have been taken by any other person who will swear to their accuracy; or it may be proved by any person who can swear from memory. Per Mansfield, C. J., Doncaster, Mayor of, v. Day, 3 Taunt. 262; Strutt v. Bovingdon, 5 Esp. 56. The witness must be prepared to prove the words of the former witness, and not merely the supposed substance or effect of them. Ennis v. Donisthorne, 1 Phil. Ev. 219, 6th ed.; R. v. Jolliffe, 4 T. R. 285. As to when this evidence is admissible, see Effect of depositions and examinations in other suits, post, p. 189.

Proof of Proceedings in the Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Courts.

The minute book of the Consistory Court is said to have been admitted as evidence of a decree for alimony. Houliston v. Smyth, 2 C. & P. 25; semb. acc. Leake v. Westmeath, 2 M. & Rob. 396. And a sentence of separation à mensâ, &c., was admitted by Lord Kenyon dubitanter without proof of the libel. Stedman v. Gooch, 1 Esp. 3. So the sentence of an admiralty court was held evidence of a condemnation without producing the libel and answer, at least if not found, or not unusually filed with it. Per Trevor, J., in Wheeler v. Louth, Com. Dig. Testm. (C. 1). But it seems questionable whether a sentence in either of these courts is generally admissible without proof of the previous proceedings in the suit. In the Kingston's (Ds. of ) case, 20 How. Sta. Trí. 377, on objection taken to the reading of the sentence in a jactitation suit without the libel, allegations, and all other proceedings in it, they were all put in evidence. In Cleeve v. Att.-Gen., Somerset Sum. Ás. 1841, where defendant put in a suit for subtraction of tithe in order to disprove a modus, Rolfe, B., required that the depositions, which had been found and were produced with the rest of the proceedings by the registrar, should also be read. In Leake v. Westmeath, 2 M. & Rob. 394, Tindal, C. J., refused to admit a decree for alimony to be given in evidence without proof of all the prior proceedings,-namely, the libel, answer, and defensive allegations, and where a decree was affirmed on appeal to the Arches, his lordship required that the process of appeal should be duly proved by a transcript of the proceedings below, in order to make the decree of the superior court admissible; but he expressed an opinion that the depositions filed need not be produced. The action there was by the attorney of the defendant's wife, who had acted for her in the various proceedings in the matter of her divorce à mensû, &c., and her claim of alimony; and the evidence of the divorce was put in by the plaintiff in order to show that she was living apart justifiably, and so to fix defendant with liability. The plaintiff recovered a verdict subject to a case. holding seems to be, in part at least, at variance with Stedman v. Gooch, supra, and perhaps neither case can, under the circumstances, be taken as an authoritative decision. Tindal, C. J., treated the judgment of the ecclesiastical court on the same footing as a decree in Chancery in respect of the evidence of it. See Phillips v. Crawly, Freeman, 83, 84; Laybourn v. Crisp, 4 M. & W. 320, cited ante, p. 107.

This

By 20 & 21 Vict. c. 85, the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes was established, in which all jurisdiction in such causes was vested, and that of the Ecclesiastical Courts abolished, except as to granting marriage licences. By sect. 13, this court had a seal, and all decrees and orders, or copies thereof, sealed with it "shall be received in evidence." The language of this section differs from that of the Probate Court Act (20 & 21 Vict. c. 77), sect. 22 (post, p. 112), and does not expressly make the seal prove itself, though the courts are bound to notice that the court has a seal. But

Judgments in Inferior Courts.-Probate.

111 the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 1 (ante, p. 94), seems to render any proof of the seal unnecessary. The proceedings in this court were by petition, citation, and answer; and the decree was recorded in the court book, and may be proved either under the above clause, and, ut semble, by the usual proofs of entries in public books, as to which, vide ante, p. 91, et seq. The jurisdiction of this court has been transferred by the J. Act, 1873, s. 16, to the High Court of Justice, and is assigned by sect. 34 to the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division, but the old forms and proceedings are retained; J. Act. 1875, s. 18.

Proof of Judgments in Inferior Courts.

