an indictment for perjury, that in order to prove that *an appeal came on to be heard at sessions, it must be shown that a record was regularly made up on parchment. Ward's case, 6 C. and P. 366 (a). A plea of autre fois convict, in like manner, must be proved by the record regularly made up, and the indictment with the finding of the jury indorsed upon it by the proper officer, is not sufficient. Bowman's case, 6 C. and P. 101 (b). But in Tooke's case, 25 How. St. Tr. 446, the minutes of the court were received to prove the acquittal of Hardy. This case is distinguished by Lord Tenterden from the foregoing, on the ground that the matter proved by the minutes occurred before the same court, sitting under the same commission. 8 B. and C. 343 (c). So a judgment in paper signed by the master is not evidence, for it is not yet become permanent. B. N. P. 228. Godefroy v. Jay, 1 M. and P. 236 (d), 3 Č. and P. 192 (e), S. C. In one case the minutes of the Lord Mayor's Court of London were allowed to be read as evidence of the proceedings there, the court assigning as a reason for not insisting rigidly upon the record being made up, that it was an inferior jurisdiction. Fisher v. Lane, 2 W. Bl. 834. 8 B. and C. 342 (ƒ) (1).

The mode of examination usually adopted, is for the person who is afterwards to prove it, to examine the copy while another person reads the original, and this has been held sufficient. Reid v. Margison, 1 Campb. 469. Gyles v. Hill, Id. 471 (n). It must appear that the original came from the proper place of deposit, or out of the hands of the officer, in whose custody the records are kept. Adamthwaite v. Synge, 1 Stark. 183 (g); 4 Campb. 572, S. C.

Where a record is lost, an old copy has been allowed to be given in evidence, without proof of its being a true copy. Anon. 1 Ventr. 256; B. N. P. 228.

With respect to the proof of records before courts of criminal justice, as where a prisoner pleads autre fois acquit to an indictment, he may remove the record by certiorari into Chancery, and have it exemplified ; but it seems to be the usual practice for the clerk of assize or clerk of the peace to make up the record, and to attend with it without writ. 2 Russ. Cr. L. 720, (n); Phill. Ev. 622, 8th ed.

Proof by office copies, and copies by authorized officers, &c.] An office copy is not evidence of the original, if the latter be in another court. Thus office copies of depositions in chancery are evidence. in chancery, but not at common law, without examination with the roll. B. N. P. 229; 5 M. and S. 38. In a court of common law, an office copy has been held sufficient in the same court, and in the same cause, Dean v. Fulford, 2 Burr. 1179. And so it seems that an issue out of chancery may. be considered as a proceeding in that court, and an office copy would probably be held evidence there. See Highfield v. Peake, Moo. and Mal. 111 (h). There appears to be no reason for distinguishing between the effect of office copies in different causes in the same court, the principle of the admissibility being, that the court will give credit to the acts of its own officers, and accordingly it was held in one case, that an office copy

(a) Eng. Com. L. Rep. xxv. 440. (b) Id. xxv. 300. (c) Id. xv. 233. (d) Id. xvii. 177. (e) Id. xiv. 265. (f) Id. xv. 233. (g) Id. ii. 348. (h) Id. xxii. 264.

made *in another cause in the same court was admissible. Wightwick v. Banks, Forrest. 154.

Where there is a known officer, whose duty it is to deliver out copies which form part of the title of the parties receiving them, and whose duty is not performed till the copy is delivered, as in the case of the chirograph of a fine, and the inrolment of a deed, such copies are evidence, without proof of examination with the originals. See Appleton v. Lord Braybrooke, 6 M. and S. 37.

By the 5 & 6 Wm. 4, c. 82, the offices of chirographer, &c., are abolished, but the copies, &c., made by the officer of the C. P. now substituted, are by sect. 4 made as available in evidence as they would by law have been, if made by the former officers.

The certificate of the inrolment of a deed pursuant to the statute is a record, and cannot be averred against. Hopper's case, 3 Price, 495. A copy of a judgment purporting to be examined by the clerk of the treasury, (who is not intrusted to make copies) is not admissible without proof of examination with the original. B. N. P. 229.

A judge's order may be proved by the production of the order itself, or by an office copy of the rule by which it has been made a rule of court. Hill v. Halford, 4 Camp. 17.

Office copies of rules of court, being made out by officers of the court in the execution of their duty, are sufficient evidence without being proved to have been examined. Selby v. Harris, 1 Ld. Raym. 745; Duncan v. Scott, 1 Campb. 102. And printed copies of the rules of a court for the direction of its officers, printed by the direction of the court, are evidence without examination with the original. Dance v. Robson, Moo. and M. 294 (a).

Proof of Inquisitions.] Inquisitions post mortem and other private offices cannot be read in evidence without proof of the commission upon which they are founded, unless, as it seems, the inquisition be old (Vin. Ab. Ev. A. b. 42); but in cases of more general concern, as the minister's return to the commission in Henry the Eighth's time, to inquire into the value of livings, the commission is a thing of such public notoriety that it requires no proof. Per Hardw. C., in Sir H. Smithson's case, B. N. P. 228. An ancient extent of crown lands, found in the proper office, and purporting to have been taken by a steward of the king's lands, and following the directions of the statute 4 Ed. 1. will be presumed to have been taken under a competent authority, though the commission cannot be found. Rowe v. Brenton, 8 B. and C. 747 (b).

