document and that he intends to copy it for a proper purpose.1

When, in order to give the right of appeal, officials must make a record of their action, they may be compelled to do so by mandamus, and an official may be thus compelled to record a deed or file a paper,3 or to correct his records, or to affix a seal to a document. A public official may exercise reasonable discretion in making rules to be observed by those desiring to inspect the records of his office."

In respect to the records of a private corporation, the same general principles are applicable. Such records, while public so far as its officials and stockholders' are concerned, are private as regards other persons. A stranger having no interest in the corporation cannot obtain mandamus to compel an inspection of them. But a stockholder has a constitutional right to inspect the books of the corporation, though a refusal to permit him to do so is not ground for an action for damages; and a stockholder who is also a debtor to the corporation cannot obtain a mandamus to inspect its books as a stockholder to aid him in his capacity of debtor.10

1 Hayes v. White, 66 Me. 305; State v. Hoblitzelle, 85 Me. 620; Stockman v. Brooks, 27 Pac. Rep. 746; Diamond M. Co. v. Powers, 51 Mich. 145; O'Hara v. King, 52 Ill. 303; Cormack v. Walcott, 17 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cases, 309; State v. Rachac, 37 Minn. 372.

2 People v. Murray, 23 N. Y. S. 160; Bennett v. McCaffery, 28 Mo. App. 220; State v. Field, 37 id. 83; Warren Co. v. State, 15 Ind. 250.

Trinity v. Lane, 79 Tex. 643; United States v. Hall, 7 Mackey, 14; Willflange v. McCollom, 83 Ky. 361; People v. Collins, 7 Johns. 549; In re Goodell, 14 id. 325; Strong's Case, Kirby (Conn.), 345.

People v. Brooklyn, 7 N. Y. S. 327; State v. Clayton, 34 Mo. App. 563; Ellis v. Bristol, 2 Gray (Mass.), 370; Bower v. O'Brien, 2 Ind. 423; People v. Matterson, 17 Ill. 167.

5 Prescott v. Ganser, 34 Iowa, 175. See, also, Crew v. Saunders, 2 Str.

1005; Atherton v. Beard, 2 T. R. 610; Iasigi v. Brown, 1 Curt. C. C. 401.

6 Upton v. Catlin, 17 Colo. 546; State v. Long, 37 W. Va. 266; Atcheson v. Huebner, 90 Mich, 643.

7 State v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 29 Mo. App. 301; State v. Sportsman P. & C. Ass'n, 28 id. 326; People v. United States Merc. Rep., 20 Abb. N. C. 192; People v. Paton, 20 id. 195. But cf. Appeal of Emp. Pass. R. R. Co., 19 Atl. Rep. 629; 26 W. N. C. 26.

6 State v. Bank, 1 Rob. (La.) 470: State v. May, 106 Mo. 488; Bank v. Hilliard, 5 Cowen, 419; 6 id. 62; State v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 29 Mo. App. 301; Union Bank v. Knapp, 3 Pick. 96. Cf. United States v. Hull, 7 Mackey, 14.

9 Legendre v. New Orleans Brew. Co. (La., 1893), 12 S. Rep. 837.

10 Investment Co. v. Eldridge, 2 Pa. Dis. Ct. R. 394.

§ 142b. Proof of executive and legislative acts by documents. The extent to which the public acts, seals, statutes, etc., of the various departments of the supreme government will be noticed having been fully explained elsewhere in this work, no extended reference to the subject is necessary. When, however, it is deemed necessary to prove any public executive or other official act, it may be done prima facie by the production of a printed copy of a proclamation, or public notice or announcement, or by a newspaper, official gazette or other printed document containing an account thereof which was printed according to law under governmental control or authorization.2

The court will take judicial notice of the public statutory and common law prevalent in its own jurisdiction,3 though private statutes or resolutions must be proved. The custom of printing the legislative acts of congress and of the various state legislatures is now almost universal, and as the printing is done by persons under statutory authorization and subject to governmental control and supervision, no objection can be urged to admitting these printed statutes in evidence.

It is now the general rule, usually by judicial decision but frequently by express legislative enactment, that a book purporting to be printed by authority and to contain the statutory law may, if duly attested as prescribed by law, be read as the best evidence of any statutory law, public or private, domestic or foreign.

§ 142c. Proof of public non-judicial records.— The entries In public registers or books of public record are entitled to a

1 See post, §§ 240, 242.

2 Whiton v. Albany, etc. Co., 109 Mass. 24; Fulham v. Howe, 14 Atl. Rep. 652; 60 Vt. 351; Larten v. Gilliam, 2 Ill. 577; Young v. Bank, 4 Cranch, 388; People v. Wilson, 62 Hun, 618; Eld v. Gorham, 20 Conn. 8; Larkin v. Burlington, etc. Co. (Iowa, 1892), 52 N. W. Rep. 480; Clemens v. Myer, 44 La. 390; 10 S. Rep. 797; Lycett v. Wolff, 45 Mo. App. 489 (printed copy of census).

3 See § 242.

4 Watkins v. Holman, 16 Pet. 25; Pease v. Peck, 18 How. 595; Tennant v. Tennant, 110 Pa. St. 484; Falls v. United States Sav. S. & B. Co. (Ala., 1893), 13 S. Rep. 25; Leach v. Linde, 24 N. Y. S. 176; Chicago v. Tuite, 44 Ill. App. 535; Hawes v. State, 88 Ala. 37; Cochran v. Ward (Ind., 1892), 29 N. E. Rep. 795. Cf. Laidley v. Cummings, 83 Ky. 806; Fulham v. Howe, 60 Vt. 351.

high degree of credibility as evidence though unauthenticated in court by the oath of the party who made them or in whose custody the books are kept. The general notoriety of the matters to which such entries relate, the public and official character of the books and of those who keep them, the fact that the entries are made by an officer who is under oath, that they are required or authorized to be made by law, or else are made in the usual course of official duty without any present motive to misrepresent, combine to give the evidence obtained from such sources peculiar force and value.