The judgment of a county court, court baron, or other inferior jurisdiction, may be proved by production of the book or rolls, containing the proceedings of the court from the proper custody; and if not made up in form, the minutes of the proceedings will be evidence or an examined copy of them. R. v. Hains, Comb. 337 ; 12 Vin. Ab. (A. b. 267); Hennell v. Lyon, 1 B. & A. 182; R. v. Smith, 8 B. & C. 341; Dawson v. Gregory, 7 Q. B. 756. But this rule does not extend to proceedings of the court of quarter sessions, on the crown side, which is a court of oyer and terminer, and is not an inferior court. R. v. Smith, supra. As to proof of convictions before justices, vide ante, pp. 102, 103. In proving the judgment of an inferior court, as the old county court, evidence should also be given of the proceedings previous to judgment. Com. Dig. Testm. (C. 1). See Fisher v. Lane, 2 W. Bl. 834; Thompson v. Blackhurst, 1 Nev. & M. 266.

By the County Courts Act, 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 111, the clerk's (Registrar's) book kept under the Act, or copies of entries in it, bearing the seal of the court, and purporting to be signed and certified as true copies by him, shall be admitted as evidence of the entries and proceedings referred to in them, and of the regularity of the proceedings, without any further proof. The clause does not seem to dispense with proof of the seal; but perhaps this is cured by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 1, ante, p. 94, or by 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 14, ante, p. 96. See further, Dews v. Riley, 11 C. B. 434; 20 L. J., C. P. 264; Harmer v. Bean, 3 Car. & K. 307.

Proof of Probates and Letters of Administration.

Where the title to personal property under a will is in question, the original will cannot, in general, be read in evidence; but the probate must be produced. R. v. Barnes, 1 Stark. 243; Pinney v. Pinney, 8 B. & C. 335; Pinney v. Hunt, 6 Ch. D. 98. The probate is sealed with the seal of the court, vide infra. But the probate is not the only evidence of the will: for the probate itself, as also letters of administration cum testamento, &c., are only certificates that the will has been proved, and other evidence of equal authority can always be obtained; thus the Act Book of the Ecclesiastical Court, containing an entry of the will having been proved and of probate granted to the executors therein named, is admissible evidence of executorship, without accounting for the non-production of the probate. Cox v. Allingham, Jacob, 514. An examined copy of the Act Book is also evidence since Act 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 14, ante, p. 96; Dorret v. Meux, 15 C. B. 142; 23 L. J., C. P. 221; and it was so before that Act; see Davis v. Williams, post, p. 112. And the original will with an indorsement or note at the foot of it by the surrogate and deputy registrar is primary evidence of probate, when no other record of it is kept. Doe d. Bassett v. Mew,

7 Ad. & E. 240. See also Gorton v. Dyson, 1 B. & B. 219, and Waite v. Gale, 2 D. & L. 925.

These cases are put on the ground that the record in the Ecclesiastical Court is primary evidence of the will, and so it would seem that no secondary evidence would be admissible until both the non-production of the probate and the non-production of any other record of the Ecclesiastical Court had been accounted for.

It was said by Holt, C. J., in Hoe v. Nelthrope, 3 Salk. 154; S. C.sub. nom. Hoe v. Nathorp, 1 Ld. Raym. 154, that the copy (of course, examined; of a probate of a will is good evidence, because the probate is an original taken by authority; but this view has not generally been adopted, though it is not altogether inconsistent with principle. Where the probate of a will is admissible in evidence under 20 & 21 Vict. c. 77, s. 64, post, p. 141, in proof of a devise of real estate, a copy stamped with any seal of the Court of Probate (or now of the Probate Division of the High Court, vide infra), is rendered equally admissible by the section.

If 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 Stra. 412. To prove the probate revoked, an entry of the revocation in the book of the Prerogative Court is good evidence where no other record is kept. Ramsbottom's case, 1 Leach, C. C. 4th ed., 25, n. (b). As to the authority of the probate, and the manner in which it may be impeached in evidence, see Effect of Probate, &c., post, p. 192.

Administration is proved by the production of the letters of administration, or of a certificate or exemplification thereof, granted by the Ecclesiastical Court; Kempton v. Cross, Cas. temp. Hardw. 108; B. N. P. 246; or, without producing the letters of administration, by the original book of acts recording the grant of the letters. Ibid. Elden v. Keddell, 8 East, 187. It is said that the seal of the Ecclesiastical Court proves itself, and Kempton v. Cross, supra, is cited in the text books for that purpose; but the case only shows that the act of the Prerogative Court under its seal will be credited by the courts of law; and not that the seal itself requires no proof. It would be a strong thing to require the courts to take notice of the seals of some hundreds of local and limited probate courts which existed in the kingdom. Vide ante, pp. 76, 77. An examined copy of the Act book, stating the grant of letters of administration to the defendant, is proof of his being administrator, without notice to produce the letters. Davis v. Williams, 13 East, 232. See further, Williams on Executors, Pt. v. Bk. 1, Ch. 1.

