of 8 & 9 Vict., c. 113, at least if it were granted subsequently to the 1st of August, 1826 (c). If, indeed, the certificate bore date prior to that day, and purported to be sealed with the seal of the Society, it might then, perhaps, be admissible without proving the genuineness of the seal; for the judges seem to have considered, that the act of 6 Geo. 4 was not in all respects a temporary statute, but that those parts of it which explain the provisions of the 55 Geo. 3, were in their own nature permanent, so far as related to any rights acquired under them (d).

§ 10. As the Documentary Evidence Act does not extend to Scotland, proof must still be given of the seal of the University of St. Andrews (e); and it appears also, that the stamp usually impressed by the judge's clerk on documents relating to proceedings at chambers (f); the seals of all corporations, excepting that of the City of London (g), and those rendered admissible by statute; the seals of foreign courts (h); the seals of our colonial courts, and even the great seals of the colonies (i), require proof. So, also, the seals of our courts must be proved in India or in the colonies (j). It seems that, in America, the seals of foreign states, as being the usual and appropriate symbols of nationality and sovereignty, are judicially noticed; and all public acts, laws, decrees and judgments, purporting to be exemplified under these

(c) See observations on this subject in No. 9 of N. S. of Law Mag. 285-287. (d) Steavenson v. Oliver, 8 M. & W. 234, 242-244.

(e) Collins v. Carnegie, 1 A. & E. 695.

(f) Barrett Navigation Co. v. Shower, 8 Dowl. 173. It is now highly expedient that the judge's clerk should discontinue this practice of stamping, and that the judge himself should sign the documents.

(g) Moises v. Thornton, 8 T. R. 307; Doe v. Mason, 1 Esp. 53. In Cooch v. Goodman, 2 Q. B. 580, which was an action on covenant, it appeared on record that the demise was by a corporation; and the court held that it could not judicially notice that no such corporation existed, though this fact was admitted in argument by both sides. (h) Story, Confl. of Laws, § 643. (i) Henry v. Adey, 3 East, 221, as to the seal of the island of Grenada; Buchanan v. Rucker, 1 Camp. 63; 9 East, 192, S. C. as to that of Tobago. (j) Clark v. Mullick, 3 Moore P. C. R. 252, 280.

FOREIGN SEALS, HOW FAR NOTICED.

15

seals, are there received as genuine (k). In England, however this liberal doctrine has not yet been promulgated from the bench (1); and it may well be doubted whether it would here be allowed to prevail, since, as we have just seen, even the broad seals of our own colonies must be proved to be authentic.

§ 11. The Americans also admit an exception in favour of the seals of foreign Courts of Admiralty, on the ground that such seals belong to Courts of the Law of Nations (m). Whether the English judges would adopt this rule to its full extent is doubtful, although, on one occasion (n), Lord Hale appears to have admitted a sentence of the Admiralty of France exemplified under the seal of that court. Perhaps, however, in that case the seal was first proved. In America, the signature of the Chief of the Executive of the state is recognised, without proof, as genuine (0); and so, in Louisiana, are also the signatures of executive and judicial officers to all official acts (p). The English doctrine certainly does not extend this length, though it is difficult to define its exact limits. On the one hand, we have seen that the signatures of the superior equity and common law judges must be judicially noticed, if appended to any judicial or official document (g), and that many other signatures, attached to documents, which are rendered admissible by statutes, need not be proved (r); and it seems also, that, in practice, no proof is required of the handwriting of the keeper, or of the deputy-keeper, of the Queen's Prison (s). On the other

(4) Story, Confl. of Laws, § 643; Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch, 238; Griswold v. Pitcairn, 2 Conn. 85, 90; U. S. v. Johns, 4 Dall. 416; Lincoln v. Battelle, 6 Wend. 475.

(1) In an old case reported as Anon. in 9 Mod. 66, an exemplification of a sentence in Holland under the common seal of the States was admitted; but it does not appear whether or not the authenticity of the seal was first proved. (m) Story, Confl. of Laws, § 643. See Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cranch, 335; Thompson v. Stewart, 3 Conn. 171, 181.

(n) Hughes v. Cornelius, cited by Lord Holt in Green v. Weller, 2 Lord Raym. 893: and reported 2 Shower, 232, and 2 Smith's Lead. C. 434.

(0) Jones v. Gale's Exors., 4 Martin, 635. (p) Id.; Wood v. Fitz, 10 Martin, 196.

(9) 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, § 2, ante, § 7.

(r) Id. § 1, ante, § 7. A partial list of the more important of these documents will be given in the chapter on Public Documents, post.

(s) Alcock v. Whatmore, 8 Dowl. 615; Short v. Williams, 4 Dowl. 357; Fogarty v. Smith, id. 598, n. ; 5 & 6 Vict. c. 22.

16

MATTERS JUDICIALLY NOTICED.

hand, it appears highly probable that the courts would not recognise the signatures of the Lords of the Treasury to their official letters (t); and it is even a matter of some doubt whether the royal sign-manual will be judicially noticed. On one occasion (u), before the House of Peers, a warrant purporting to be so signed was admitted without proof, but as the party putting in this document was prepared to prove it if necessary, the acquiescence of the opposite counsel amounts to little. In another case (v), the judges decided that the King's sign-manual was admissible to show his Majesty's intention of pardoning a prisoner; and in a third case (w), the sign-manual was actually produced for this very purpose; but on neither of these occasions was any question raised as to the necessity of proving the signature to be genuine.

