were formerly proved, the printed journals not being evidence of them. Melville's (Ld.), case, 29 How. St. Tr. 683: R. v. Gordon, 2 Doug. 593. As to secondary proof of a private act, see Doe d. Bacon v. Brydges, 6 M. &. Gr.

282.

In searching for private acts (and they are sometimes very difficult to find), Vardon's Index to the Local and Personal aud Private Acts from 1798 to 1839, Bramwell's Analytical Table of the Private Statutes from 1727 to 1812, and the Index to the Statutes, Public and Private, published by the Select Committee on the Library of the House of Lords, from 1810 to 1859, will be found useful. The best collection of private acts is in the British Museum. There are also fair collections in the libraries of the Inner Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and the Incorporated Law Society.

The stat. 41 Geo. 3, c. 90, s. 9 (post, p. Î13), provides for the proof of Irish statutes passed prior to the Union.

Proof of Proclamations and Orders.

The provisions of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 3, ante, p. 99, have been extended by the Documentary Evidence Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 37), which, by sect. 2, provides that "prima facie evidence of any proclamation, order, or regulation issued before or after the passing of this act by her Majesty or by the Privy Council, also of any proclamation, order, or regulation issued before or after the passing of this act by or under the authority of any such department of the government or officer as is mentioned in the first column of the schedule hereto, may be given in all courts of justice and in all legal proceedings whatsoever, in all or any of the modes hereinafter mentioned: that is to say,

(1.) "By the production of a copy of the Gazette purporting to contain such proclamation, order, or regulation." See The Olivia, 1 Lush. 497, decided on 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 295.

(2.) "By the production of a copy of such proclamation, order, or regulation purporting to be printed by the Government printer." See R. v. Wallace, 14 W. R. 462; Č. C. R. Ir. This provision has been extended by the Documentary Evidence Act, 1882, (45 & 46 Vict. c. 9) s. 2, to a copy purporting to be printed under the superintendance or authority of her Majesty's Stationery Office." The production of such evidence is prima facie evidence of publication of the order. Huggins v. Ward, L. R., 8 Q. B. 521.

(3.) "By the production, in the case of any proclamation, order, or regulation issued by her Majesty or by the Privy Council, of a copy or extract purporting to be certified to be true by the clerk of the Privy Council, or by any one of the lords or others of the Privy Council; and in the case of any proclamation, order, or regulation issued by or under the authority of any of the said departments or officers, by the production of a copy or extract purporting to be certified to be true by the person or persons specified in the second column of the said schedule in connexion with such department and officer.

Any copy or extract made in pursuance of this act may be in print or in writing, or partly in print and partly in writing.

No proof shall be required of the handwriting or official position of any person certifying, in pursuance of this act, to the truth of any copy of or extract from any proclamation, order, or regulation.”

sury.

The Commissioners for executing the Any of the Commissioners for exeoffice of Lord High Admiral.

Secretaries of State.

cuting the office of Lord High Admiral, or either of the Secretaries to the said Commissioners. Any Secretary or Under Secretary of State.

Committee of Privy Council for Any member of the Committee of

Trade.

The Poor Law Board.

This schedule has been extended by The Education Department (33 & 34 Vict. c. 75, s. 83).

Privy Council for Trade or any
Secretary or Assistant Secretary of
the said Committee.
Any Commissioner of the Poor Law
Board or any Secretary or Assistant
Secretary of the said Board.”
subsequent acts, as follows:-

Any member of the Education
Department or any Secretary or
Assistant-Secretary thereof.

The Postmaster-General (33 & 34 Vict. Any Secretary or Assistant-Secc. 79, s. 21). retary of the Post Office.

The act applies to the Local Government Board appointed under 34 & 35 Vict. c. 70, in the same way as it previously applied to the Poor Law Board (s. 5); it has also been applied to any regulation made by the Secretary of State under the Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 14), s. 12; or the Prison Act, 1877 (40 & 41 Vict. c. 21), s. 51; and to proclamations, &c. by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; 45 & 46 Vict. c. 9, s. 4. See also the Salmon Fishery Act, 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 71), s. 64.

