joining in the recovery had a sufficient estate to suffer the same, notwithstanding the deed for making the tenant to such writ should be lost or should not appear. This act does not extend to cases where the conveyance to the tenant can be produced; and if that deed be inoperative, the recovery grounded on it will be also invalid. (a) But where a lease, the foundation of a subsequent release, and making together with it a conveyance to the tenant to the præcipe, is lost, the recovery suffered in pursuance of the release constitutes decisive evidence of the lease, after the expiration of twenty years. (b) 6. Acts of Parliament.---Acts of parliament are records, and relate either to the kingdom at large, when they are called general acts, or only to particular classes of men, or to certain individuals, in which cases they are called private acts. (c) Public acts are proved by the printed statute books; and by the 41 Geo. III. c. 90, (d) it is enacted, that copies of the statutes of Great Britain and Ireland prior to the Union, printed by the printer duly authorized, shall be received as conclusive evidence of the several statutes in the courts of either kingdom. (e) In some acts of parliament not relating to the kingdom at large, a special clause is inserted, declaring v. (a) Keen d. Earl of Portsmouth Earl of Effingham, 2 Stra. 1267. And see 2 Burr. 1073, 1 Ves. 430. (b) Holmes v. Ailsbie, 1 Madd. 551. (c) Gilb. Ev. 39, 40; 1 Phill. Ev. 317. (d) s. 9. (e) Rex v. Jefferies, 1 Stra. 446; Dupays v. Sheppard, 12 Mod. 216. B B them to be public acts. Such acts are considered in every respect as public acts. (a) A clause is also frequently inserted in private acts, providing that they shall be printed by the king's printer, and that a copy so printed shall be admissible in evidence. When such clause is not contained in a private act, the regular proof is by an examined copy, compared with the original in the parliament office at Westminster. (b) 7. Records and Proceedings in Chancery.-A record is conclusive proof that the decision or judgment of the court was as is there stated, and evidence to contradict it will not be admitted. (c) Records are preserved in public repositories, and examined copies thereof are admitted as the best producible evidence; (d) but copies of such copies are inadmissible unless the originals be destroyed. (e) But it is essential to the admissibility of such copies, that they be made by the proper officer. (f) Exemplifications under the seal of a court of justice are next in authenticity to those under the great seal, (g) if the court be established by the common or statute law; as, for instance, the King's courts at Westminster; the Courts of the Counties Palatine and the Courts of the Great Sessions in Wales, when they existed. (h) But exemplifications under the (a) 1 Phill. Ev. 383. (b) See 1 Phill. Ev. 384. Holland's case, Co. 76. And see Bull. N. P. 222; but see Dupays v. Sheppard, 12 Mod. 216. (c) Co. Litt. 352b; 1 Phill. Ev. 317. (d) Leighton ". Leighton, 1 Str. 210; 1 Phill. Ev. 383. (e) Green v. Proude, 1 Mod. 117; Price v. Torrington, Salk. 285. (f) Bull, N. P. 229. (g) Tooke v. Beaufort, Say. 297. (h) Olive v. Gwin, 2 Sid. 145; Hard. 118. See 1 Wm. IV. c. 70. seals of inferior courts of justice will not be evidence, (a) except those of the Prerogative Court of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the city of London, as to personal property. (b) And the rolls of inferior courts will be admitted as evidence of title as to matters peculiar to their jurisdiction. (c) The judgments and sentences of all competent courts of justice, as well of equity as of law, are conclusive evidence of the facts they decide. (d) So, also, the sentence of any foreign court, of competent jurisdiction, directly deciding a question which was properly cognizable by the law of the country, seems to be conclusive in this country. Thus the sentence of a foreign court, of competent jurisdiction, directly establishing a marriage in that country, would be conclusive in any of our courts on the validity of the marriage. (e) The minute book of the Consistorial Court is sufficient evidence of a decree for alimony pronounced in that court, without such decree being drawn up in form. (f) It is now decided that a bill in Chancery will only be evidence to show that such a bill did exist. (g) It will not be admitted as evidence to prove any facts (a) Moises v. Thornton, 8 T. R. 303. (b) Doe d. Woodmass v. Mason, 1 Esp. N. P.C. 53; Kempton v. Cross, Ca. temp. Hardw. 108. (c) Bull. N. P. 247. (d) See 1 Phill. Ev. 320-348.380. Clarges v. Sherwin, 12 Mod. 343 ; Marriott v. Hampton, 7 T. R. 269 ; Bull. N. P. 234; Doug. 222, n. 13; Buchanan v. Rucker, 1 Camp. 63; (g) Lord Ferrers v. Shirley, Fitzgib. 196; Bull. N. P. 235; Bowerman v. Sybourn, 7 T. R. 3: 1 Wightw. 325. either alleged or denied by the bill; (a) and a demurrer or plea to a bill in equity do not so admit the facts charged in it, as to be evidence against the defendant, of those facts, in a future action between the same parties. (b) But answers in Chancery, being confessions on oath, will be evidence of the facts sworn to by the party who makes them, against him; (c) and an examined copy of the answer will be a sufficient proof of it; (d) but it cannot be regularly given in evidence without proof of the bill, for without the bill there does not appear to be any cause depending. (e) Where, in an ejectment, examined office copies of a bill in Chancery, filed by the defendant for an injunction, and of an affidavit purporting to have been made in the equity suit, by a person of the same name and description, to support a motion for an injunction, and alleging title to the premises, in one of the lessors of the plaintiff, were produced to prove the title, it was held that the copy of the affidavit was not admissible without proof of identity, or that it had been used. (f) But an examined copy of a deposition in Chancery is admissible in evidence, for the purpose of contradicting the testimony of the same person when produced afterwards as a witness. (g) A decree in the Court of Chancery may be given in (a) Banbury Peerage case, 2 Selw. N. P. 685; 1 Phill. Ev. 358, 9. (b) Tomkins v. Ashby, 1 Moo. & Mal. 32. (c) 1 Phill. Ev, 359. And see Hudson v. Revaet, 5 Bing. 368. (d) 16 East. 334. Ewer v. Am brose, 6 Dow. & Ry. 127. (e) See 1 Phill. Ev. 393. (f) Rees d. Howell v. Bowen, 1 M'Clell. & Yo. 383. (g) Highfield v. Peake, 1 Moo. & Mal. 109. evidence in the same manner and for the same purposes as the verdict or judgment of a court of common law. (a) It may be proved by an exemplification under the seal of the court, or by a sworn copy, or by a decretal order in paper, with proof of the bill and answer. (b) II. OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE FACTS REFERRED TO IN ABSTRACTS. 1. Births, marriages, and deaths.-We shall class the rules as to proving these facts under one head, because, in general, the same evidence which will prove the one will prove the others. Births, marriages, and burials, are generally proved by examined copies of the parish registers of these events; which registers are in the nature of records, and need not be produced or proved by subscribing witnesses. (c) A certificate, under the hand of the officiating minister of the parish for the time being, is also sometimes furnished. And by the 52 Geo. III. c. 146. (d) the registrar of every diocese is required to make alphabetical lists, open to public search, of the persons and places mentioned in the yearly returns, which are required by this act from every parish in the diocese, of the entries made in the parish registers since the year 1812. These entries must contain, besides the date of the baptism and the name of the (a) 1 Phill. Ev. 359. (b) Trowel v. Castle, 1 Keb. 21. Com. Dig. Ev. (C. 1.) 1 Phill. Ev. 392, 393. (c) Birt v. Barlow, 1 Doug. 173; 1 Phill. Ev. 409. See 26 Geo. II. c. 33. |