Proof of verdicts.] The mode of proving a verdict depends upon the purpose' for which it is produced (1). Where it is offered in evidence merely to prove that such a cause came on for trial, the postea with the verdict indorsed is sufficient. Pitton v. Walter, 1 Str. 162. So it is sufficient to introduce an account of what a witness, who is since dead, swore at

(1) Ridgely & al. v. Spencer, 2 Binn. 70. Richardson s Lessee v. Parsons, 1 Har. & J. 253. Green v. Stone, Ibid. 405. Mahony v. Ashton, 4 Har. & M'H. 295. Rugan v. Kennedy, 1 Overton, 94. Donaldson v. Jude, 4 Bibb, 60. Hinch v. Carratt, 1 Const. Rep. 471. Felter v. Mulliner, 2 Johns. 181.

(a) Eng. Com. Law Rep. xxii. 311. (b) Id. xv. 335.

the trial. Per Pratt, C. J., Id. So upon an indictment for perjury, committed by a witness in a *cause, the postea, with a minute by the officer, of the verdict having been given, is sufficient to prove that the cause came on for trial. Browne's case, Moo. and M. 314 (a). But without such minute, the nisi prius record is no evidence of the case having come on for trial. Per Lord Tenterden, Id. In London and Westminster, it is not the practice for the officer to indorse the postea itself as in the country, but the minute is indorsed on the jury pannel. Id.

But where it is necessary to prove not merely that a trial was had, but that a verdict was given, it must be shown that the verdict has been entered upon the record, and that judgment thereupon has also been entered on record, for otherwise it would not appear that the verdict had not been set aside or judgment arrested. Fisher v. Kitchenham, Willes, 368; Pitton v. Walter, 1 Str. 162; B. N. P. 243. In one case, indeed, Abbott, J., admitted the postea as evidence of the amount recovered by the verdict; Foster v. Compton, 2 Stark. 364 (b); and Lord Kenyon also ruled that it was sufficient proof to support a plea of set-off, to the extent of the verdict; Garland v. Schoones, 2 Esp. 648;, but these decisions appear to be questionable.

Where a writ is only inducement to the action, the taking out the writ may be proved without any copy of it, because, possibly it might not be returned, and then it is no record; but where the writ itself is the gist of the action, a copy of the writ on record must be proved in the same manner as any other record. B. N. P. 234.

Proof of affidavits made in causes.] In what manner an affidavit filed in the course of a cause is to be proved, does not appear to be well settled. In an action for a malicious prosecution, an examined copy has been admitted. Crook v. Dowling, 3 Dougl. 72 (c), but see Rees v. Bowen, M'Cl. and Y. 383. A distinction has been taken between cases where the copy is required to be proved in a civil suit, and where it forms the foundation of a criminal proceeding, as upon an indictment for perjury. In James's case, 1 Show. 327, Carth. 220, S. C., the defendant was convicted of perjury upon proof of a copy of an affidavit; it was urged that it was only a copy, and that there was no proof that it had been made by the defendant; but it appearing that it had been made use of by the defendant in the course of the cause, the court held it sufficient. This case was however doubted in Crook v. Dowling, 3 Dougl. 77 (d), where Lord Mansfield said that on indictments for perjury he thought the original should be produced. Buller, J., also observed that whatever identity is in question, the original must be produced. Id. 77. The same rule is laid down with regard to the proof of answers in chancery upon indictments for perjury. Vide post, p. 190. It may be doubted how far the distinction in question has any foundation in principle, the rules of evidence with regard to the proof of documents being the same in civil and in criminal cases; and the consequences of the evidence not being a correct test of the nature of the evidence.

*Proof of proceedings in equity.] A bill or answer in chan- [*190] cery, when produced in evidence for the purpose of showing that such (a) Eng. Com. L. Rep. xxii. 319. (b) Id. iii. 384. (c) ld. xxvi, 38. (d) Id.

proceedings have taken place, or for the purpose of proving the admissions made by the defendant in his answer, may be proved either by production of the original bill, or answer, or by an examined copy, with evidence of the identity of the parties. Hennell v. Lyon, 1 B. and A. 182; Ewer v. Ambrose, 4 B. and C. 25 (a). But a distinction is taken where the answer is offered in evidence in a criminal proceeding, as upon an indictment for perjury, in which case it has been said to be necessary, that the answer itself should be produced, and positive proof given by a witness acquainted with him, that the defendant was sworn to it. Chambers v. Robinson, B. N. P. 239; Lady Dartmouth v. Roberts, 16 East, 340. In order to prove that the answer was sworn by the defendant, it is sufficient to prove his signature to it, and that of the master in chancery, before whom it purports to be sworn. Benson's case, 2 Camp. 508; Morris's. case, B. N. P. 239; 2 Burr. 1189, S. C.

A decree in chancery may be proved by an exemplification, or by an examined copy, or by a decretal order in paper, with proof of the bill and answer, or without such proof, if the bill and answer be recited in the decretal order (1). B. N. P. 244. Com. Dig. Testm. (C. 1.) With regard to the proof of the previous proceedings, the correct rule appears to be, that where a party intends to avail himself of the contents of a decree, and not merely to prove an extrinsic collateral fact, (as that a decree was made by the court), he ought regularly to give in evidence the proceedings on which the decree is founded. Phill. Ev. 619, 8th ed. See Blower v. Hollis, 3 Tyr. 351, 1 Crom. and M. 393, S. C.

Proof of depositions.] The depositions of witnesses, who are since dead, may, when admissible, be proved by the judge's notes, or by notes taken by any other person who can swear to their accuracy, or the former evidence may be proved by any person who will swear from his memory to its having been given. Per Mansfield, C. J., Mayor of Doncaster v. Day, 3 Taunt. 262. Where a witness called to give such evidence cannot prove the words, but only the effect of them, he is inadmissible. Lord Palmerston's case, cited 4 T. R. 290; Ennis v. Dennisthorne, Phill. Ev. 354, 8th ed.

This it is conceived can only mean at the furthest, that he must be able to speak to the identical words of the former witness when it is essential that the very identical words should be known. Ibid. See post, tit. Perjury (2).

Where depositions in chancery are offered in evidence, merely for the purpose of proving a fact admitted in them, or of contradicting a witness, it is not necessary to give evidence of the bill and answer. Phill. Ev. 629, 8th ed. But where it is necessary to show that they were made in the course of a judicial proceeding, as upon an indictment for perjury in the deponent, proof of the bill and answer will be required. Where the suit is so ancient that no bill or answer can be found, the depositions may [*191] be read without *proof of them. Depositions taken by the command of Queen Elizabeth upon petition without bill and answer, were upon a solemn hearing in chancery allowed to be read. Lord Hundson v.

(1) Barbour v. Watts, 2 Marsh. 293. (2) See ante, p. 62, n.

(a) Eng. Com. L. Rep. x. 270.

Lady Arundell, Hob. 112, B. N. P. 240. So depositions taken in 1686, were allowed to be read without such proof; Byam v. Booth, 2 Price, 234; and answers to old interrogatories, (exhibited 1 Eliz.) have been read upon proof that the interrogatories were searched for and not found. Rowe v. Brenton, 8 B. and C. 765 (a). But in general depositions taken upon interrogatories under a commission, cannot be read without proof of the commission. Bayley v. Wylie, 6 Esp. 85.

Proof of proceedings in Bankruptcy.] Formerly proceedings on commissions of bankrupt were proved, either by producing the proceedings themselves duly enrolled, (6 Geo. 4, c. 16, s. 96,) or where the original instrument was filed in the office, or was officially in the custody of the secretary of the Lord Chancellor, by copies duly signed and attested. (6 Geo. 4, c. 16, s. 97.) Now by the 1 and 2 Wm. 4, c. 114, s. 1, the records of all commissions of bankrupt, and of all proceedings under the same theretofore entered of record, under the 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, or any other act, are removed into the Court of Bankruptcy, (established by the 1 and 2 Wm. 4, c. 56, and constituted a court of record,) and are to be kept as records of that court; and by the 1 and 2 Wm. 4, c. 114, s. 9, all proceedings in bankruptcy and copies thereof, purporting to be sealed with the seal of that Court, and all fiats and proceedings entered of record before the passing of that act, with the certificate thereon, purporting to be signed by the person appointed to enter proceedings in bankruptcy, or his deputy, shall be received as evidence.

Proof of proceedings of the insolvent courts.] By the 7 Geo. 4, c. 57, s. 19, a copy of the assignment of the insolvent's property to the provisional assignee, and of the counterpart of the assignment by the provisional assignee to the assignee subsequently appointed, made upon parchment, purporting to have the certificate of the provisional assignee, or his deputy appointed for that purpose, indorsed upon it, and sealed with the seal of the court, is evidence of such conveyance and assignment of such assignees in all courts, and before commissioners of bankrupt and justices. By s. 76, a copy of the petition, schedule, order of adjudication, and other orders and proceedings purporting to be signed by the officer having the custody of them, or his deputy, certifying the same to be a true copy, and sealed with the seal of the court is admissible in evidence in the same

manner.

The above provisions do not take away the right to produce the original proceedings in evidence. Northam v. Latouche, 4 C. & P. 140 (b).

Proof of judgments and proceedings of inferior courts.] The judgments and proceedings of inferior courts, not of record, may be proved by the minute book in which the proceedings are entered, *as in the [ *192 ] case of a judgment in the county court. Chandler v. Roberts, Peake Ev. 80, 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 (c).

(a) Eng. Com. L. Rep. xv. 335. (b) Id. xix. 314. (c) Id. x. 149.