By the act for establishing the Court of Probate (20 & 21 Vict. c. 77), s. 22, seals were provided for the court: .e. for the principal and district registries, "and all probates, letters of administration, orders, and other instruments, and exemplifications and copies thereof respectively, purporting to be sealed with any seal of the Court of Probate, shall in all parts of the United Kingdom be received in evidence without further proof thereof." See also sect. 64, post, p. 141. The court was a court of record (sect. 23); and its jurisdiction has been transferred to the High Court of Justice, by the J. Act, 1873, s. 16, and is assigned by sect. 34 to the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division. See Pinney v. Hunt, 6 Ch. D. 98.

Proof of Court Rolls.

In order to prove the title of a copyholder, the court rolls may be produced without producing the stamped copy; Doe d. Bennington v. Hall, 16

Proceedings in Bankruptcy-Foreign Law.

113 East, 208; or they may be proved by examined copies; Doe d. Cawthorn v Mee, 4 B. & Ad. 617; Breeze v. Hawker, 14 Sim. 350; but by the Stamp Act, 1870, s. 81 (2), the entry on the court rolls of a surrender or grant is not available as evidence thereof, unless the surrender or grant, if made out of court, or the memorandum thereof, or the copy of court roll, if made in court, is duly stamped; but this is sufficiently proved by a certificate of the steward on the margin of the entry. See further post, sub tit., Stamps, Copyhold and customary estates, where the cases decided under the former Stamp Acts are collected. The title may also be proved by the stamped copy delivered and signed by the steward. Co. Litt. s. 75; Scriven, Copyh., 5th ed. 350, 351; Peake Evid. 94. And where an admittance is more than 30 years old, proof of the signature of the steward is unnecessary; Ely, Dean and Chapter of, v. Stewart, 2 Atk. 45; Rowe v. Brenton, 3 M. & Ry. 296; but see Somerset, Duke of, v. France, Fortescue, 43. Whether court rolls of a manor may be proved by a copy certified by the steward having them in his custody, under stat. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 14, ante, p. 96, is open to question. The rolls need not be signed by the steward. Bridger v. Huett, 2 F. & F. 35. A surrender and presentment may be proved by the draft of an entry, produced from the muniments of the manor, and the oral testimony of the foreman of the homage jury who made the presentment. Doe d. Priestley v. Calloway, 6 B. & C. 484. And such a draft is admissible though there may have been a subsequent regular enrolment. Ibid. 495. And if the original roll is put in, it may be shown to be incorrect by producing the minute of the steward, or by other evidence. Ibid. 494; Scriven, Copyh., 5th ed. 137, 138, 353. Where a surrender was made in 1774, and there was no record of it on the court rolls, the books of the manor containing a record of the admission, which recited the surrender, were received as evidence of the surrender. R. v. Thruscross, 1 Ad. & E. 126. As to proof of a recovery in a manor of ancient demesne, see Green v. Proude, 1 Ventr. 257, cited. ante, p. 103. A presentment in a manor book will not be rejected because part of it has been cut off, there being no ground for supposing the mutilation to be fraudulent. Evans v. Rees, 10 Ad. & E. 151.

Proof of Proceedings in Bankruptcy.

The proof of these proceedings will be found post, Part III., sub tit. Actions by Trustees of bankrupts.

Proof of Foreign Law.