Proof of Letters Patent of the Crown.

Letters patent may be proved by production of them under the Great Seal; or by an examined copy of the original enrolment of them in the public records, ante, p. 92, or a copy thereof certified by the Master of the Rolls under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 94, ante, p. 93; or by an exemplification under the Great Seal, ante, p. 91. Letters patent for inventions are now sealed with the seal of the Patent Office, impressions of which shall be judicially noticed and received in evidence. 46 & 47 Vict. c. 57, ss. 12, 84.

Proof of Records and Judgments.

The proceedings of a court of record can be proved only by the record thereof; the record may be made up at any time when it becomes necessary to put it in evidence; Com. Dig. Record (A) (B); Kemp v. Neville, 10 C B., N. S. 523; 31 L. J., C. P. 158; Kelly v Morray, L. R. 1 C. P. 667. In the case of a judgment prior to the J. Acts upon an issue of nul tiel record the proof is by the production of the original record, or by the tenor of it duly certified under a writ of certiorari. In case of variance the court may amend under Rules, 1883, O. xxviii., r. 1, ante, p. 86. See Hunter v. Emanuel, 15 C. B. 290; 24 L. J., C. P. 16. Where the record is in the

custody of the Master of the Rolls it seems that a copy certified under the seal of the Record Office is, under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 94, ss. 12, 13, ante, p. 93, as admissible in evidence as the original record. And now see Rules, 1883, O. xxxvii. r. 4, ante, p. 92, as to office copies and observations thereon. A criminal record may, even in civil proceedings, be proved by a certified copy under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 13, ante, p. 96. Richardson v. Willis, L. R., 8 Ex. 69.

Where there is not an issue of nul tiel record, but it is necessary to prove a record in support of some allegation in the pleadings, the record is to be proved either by production of the original when complete, by an exemplification, ante, p. 91, or by an examined or other authenticated copy, ante, pp. 91, et seq.

Records of judgments of the superior courts at Westminster, &c.; prior to the J. Acts were not complete until entered on parchment and enrolled; B. N. P. 228; Glynn v. Thorpe, 1 B. & A. 153; and a copy of a judgment in paper, signed by the Master, was not evidence of the judgment, for it had not yet become permanent; B. N. P. 228; though such entry was sufficient to warrant execution. In Fagan v. Dawson, 4 M. & Gr. 711, the issue roll, not under the seal of the court, with a nolle pros, entered thereon against a co-defendant, was held insufficient proof of the nolle pros. It should seem that a regular entry on record was necessary. But where the pleadings did not allege any matter of record, but only averred the pendency of a judicial proceeding before the record is made up,-as that a trial was had, the fact might be proved by the production of the Nisi Prius record, or indictment, with the official minutes; and, in some cases, perhaps, by mere oral evidence. Pitton v. Walter, 1 Stra. 162; R. v. Browne, M. & M. 315; R. v. Newman, 2 Den. C. C. 390.

In the case of a judgment under the J. Acts it is provided by the Rules, 1883, O. xli., r. 1, that "Every judgment shall be entered by the proper officer in the book to be kept for the purpose. The party entering the judg ment shall deliver to the officer a copy of the whole of the pleadings in the cause." Forms of entering judgment are given in Appendix F. The pleadings will be filed by the officer, and under O. v., rr. 12, 13, a copy of the writ of summons will have previously been filed; and it is presumed by analogy to the former Chancery practice (vide post, p. 106, et seq.) that these documents, together with the judgment, now constitute the record, and that no enrolment is necessary. This record may in every case be proved by its production under a judge's order (vide post, p. 145) or under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 14 (ante, p. 96), by an examined or certified copy; or perhaps by an office copy under O. xxxvii. r. 4. See observations thereon, ante, p. 92.