To give an official character to a public record or register it is not essential that it should have been authorized or ordered to be kept by statute.' It is the duty, if not the right, of every official to keep a record of his public transactions. whenever such a practice is an appropriate and common mode of evidencing them. This record, whether required to be kept by statute or not, is a public record. The books themselves, being produced from the proper custody, should be received in evidence without authentication, unless it is affirmatively shown that they have been negligently or illegally kept.'

It is obvious, however, that the actual production of public records in court will be very inconvenient, if not impossible, on account of their bulky character and of the constant use to which they are subjected. So their proper and legal custodian is the party who has made the entries. Upon these grounds, at common law and now generally by statute, the contents of books of public record, such as the records of the

1 United States v. Cross, 20 D. C. 365; Grafton v. Reed, 34 W. Va. 172; Downing v. Diaz, 80 Tex. 436; 16 S. W. Rep. 49; Simmons v. Spratt, 20 Fla. 495. But cf. contra, Hatchett v. Conner, 30 Tex. 104; Jacobi v. Order of Germania, 26 N. Y. S. 318.

2 Succession of Short (La., 1894), 14 S. Rep. 184; Coleman v. Com., 25 Gratt. (Va.) 865; Kyburg v. Perkins, 6 Cal. 674; Miller v. Indianapolis, 123 Ind. 196; 24 N. E. Rep. 228; Burton v. Tuite, 80 Mich. 218; 44 N. W. Rep. 282.

5

3 Pulley v. Hilton, 12 Price, 625; Oglesby v. Forman, 77 Tex. 647: Baillie v. Jackson, 17 Eng. L. & Eq. 131.

4 Walker v. Wingfield, 18 Ves. 443; Loving v. Warren Co., 14 Bush (Kỵ.), 316; Sanger v. Merritt, 120 N. Y. 114; Chamberlain v. Baily, 101 Mass. 188; Butler v. L. Ins. Co., 45 Iowa, 93; Springs v. Schenck, 106 N. C. 153.

5"The carrying of original papers from one court to another is to be disapproved." Rogers v. Tillman, 72 Ga. 479.

navy' or treasury department, county records and parish registers, public assessment rolls, postoffice, custom-house and land-office records, registers of vital statistics, registers of deeds, of mechanics' liens and of leases of public lands, may be proved by an examined copy properly sworn to by the party making it, or by a transcript properly verified and certified by the official whose duty it is to keep the original."

If the form of the certificate is prescribed by statute, the legal requirements must be substantially complied with, though immaterial inaccuracies or informalities may be disregarded.12 Thus, where the official character of the certificate is apparent upon its face, it is not required that it shall state that it is a

true copy of an official document or record. Where by statute it is required that certain private writings must be recorded, they are then regarded as public records, and it is often enacted that such records or exemplified or certified copies thereof may be introduced as original evidence without further proof. A copy of a record of a conveyance made when deeds were required to be stamped is not inadmissible as evidence because it does not show that the original was stamped.❜ But a deed is not admissible without proof under such a statute where the fact in issue is the forgery of the original. § 143. Proof of foreign laws. As the courts refuse to take judicial notice of foreign laws it is always necessary to prove them as facts before they can be applied to the facts in issue. This is now customarily done in the case of a statute by reading it from a printed book or copy purporting to contain the statute in question, and duly attested as a true copy by the supreme authority of the foreign government, usually under its seal, or otherwise proved to have been published by or under proper authority or to have been received as proof of the law in the courts of the foreign state." Whether the foreign statute has been satisfactorily proved is a question for the jury alone; but where the proof of a foreign law consists wholly of documentary evidence, the construction and legal effect of this evidence are wholly within the exclusive province of the court." It has been held that a consul's certificate under

1 Darcy v. McCarthy, 35 Kan. 722; Collins v. Valleau (Iowa, 1889), 43 N. W. Rep. 284.

2 See ante, §§ 134-136; How. Stat. Mich., § 5685; Iowa Code, § 3702; Gen. Stat. Ind. 1881, § 462; Bradley v. Silsbee, 33 Mich. 328; Cox v. Jones, 52 Ga. 438. Cf. contra, as to a certificate of adoption, McCollister v. Yard (Iowa, 1894), 57 N. W. Rep. 447. 'Collins v. Valleau (Iowa, 1889), 43 N. W. Rep. 284.

426; Pierce v. Indseth, 106 U. S. 551; Spaulding v. Vincent, 24 Vt. 501; Church v. Hubbard, 2 Cranch, 238; Lincoln v. Battelle, 6 Wend. 475; Packard v. Hill, 2 id. 411; Charlotte v. Chouteau, 33 Mo. 194; Owen v. Boyle, 15 Me. 147.

7 Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. (U. S.) 400 (Code Civil of France); Gibson v. Manuf. Co., 144 Mass. 83; McCormick v. Garrett, 5 De G., M. & G. 278; Ufford v. Spaulding, 156 Mass. 65; Ken

4 People v. Swetland, 77 Mich. 33; nard v. Kennard, 63 N. H. 308; In

43 N. W. Rep. 779.

See post, § 242.

surance Co. v. Wright, 60 Vt. 522; Alexander v. Penn. etc. Co., 48 Ohio

"See $143a; Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. St. 623; Hawes v. State, 88 Ala. 37.