The courts cannot take cognizance of the laws of foreign states: they must be proved as facts. Mostyn v. Fabrigas, Cowp. 174; Sussex Peerage case, 11 Cl. & F. 114-117. The laws of Scotland-Male v. Roberts, 3 Esp. 163; Woodham v. Edwardes, 5 Ad. & E. 771; R. v. Povey, post, p. 114; of the Channel Islands; Brenan's case, 10 Q. B. 492, 498; and of the colonies; Astley v. Fisher, 6 C. B. 572; Wey v. Yally, 6 Mod. 194; The Peerless, Lush. 103; 29 L. J., P. M. & A. 49-fall within this rule; though in an appeal from a colonial court, the judicial committee of privy council must take judicial cognizance of the laws of the colony. But as the laws of Ireland are substantially the same as those of England they would probably now be noticed. See Reynolds v. Fenton, 3 C. B. 187, 191; per Maule, J., explaining Ferguson v. Mahon, 11 Ad. & E. 179. By stat. 41 Geo. 3, c. 90, s. 9, the copy of the statutes of the kingdom of Ireland, made

VOL. I.

I

by the parliament there, printed by the king's printer, shall be received as conclusive evidence of the statutes enacted by the parliament of Ireland, prior to the union, in any court of civil or criminal jurisdiction in Great Britain. As to the manner of proving the ancient Welsh laws, see Att.Gen. v. Jones, 2 H. & C. 347, 354, n. ; 33 L. J. Ex. 249, 257, n.

It was formerly laid down that the written law of a foreign state should be proved by a copy duly authenticated. Clegg v. Levy, 3 Camp. 166; Picton's case, 30 How. St. Tr. 491. But this doctrine has been overruled on a trial at bar, in which oral evidence of a foreign advocate was admitted to prove a decree of the National Assembly of France, 1789. De Bode's case, 8 Q. B. 208. And in the Sussex Peerage case, ante, p. 113, it was held that the law is properly receivable only from such oral evidence, although a witness may refresh his own memory from the written law. A French vice-consul has been admitted to prove the French written law of marriage by referring to a printed edition of the Cinq Codes, and by his own testimony: Lacon v. Higgins, 3 Stark. 178; S. C. Dowl. N. P. 38; and a practising advocate attached to the consulate was admitted to prove the French law of bills of exchange. Trimbey v. Vignier, 1 N. C. 151.

Foreign law should be proved by witnesses of competent skill; thus a tobacconist was rejected as a witness of the law of Scotland respecting marriage, cited in R. v. Brampton, 10 East, 287. See also R. v. Povey, Dears. 32; 22 L. J., M. C. 19. But the Jewish marriage law has been allowed ex necessitate to be proved by persons in trade, and of inferior station. Lindo v. Belisario, 1 Hagg. Con. Rep. 216. And it has since been held that experience as a legal practitioner was in certain cases not necessary, and that a witness who was formerly a merchant and stock-broker in Belgium might be received as competent to inform the court on the law or custom of bills of exchange there; this was decided on the ground that the witness, from the course of his business had necessarily become acquainted with the Belgian law of bills of exchange. Vanderdonckt v. Thellusson, 8 C. B. 812. But a jurisconsult, attached to the Prussian consulate, who had no other qualification than having studied law at Leipsig, was held incompetent to prove the stamp law of Cologne on the ground that he had had no practical acquaintance with the law in question. Bristow v. Sequeville, 5 Exch. 275. So the evidence of an English lawyer who has studied the foreign law here is not admissible. In re Bonelli, 1 P. D. 69. An instrument purporting to be a divorce under the seal of the synagogue at Leghorn, is not admissible without previous proof of the law of the country; Ganer v. Lanesborough, Ly., Peake, 17; but Ld. Kenyon permitted the party divorced to give oral evidence of her divorce at Leghorn, according to the ceremony and custom of the Jews there. Ibid. A Roman Catholic vicarapostolic in England has been admitted to prove the modern marriage law of the church of Rome in Italy. Sussex Peerage case, 11 Cl. & F. 114, 117, et seq. The competency of the witness to prove foreign law is a question for the court, and the only general rule that can be collected from the reported cases is, that the witness must from his profession or business have had peculiar means of becoming acquainted with that branch of law which he is called to prove; see Vanderdonckt v. Thellusson, supra. The evidence of a Persian ambassador has been admitted to prove the Persian law of inheritance. In re Dost Aly, 6 P. D. 6. And the certificate of a foreign ambassador under the seal of the legation was held sufficient evidence of the law of the country by which he was accredited. In re Klingemann, 3 Sw. & T. 18; 32 L. J., P. M. & A. 16.

Now by 24 & 25 Vict. c. 11, the High Court (see J. Act, 1873, s. 16), may remit a case for the opinion of a court in any foreign state with which