It has been held that the minute book of the clerk of the peace is not enough to prove that an indictment was preferred; nor is the original indictment itself, though endorsed as a true bill; R. v. Smith, 8 B. & C. 341 ; per Patteson, J., Porter v. Cooper, 1 C. M. & R. 388 ; yet in both these cases, the allegation of the indictment was only introductory to the gist of the proceeding, which was a conspiracy to keep back a witness in one case, and an action on an agreement, after indictment found, in the other. Nor is the minute book in which the proceedings at sessions are entered, and from which the record is made up, evidence of the names of the justices in attendance at the trial of it. R. v. Bellamy, Ry. & M. 171. Where the record alleges an adjournment by A. and others, parol evidence may be given as to the justices actually present. S. C. The minutes of proceedings are evidence of them on a trial before the same court sitting under the same commission. R. v. Tooke, cited 8 B. & C. 343 ; R. v. Newman, supra. An

Records and Judgments.-Fines and Recoveries.

103

allegation that an appeal came on to be heard at the sessions must be proved by the production of the record regularly made up in parchment; R. v. Ward, 6 C. & P. 366; Accord. Giles v. Siney, infra; but where (as is usually the case) no record but the minute book is kept by the sessions, such book was admitted in evidence; R. v. Yeoveley, 8 Ad. & E. 806.

As to proof of a conviction or acquittal now see 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 13, ante, p. 96. And as to proof of conviction in order to discredit a witness, see C. L. P. Act, 1854, s. 25, cited post, Proof by witnesses, p. 173.

It is the duty of a justice of the peace to return all convictions before him to the Quarter Sessions to be filed among the records of that court; 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, s. 14; see Ex pte. Hayward, 3 B. & S. 546 ; 32 L. J., M. C. 89; and such conviction can be proved only by the production of the record thereof or an examined copy; Hartley v. Hindmarsh, L. R., 1 C. P. 553 ; Accord. Giles v. Siney, 13 W. R. 92, M. T. 1864, Q. B. In L. School Board v. Harvey, 4 Q. B. D. 451, an entry in the minute book of a summary conviction for non-compliance with a previous order was held to be evidence of such noncompliance sed quere. The point does not appear to have been argued in R. v. Hutchins, 5 Q. B. D. 353; 6 Id. 300, C. A. In Watson v. Little, 5 H. & N. 472; 29 L. J., Ex. 267, a bastardy order, made by two deceased magistrates, was admitted in evidence on proof of their handwriting, on the ground that it was an official minute of the proceedings made in discharge of their judicial duty; as to the purpose for which it was so admitted, vide post, p. 195.

A condemnation by any justice under the Customs Laws, may be proved by production of a certificate thereof purporting to be signed by the justice, or by an examined copy of the record of such condemnation certified by his clerk. 39 & 40 Vict. c. 36, s. 263.

Where an ancient record of a judgment has been lost, it may be proved to the jury by parol or other testimony; as where the rolls of a court of a manor of ancient demesne had been destroyed, an old copy of a recovery in it under the hand of the steward was admitted without other proof, the possession having long gone according to it. Green v. Proude, 1 Mod. 117; S. C., 1 Vent. 257. So the enrolment of the decree respecting London tithes under the 37 Hen. 8, c. 12, being lost, has been proved by user. S. C.; Macdougal v. Young, Ry. & M. 392.

On a question whether a decree in equity has been reversed by the House of Lords, a copy of the minutes of the judgment in the Journals is evidence; Jones v. Randall, Cowp. 17; and now see 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 3, ante, p. 100. But as a judgment of the House on error or appeal from the superior courts of common law, was entered of record, it would seem that in such case the minutes would not be sufficient. See also C. L. P. Act, 1852, ss. 155, 157. Under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 59), this distinction, however, is now abolished, and it seems that any judgment of the House given since 1875 (see J. Act, 1875, s. 2), may now be proved by a copy of the minutes in its Journals.

As to proof of judgments, &c., of inferior courts, vide post, p. 111.

Proof of Fines and Common Recoveries.

A common recovery is proved in the same manner as the record of a judgment in an adverse suit.

The chirograph or indenture of a fine, as formerly delivered by the chirographer, is the proper evidence of it. B. N. P. 229. But it has been held that the indorsement of proclamations on it is not evidence of them, because he has no official authority to deliver a copy of such indorsement. B. N. P. 230; Doe d. Hatch v. Bluck, 6 Taunt. 485. The original entry of the pro

clamations was usually filed with the note of the fine, and was in the custody of the chirographer, and this "note" is said to be the "principal erecordum,' from which others are amendable. 3 Leon. 183. Besides these records, the proceedings on a fine were formerly enrolled in the Court of Common Pleas under statutes 5 Hen. 4, c. 14, and 23 Eliz. c. 3; and it should seem, on principle, that examined copies of these enrolments of record when found, or office copies stamped with the seal of the Record Office (1 & 2 Vict. c. 94, ante, p. 93), are legitimate evidence. The foot or pes finis, is a third counterpart of the indentures made by the chirographer, and originally engrossed on the same parchment. The entry of the proclamations on this is official, and the proper custody of it was, until lately, that of the Custos brevium. The result appears to be that there are several authentic records of fines, which show exactly the same facts, viz., the date, parties, property, concord, and proclamations. It must, however, be remembered that the practice and form of levying fines have undergone variations at different periods. See generally, on the mode of recording fines, 5 Rep. 39 a., and 2nd Report of Deputy Keeper of Records, Appendix 1.

By 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 82, other officers were substituted for the chirographer, whose copies were made as available as the old ones, and all the records of fine (with a few recent exceptions) are now in the custody of the Master of the Rolls, under 1 & 2 Vict. c. 94. The 11 & 12 Vict. c. 70, enacted that all fines levied in the Common Pleas should be conclusively deemed to have been levied with proclamations, except where, at the passing of the act (31st of August, 1848), the land was actually enjoyed under a title inconsistent with such fine. The act was expressly designed to save the expense of other proof of proclamations. It is remarkable, however, that it proceeded on the false supposition that "all fines" had previously been levied with proclamations.

In the case of Welsh fines there is a special statute to facilitate the proof of them. See 4 Vict. c. 32, s. 2, and Loe d. Cadwalader v. Price, 16 M. & W. 603.

Proof of Verdicts.

When a verdict is offered as evidence of the truth of the facts found, the postea alone was not sufficient, but the judgment must also have been proved to show that it had not been arrested, nor a new trial granted; Pitton v. Walter, 1 Stra. 162; B. N. P. 234; except in the case of an issue, when no judgment was entered up; B. N. P. 234. But semb. the verdict should in that case have been shown to have been satisfactory by proof of the decree, or other adoption by the court. Ibid. See Robinson v. Duleep Singh, 11 Ch. D. 798, C. A. As to proof of the judgment, see ante, pp. 101, 102. The Nisi Prius record with the postea indorsed, or with minute of the verdict indorsed by the officer of the court, was sufficient where the only object is to show that the cause came on to be tried. Pitton v. Walter, supra, R. v. Browne, M. & M. 315. But, without such minute, the Nisi Prius record alone was no evidence of the trial. Per Lord Tenterden, C. J., Ibid.

Under Rules, 1883, O. xxxvi., r. 30, two copies of the pleadings in the action are delivered to the officer when the action is entered for trial, one of which is for the use of the judge at the trial; this delivery corresponds with the former delivery of the N. P. record (see O. xxvi. r. 1), and by r. 41, "the associate or master shall enter all such findings of fact as the judge may direct to be entered, and the directions, if any, of the judge as to judgment," in a book to be kept for the purpose. Under r. 42, where the judge directs any judgment to be entered for any party absolutely, judgment may