Peake, Ev. 72, 5th ed. So an examined copy of the minutes will be sufficient. Per Holt, C. J., Comb. 337; 12 Vin. Ab. Evid. A. pl. 26. If the proceedings of the inferior court are not entered in the books, they may be proved by the officer of the court, or by some person conversant with the fact. See Dyson v. Wood, 3 B. & C. 451, 453, 10 E. C. L.

Proof of records and proceedings in county courts. It is enacted, by the 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 111, "that the clerk of every court holden under this act shall cause a note of all plaints and summonses, and of all orders and of all judgments and executions and returns thereto, and of all fines, and of all other proceedings of the court, to be fairly entered from time to time in a book belonging to the court, which shall be kept at the office of the court; and such entries in the said book or a copy thereof bearing the seal of the court, and purporting to be signed and certified as a true copy by the clerk of the court, shall at all times be admitted in all courts and places whatsoever as evidence of such entries, and of the proceeding referred to by such entry or entries, and of the regularity of such proceedings without any further proof." Under this section it has been decided that such minutes of proceedings cannot be contradicted by the evidence of the judge. Dews v. Ryley, 20 L. J. C. P. 264. And the proceedings of the county court can be proved in no other way. R. v. Rowland, 1 F. & F. 72, ante, p. 3.2

Proof of probates and letters of administration. The probate of a will is proved by the production of the instrument itself; and proof *of the seal of the court is not necessary. In order to prove the

*173] title of the executor to personal property, the probate must be given in evidence. Pinney v. Pinney, 8 B. & C. 335, 15 E. C. L. When the probate is lost it is not the practice of the Ecclesiastical Court to grant a second probate, but only an exemplification, which will be evidence of the proving of the will. Shepherd v. Shorthose, 1 Str. 412. To prove the probate revoked an entry of the revocation in the book of the Prerogative Court is good evidence. R. v. Ramsbotham, 1 Leach, 30 (n) 3rd ed.

Administration is proved by the production of the letters of administration granted by the Ecclesiastical Court. Kempton v. Cross, Rep. temp. Hardw. 108; B. N. P. 246. So the original book of acts of that court directing the granting the letters is evidence. B. N. P. 246.

1 Proceedings in civil suits before justices of the peace are within the rule, and sworn copies are evidence. Welsh v. Crawford, 14 S. & R. 440. The certificate of a clerk of an inferior court, in relation to any matter pertaining to his office, is not competent evidence unless certified under his hand and seal of office, if there be one; if not, then under his private seal. Thomasson v. Drishell, 13 Ga. 253. S.

Where one party to a suit offers in evidence detached portions of records of courts the other party may put in the remaining portions. State v. Hawkins, 81 Ind. 486. But when on cross-examination a witness testified that he has been in jail, it was held proper to ask him for what offence, it appearing that he had not been sent there by the sentence of any court. But if there is a court record it must be produced. State v. Pike, 65 Me. 111.

And an examined copy of such act book is also evidence. Davis v. Williams, 13 East, 232.

By the 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77, s. 69, an official copy of a will, or certificate of letters of administration, may be obtained, and it seems will be admitted in evidence where the probate is lost. 2 Taylor on Ev. 1362, 6th ed.

Proof of foreign laws. The law of a foreign state may be proved by the parol evidence of witnesses possessing competent legal skill, see ante, p. 148. The witness to prove a foreign law must be a person veritus virtute officii or virtute professionis. A Roman Catholic bishop, who held in this country the office of a coadjutor to a vicar apostolic, and as such was authorized to decide on cases affected by the law of Rome, was therefore held, in virtue of his office, to be a witness admissible to prove the law of Rome as to marriage. Sussex Peerage Case, 11 Cla. & Fin. 85; 1 C. & K. 213, 47 E. C. L. Such a witness may refer to foreign law books to refresh his memory or to correct and confirm his opinion, but the law itself must be taken from his evidence, see ante, p. 148.

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, 14 Tyr. 757; 1 C. M. & R. 277, see 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 7, ante, p. 164.1

Proof of public books and other documents. Wherever the contents of a public book or document are admissible in evidence as such, examined copies are likewise evidence, as in the case of registers of marriages, deaths, etc.; as are likewise certified copies under the 14 & 15

1 Reports or adjudged cases are not evidence of what is the law of the State or country in which they are pronounced. The written law of foreign countries should be proved by the law itself as written, and the common or customary unwritten law, by witnesses acquainted with the law. Gardner v. Lewis, 7 Gill. 377. By the common law, foreign judgments are authenticated, first by an exemplification under the great seal of the State; second, by a copy proved to be a true copy by a person who has examined and compared it with the original; third, by a certificate of the officer authorized by law to give a copy. Stewart v. Swanzy, 1 Cushm. 502. The public seal of a State, affixed to the exemplification of a law, proves itself. Robinson et al. v. Gilman, 20 Me. 299. A copy of the laws published annually by the authority of the legislature, is evidence of the statutes contained in it, whether they be public or private. Gray v. Monongahela Nav. Co., 2 W. & S. 156. [Commonwealth v. Whitman, 121 Mass. 361.] The written laws of the other States of the Union cannot be proved here by parol evidence. But the printed statute-books purporting to be published by authority are prima facie evidence here of the statutes they contain. Comparit v. Jernigan et al., 5 Blackf. 375. S. Re Roberts, 5 Col. 525; McDeed v. McDeed, 67 Ill. 545. Compare, supra, p. *16, n., and cases cited.

On a quo warranto, the relator cannot give in evidence the copy of the record from the court of another State, to show that he had been naturalized, where the record is without the proper certificate of the presiding judge as required by Congress and is otherwise incomplete. Brackett v. People, 64 III. 170.

2 Official books and papers must be proved by producing an exemplified copy from the proper office; or if circumstances require that the originals should be produced, they must be brought from the office and verified by the officer who has the keeping of them, or his clerk, or some one specially authorized by him for that purpose. They cannot be verified by one who has no connection with the office, but who happens to know them. Hackenbury v. Carlisle, 1 W. & S. 383. S.

Vict. c. 99, s. 14; ante p. 165. Thus an examined copy of an order in council is sufficient, without the production of the council books themselves. Eyre v. Palsgrave, 2 Campb. 605. See now 31 & 32 Vict. c. 37; ante, p. 166. So copies of the transfer books of the East India Company; Anon., 2 Dougl. 593 (n); and of the Bank of England; Marsh v. Collnett, 1 Esp. 665; Bretton v. Cope, Peake, N. P. Č. 43; of a bank note filed at the bank; Mann v. Cary, 3 Salk. 155; so the books of commissioners of land-tax; King's case, 2 T. R. 234; or of Excise; Fuller v. Fotch, Carth. 346; or of a poll-book at elections; Mead v. Robinson, Willes, 424. In one case the copy of an agreement contained in one of the books of the Bodleian Library (which cannot be removed) was allowed to be read in evidence. Downes v. Mooreman, Bunb. 189; 2 Gwill. 659. 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 *174] evidence, for they are not kept by any public authority. Salte v. Thomas, 3 B. & P. 190. Copies of entries or extracts from the register of newspaper proprietors, purporting to be certified by the registrar, or his deputy, or under the official seal of the registrar, are to be received as conclusive evidence; and certified copies or extracts are to be received as prima facie evidence in all proceedings under the Newspaper Libel and Registration Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 60), s. 15, see post, title, Libel.

Corporation books may be given in evidence as public books, when they have been kept as such, the entries having been made by the proper officer, or by a third person, in his sickness or absence. Mothersell's case, 1 Str. 93. But a book containing minutes of corporation proceedings, kept by a person not a member of the corporation, and not kept as a public book, is inadmissible. Id. An examined copy of a corporate book is evidence. Brocas v. Mayor of London, 1 Str. 307; Gwyn's case, 1 Str. 401. It is not settled whether the attesting witness of a corporation deed need be called. Doe v. Chambers, 4 A. & E. 410, 31 E. C. L.; or whether such a deed proves itself after thirty years. Rex v. Bathwick, 2 B. & Ad. 639, 22 E. C. L. Inspection of corporation books and other public writings is granted in civil actions, but not in criminal cases, where it would have the effect of making a defendant furnish evidence to criminate himself. R. v. Heydon, 1 W. Bl. 351; R. v. Purnell, Id. 37; 1 Willes, 239; 2 Str. 1210. By 45 & 46 Vict. c. 50, s. 24, provision is made for the proof of by-laws of any town council by the production of a written copy of such by-laws authenticated by the corporate seal, and by sect. 22, for the proof of minutes purporting to be signed by the mayor, or a member of the council, or of the committee, appearing to be chairman of the meeting at which the minute is signed. Certificates of incorporation, and certified copies of documents, filed

1 Owing v. Speed, 5 Wheat. 420. They are evidence in disputes between its mem bers, but not against strangers. Commonwealth v. Woelper et al., 3 S. & R. 29; Jackson v. Walsh, 3 Johns. 226. Must be kept by the proper officer. Highlands Turnpike Co. v. McKean, 10 Johns. 154. S.

H

and registered under the Companies Acts, 1862 to 1877, may now be received in evidence under the 40 & 41 Vict. c. 26, s. 6.

By the Industrial and Provident Societies Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 45), s. 24, every instrument or document, copy or extract of instrument or document bearing the seal or stamp of the central office, shall be received in evidence without further proof; and every document purporting to be signed by the chief or any assistant registrar, or any inspector or public auditor in this Act, shall, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, be received in evidence without proof of the signature.