§ 12. It seems that the judges will take notice of the London Gazette on its mere production, and that it is unnecessary to prove that it was bought at the office of the Queen's printer, or to offer any evidence as to whence it came (x).

§ 13. It is unnecessary to prove facts, which may certainly be known from the invariable course of nature; such as that a man is not the father of a child, where non-access is already proved until within a fortnight of the woman's delivery (y); neither is it necessary to prove the course of time, or of the heavenly bodies; nor the ordinary public fasts and festivals (z); nor the commencement or ending of the legal terms (a), nor the coincidence of the years of the reign of any sovereign of this country, with the years of our Lord (b); nor the coincidence of days of the week with days of the month (c); nor the order of the months (d); nor the

(t) R. v. Jones, 2 Camp. 131, per Lord Ellenborough.

(u) Lord Melville's case, 29 How. St. Tr. 706.

(v) R. v. Miller, 2 W. Bl. 797; 1 Lea. C. C. 74, S. C.

(w) R. v. Gully, 1 Lea. C. C. 98.

(y) R. v. Luffe, 8 East, 202.

(a) 6 Vin. Abr. 490, pl. 32.

(x) R. v. Forsyth, R. & R. 274. (2) 6 Vin. Abr. 492, pl. 8-14.

(b) Holman v. Burrow, 2 Lord Raym. 795; R. v. Pringle, 2 M. & Rob. 276. (c) 6 Vin. Abr. 492, pl. 6, 7, 8; Hoyle v. Lord Cornwallis, 1 Stra. 387; Page v. Faucet, Cro. Eliz. 227; Harry v. Broad, 2 Salk. 626; Brough v. Parkings, 2 Lord Raym. 994, per Lord Holt. Thus the court is bound judicially to notice what days of the month fall on Sundays, Hanson v. Shackelton, 4 Dowl. 48; Pearson v. Shaw, 7 Ir. Law R. 1. (d) R. v. Brown, M. & M. 164.

MATTERS JUDICIALLY NOTICED.

17

meaning of words in the vernacular language (e); nor the legal weights and measures (f); nor the value of the coin of the realm (g); nor, it seems, any matters of public history, affecting the whole people (h).

§ 14. Courts also notice the territorial extent of the jurisdiction and sovereignty exercised de facto by their own government (i);

(e) Clementi v. Golding, 2 Camp. 25, as to the meaning of the word "book ;' Commonwealth v. Kneeland, 20 Pick. 239; 6 Vin. Abr. 491, 492, pl. 6, 7; R. v. Woodward, 1 Moody, C. C. 323. In that case the prisoner was indicted under 7 & 8 Geo. 4, c. 30, § 17, which makes it a felony maliciously to burn any stack of pulse, for setting fire to a stack of beans, and the judges unanimously held that they were bound to notice that beans were a species of pulse. So in R. v. Swatkins, 4 C. & P. 548, Patteson, J., after conferring with Bosanquet, J., judicially noticed that barley was corn, in an indictment for arson under the Act just mentioned. In R. v. Beaney, R. & R. 416, however, the judges refused to notice that a colt was an animal of the horse species. There the indictment charged the prisoner with stealing two colts. By the Acts of 1 Edw. 6, c. 12, § 10, & 2 Edw. 6, c. 33, the benefit of clergy was taken away from persons stealing "horses, geldings, or mares ;" and as these Acts did not mention colts eo nomine, the prisoner was merely convicted of simple larceny. (f) Hockin v. Cooke, 4 T. R. 314. (g) Glossop v. Jacob, 1 Stark. R. 69; Kearney v. King, 2 B. & Al. 301. (h) Bk. of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 590.

(i) See 6 & 7 Vict. c. 94, which, after reciting that "by treaty, capitulation, grant, usage, sufferance, and other lawful means, Her Majesty hath power and jurisdiction within divers countries and places out of Her Majesty's dominions : and whereas doubts have arisen how far the exercise of such power and jurisdiction is controlled by and dependent on the laws and customs of this realm; and it is expedient that such doubts should be removed : " enacts, that "it is and shall be lawful for Her Majesty to hold, exercise, and enjoy any power or jurisdiction, which Her Majesty now hath, or may at any time hereafter have, within any country or place out of Her Majesty's dominions, in the same and as ample a manner as if Her Majesty had acquired such power or jurisdiction by the cession or conquest of territory."

Sect. 2 enacts" that every act, matter, and thing which may at any time be done, in pursuance of any such power or jurisdiction of Her Majesty, in any country or place out of Her Majesty's dominions, shall, in all courts ecclesiastical and temporal, and elsewhere within Her Majesty's dominions, be and be deemed and adjudged to be, in all cases, and to all intents and purposes whatsoever, as valid and effectual as though the same had been done according to the local law then in force within such country or place."

Sect. 3 enacts," that if in any suit or other proceedings, whether civil or criminal, in any court ecclesiastical or temporal within Her Majesty's dominions, any issue or question of law or of fact shall arise, for the due determination whereof it shall, in the opinion of the judge or judges of such court, be necessary to produce evidence of the existence of any such power or jurisdiction as aforesaid, or of the

C

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »