remembered that those customs are taken very strictly which enable one of the lives to bar the estates of the rest, and that his exercise of the right must be shown to have been effected in accordance with the requirements of the custom (z). Customs as to widowhood or freebench do not alter the rights of a copyholder's widow under the Intestates' Estates Act, 1890. It has been shown that a grant to a man Entails. and the heirs of his body may, according to the custom of the particular manor, give either an estate-tail or a fee-simple conditional (a). It is no evidence of a custom to make a grant in tail that land has been used to be granted to a man and the heirs of his body, unless there has always been a remainder after such estate, or the issue have avoided the alienation of the ancestor (b), or unless there has been some other dealing with the estate which is inconsistent with the nature of a conditional fee. On the other hand, the custom of entailing may be disproved by instances of dealing with the land in a way which is only appropriate to an estate in fee-simple conditional, as where the tenant has aliened in fee after the birth of issue without any disentailing assurance, and the issue has failed to recover. Before the passing of the Fines and Recoveries Act, 1833 (c) it was held that a single instance of barring an entail by a surrender was sufficient evidence of a custom to bar either by surrender or by a customary recovery; but many instances of barring by recovery would be evidence that a surrender was not the proper method (d). Disentailing assurances of copyholds under the Act must be enrolled on the court-rolls within six months after execution (e). As to copyhold assurances generally, the proper evidence Copyhold is a copy of the court-roll signed by the steward (f). It assurances. (z) Ante, p. 40. (a) Ante, p. 26. (b) Co. Litt. 60 b. (c) 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 74. (d) Roe d. Bennett v. Jeffery, 2 M. & S. 92. (e) Sect. 54; Honeywood v. Foster, 30 Beav. 1; Green v. Paterson, 32 Ch. Div. 95. (f) Snow v. Cutler, 1 Keb. 567. is the duty of the steward of a manor to deliver to the tenants, as part of their title, copies of the court-rolls; copies accordingly are admitted in evidence upon the same principle as the chirograph of a fine or the enrolment of a deed (g). Proof of the steward's signature may be required, unless he is dead and the document is more than thirty years old (h). The copy thus authenticated need not be that which was given to the tenant (i). The court-rolls themselves are as good evidence as any copies (k). The Stamp Act, 1891, re-enacting and consolidating the provisions of previous Stamp Acts, provides that the copy of court-roll of a surrender or grant made out of court shall not be admitted in evidence unless the grant or surrender, or memorandum thereof, is duly stamped, of which fact the certificate of the steward on the face of the copy shall be sufficient evidence; and that the entry on the roll of a grant or surrender shall not be admitted in evidence, unless the surrender or grant, if made out of court, or the memorandum thereof, or the copy of courtroll of the surrender or grant, if made in court, is duly. stamped, of which fact the certificate of the steward in the margin of such entry is proof (7). But the provisions of the Stamp Acts are only revenue regulations, and are not in-. tended to vary the rules of evidence, and accordingly examined copies of the entries on the court-rolls, verified in the usual manner, have been accepted as evidence of surrenders and admittances and other assurances (m). It has been held that a surrender which was not entered on the roll might be proved, together with its due presentment, by a draft of an entry produced from the muniments of the manor, and the parol testimony of the foreman of the homage-jury who had (g) Appleton v. Braybrook (Lord), 6 M. & S. 34, 38. (h) Wynne v. Tyrwhitt, 4 B. & Ald. 376. (i) Breeze v. Hawker, 14 Sim. 350. (k) Doe d. Bennington v. Hall, 16 East, 208; Doe d. Garrod v. Olley, 12 A. & E. 481. (7) 54 & 55 Vict. c. 39, s. 65 (2), (3). (m) Doe d. Cawthorn v. Mee, 4 B. & Ad. 617; Doe d. Burrows v. Freeman, 12 M. & W. 844. made the presentment (n). In one case the steward's rough draft of an admittance was held to be good evidence of the fact (o). In regard to this case it has been said that it did not appear whether a proper engrossment had been made and afterwards lost, but the point appears not to be material ; "the draft may have been not a copy, but the original from which the roll was afterwards to be made out the draft itself is more in the nature of an original than the copy, though the latter is more convenient for reference, and therefore is the document which is generally resorted to" (p). So, where a surrender to the use of a will was recited in the copy of an admittance in the record book of the manor and no entry had been made on the roll, the records being kept negligently, the entry in the book was taken as good evidence of the surrender (q). But it has been held that a copy of mere short notes by the steward "by way of breviat" was not sufficient (r). "The rolls of a court-baron or of a customary court are Entries on evidence between the lord and his copyholders or free court-roll. . tenants. They are the public documents by which the inheritance of every tenant is preserved and the records of the manor-court, which was anciently a court of justice relating to all property within the manor" (s). But they are evidence only against the lord or tenants, and are not public records in the strict sense of the term (t). And in case of a mistake the entry on the court-rolls can be altered to suit the fact, as where a conditional surrender has been entered as absolute, or where the agreement between the parties has been misstated by inadvertence (u). Proceed- Proceedings ings in a manorial court are proved by the entry or (n) Doe d. Priestley v. Calloway, 6 B. & C. 484. (0) Anon., 1 Ld. Raym. 735, per Lord Holt, C. J. (p) Per Lord Tenterden, C. J., in Doe d. Priestley v. Calloway, 6 B. & C. 484, 496. (q) Rex v. Thruscross (Inhabts. of), 1 A. & E. 126. (r) Lee v. Boothby, 1 Keb. 720. (u) Kite v. Queinton, 4 Rep. 25 a; of courts. memorandum on the roll, or if not entered may be proved by the officer of the court, or any one conversant with the facts. "When the judgment of a court-baron, or of any other court of inferior jurisdiction, is offered in evidence, the proceedings on which it is founded ought to be shown, but as the proceedings are not usually made up in form, the minutes will be admitted, if perfect and if omitting nothing material" (x). (x) Phill. Evid. i. 396; see Fisher v. Lane, 2 W. Bl. 834; Doe d. Evans v. Walker, 15 Q. B. 28. CHAPTER XI. EXTINGUISHMENT AND ENFRANCHISEMENT. Extinguishment. WHEN a copyhold ceases to be held according to the custom of the manor, the tenure is said to be extinguished. This may happen either by the union in one person of a freehold and a copyhold interest in the same land and in the same right, or by enfranchisement of the copyhold tenure. An extinguishment results when the lord acquires the copyhold tenement by any means, as by the tenant's surrender, bargain and sale, release, or abandonment of the customary tenancy at will, or by descent, forfeiture, or escheat (a). In cases of acquisition by descent, forfeiture, escheat, or the like, where there is no act on the part of the lord showing an intention to destroy the tenure, there will not be an absolute extinguishment but only a suspension of the tenure, so long as the lord does not alter the demiseable nature of the tenement by creating a common-law interest in it other than a tenancy at will, even though the lord keeps the tenement in hand for a period exceeding the statutory period of limitation (b). Upon a purchase by the lord of the copyhold there will be an absolute extinguishment, unless there has been a surrender to the use of a trustee for him. If one of several (a) Blemmerhasset v. Humberstone, Hutt. 65; Beversham's Case, 2 Ventr. 345. (b) French's Case, 4 Rep. 31a; see Pemble v. Sterne, T. Ray. 165; and Watk. Copyh. i. 361, n. |