Proof of banker's books. By the Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1879 (42 & 43 Vict. c. 11), entries in the books of any bank, and copies of such entries are made admissible, where the conditions imposed by the Act have been complied with; and the provisions of that Act are extended to any company carrying on the business of bankers, to which the provisions of the Companies Act, 1862 to 1880, are applicable.

Proof of registers of births, deaths, and marriages. Public registers, as of births, marriages, or deaths, are proved either by the production of the register itself or of an examined copy. B. N. P. 247. Parol evidence of the contents of a register has been admitted; yet the propriety of such evidence, says Buller, may well be doubted, because *it is not the best evidence the nature of the case is capable of. Id. A copy of a record or a public book is not, in fact, sec[*175 ondary evidence; and therefore the opinion of Mr. Justice Buller appears to be correct. A register is only one mode of proof of the fact which it records, and the fact may be proved without producing the register, by the evidence of persons who were present. Thus upon an indictment for bigamy, it was held sufficient to prove the marriage, by the evidence of a person who was present at it, without proving the registration, license, or banns.1 R. v. Allison, Russ. & Ry. 109.

In proving a register, some evidence of the identity of the parties must be given, as by proof of handwriting, for which purpose it is not necessary to call the subscribing witnesses. Per Lord Mansfield, Birt v. Barlow, 1 Dougl. 170, a. The identity is usually established by calling the minister, clerk, or some other person who was present at the ceremony.

In R. v. Nash, 2 Den. C. C. R. 493; 21 L. J., M. C. 147, upon an indictment for forging and uttering a transfer of shares in a railway company, it was held that the register of shareholders kept under the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 16, s. 9, was evidence to prove that an individual was a shareholder without any authentication of the seal, and that in order

1 Lessee of Hyam v. Edwards, 1 Dall. 2; Stover v. Lessee of Whitman, 6 Binn. 416; Jacocks v. Gilliam, 2 Murph. 47; Huntley v. Comstock, 2 Root, 99; Jackson v. Boneham, 15 Johns. 225; Sumner v. Sebee, 3 Greenl. 223. S. Com. v. Norcross, 9 Mass. 492.

So to rebut the presumption of marriage arising from a record, the evidence of one of the parties denying that the marriage ever took place is admissible. Com. v. Waterman, 122 Mass. 43.

to sustain the indictment it was unnecessary to give further proof that such individual was a shareholder of the company.

By the 52 Geo. 3, c. 146, ss. 6, 7 (which is still in force for the registration of births and burials by clergymen of the church of England), it is provided that verified copies shall be annually sent to the registrar of the diocese. It seems that such verified copies, being public documents, are evidence as well as the originals, and may be proved by examined copies. But it is otherwise of the returns enjoined by the canons of 1603, which can only be used as secondary evidence. Per Alderson, B., Walker v. Beauchamp, 6 C. & P. 552, 25 E. C. L. By the 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 86, s. 38, for registering births, marriages, and deaths in England, certified copies of entries purporting to be sealed or stamped with the seal of the office of the registrargeneral, shall be evidence of the birth, death, or marriage to which they relate, without further proof of such entries. By the 3 & 4 Vict. c. 92, certain non-parochial registers of births, marriages, and deaths, transferred to the general register office, or certified extracts therefrom, are made admissible in evidence; but in criminal cases the original registers must (by s. 17) be produced. But under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 14, ante, p. 165, relating to examined and certified copies, an extract from a register of births purporting to be signed and certified by a deputy superintendent registrar, as the person in whose custody the register book is, is admissible in evidence on its mere production. R. v. Weaver, L. R. 2 C. C. 85; 43 L. J., M. C. 13. By 37 & 38 Vict. c. 88, s. 38, the act consolidating the law relating to registration of births and deaths, an entry or certified copy of a birth or death in a register under the Births and Deaths Registration Acts 1836 to 1874, or in a certified copy of such register, shall not be evidence of such birth or death, unless such entry either purports to be signed by some person professing to be the informant, and to be such a person as is required by law at the date of such entry to give to the registrar information concerning such birth or death, or purports to be made upon a certificate by a coroner, or in pursuance of the provisions of this act with respect to the registration of births and deaths

at sea.

*176]

*As to marriage registers in Ireland, see the 7 & 8 Vict. c. 81. For the act amending the law of marriages, see post, Bigamy.

Proof of ancient documents, terriers, etc. In many cases ancient documents are admitted in evidence, to establish facts which, had they been recently made, they would not have been allowed to prove. These documents prove themselves, provided that it appear that they are produced out of the proper custody. The proper repository of ecclesiastical terriers or maps is the registry of the bishop or archdeacon of the diocese. Atkins v. Hatton, 2 Anst. 386; Potts v. Durant, 3 Anst. 795. On an issue to try the boundaries of two parishes, an old terrier or map of their limits, drawn in an inartificial manner, brought from a box of old papers relating to the parish, in the possession of the representatives of the rector, was rejected, not being signed by any