tain hour; that a railroad is a common carrier, or that its operation on a city street increases traffic; that a mule is a domestic animal; that a fracture of the skull may produce death; the length of the period of gestation; that no man was ever known to be nine feet high, and that tobacco is neither a drug nor medicine." 4 5 Courts will not take notice of facts to be found only in encyclopedias and similar works or of facts which do not form a part of the general stock of scientific information. Thus, the courts will not take notice that each concentric circle in a cross-section of timber marks a year's growth; that kerosene is refined coal oil; 10 that oleomargarine is or is not unwholesome," or that a certain crime is physically impossible of commission.12 § 242. Common and statutory law-Municipal ordinances and local and foreign laws.-The rules, maxims and principles of the common law which prevail in any jurisdiction need not be shown in court.13 of cider or ale after it has fermented. State v. Biddle, 54 N. H. 379. And whether blackberry wine is a spirituous liquor is for the jury to decide. State v. Lowry, 74 N. C. 121. So the rules of the law properly have ruled that the sale of these articles was not a sale of drugs or medicine. The court has judicial knowledge of the meaning of common words, and may well rule that 1 Caldwell v. Richmond, etc. Co., guns and pistols are not drugs or 89 Ga. 550. medicine, and may exclude the opin 2 Bookman v. N. Y. El. R. R. Co., ions of witnesses who offer to testify 137 N. Y. 302. 3 State v. Gould, 26 W. Va. 258. 6 Hunter v. 615. that they are." 8 Engraving Co. v. Hoke, 30 Fed. Rep. 444; Culverhouse v. Wertz, 32 Mo. App. 24; Fowler v. Park, 48 Railway Co., 116 N. Y. Fed. Rep. 789; Meely Hee v. Hudson, 21 S. W. Rep. 175. 7 Com. v. Marzynski, 149 Mass. 68. In this case the court said: "Ordinarily, whether a substance or article comes within a given description is a question of fact; but some facts are so obvious and familiar that the law takes notice of them and receives them into its domain. If the proof had been that the shop had been kept open for the purpose of selling guns or pistols, it would hardly be contended that the judge might not 9 Patterson Bland, 69. V. McCausland, 3 10 Bennett v. Insurance Co., 8 Daly, 471. 11 North. Mfg. Co. v. Chambers, 58 Mich. 381. 12 Ausman v. Veal, 10 Ind. 355. 13 St. Louis Ry. Co. v. Weaver, 35 Kan. 412; Wilson v. Bumstead, 12 Neb. 1. “The authority of the maxims of the common laws rests upon their general acceptance, and this 6 of nations regulating the intercourse of civilized nations need not be shown,' as the courts of all civilized countries will take notice of the principles of that law. So it is well settled that notice will be taken of the law merchant' and of the customs of persons engaged in particular avocations, such as merchants; railway companies," and other common carriers; of bankers, mercantile agencies, physicians, conveyancers 10 and public officials." So a court will take judicial notice of the official character, signature and seal of a foreign or domestic notary public attached to a protest for non-payment or other instrument.12 Foreign customs forming no part of the law merchant must be proved as matter of fact.13 In America the federal courts will take notice judicially not only of the constitution and public statutes of the United States, but of all state constitutions and statutes applicable to cases pending in them,15 as well as of the decisions of the state connotes their general notoriety. Thus, as the courts cannot refuse to know what is presumed to be within the knowledge of all men - for every one is presumed to know the law it is said that the doctrines, axioms and principles of the common law are deposited in the breast of the judges, to be applied to the facts which are properly ascertained or proved before them." 3 Bl. Com. 379. 11 Bl. Com. 75, 76, 85; Edie v. E. I. Co., 2 Burr. 1226; The Scotia, 14 Wall. 170. ? Croudson v. Leonard, 4 Cranch, 434; Ocean Insurance Co. v. Francis, 2 Wend. 64. Munn v. Burch, 25 Ill. 35; Wiggin v. Chicago, 5 Mo. App. 347. 4 Almy v. Simonson, 52 Hun, 535; Bank v. Fitzhugh, 1 Har. & G. (Md.) 239; Gibson v. Stevens, 9 How. (U. S.) 384; Watt v. Hoch, 25 Pa. St. 411; Consequa v. Willings, 1 Pet. 225; Jewell v. Center, 25 Ala. 498; Reed v. Wilson, 41 N. J. L. 29. 5 Lane v. L. E. R. Co., 23 N. Y. Weekly Dig. 267; Isaacson v. N. Y. Fleming v. McClure, 1 Brev. 428; 8 Eaton v. Avery, 83 N. Y. 31. 9 Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cranch, 335; Chamoise v. Fowler, 3 Wend. 173. 10 Doe v. Hilder, 2 B. & Ald. 793. 11 Bigelow v. Chatterton, 57 Fed. Rep. 614. 12 Pierce v. Indseth, 106 U. S. 546; Denmead v. Maack, 2 MacArthur, 475; United States v. Libby, 1 W. & M. 221, Stoddard v. Sloan, 65 Iowa, 680. 13 Dutch, etc. Co. v. Mooney, 12 Cal. 585; Munn v. Burch, 25 Ill. 21; Turner v. Fish, 28 Miss. 306; Lewis v. McClure, 8 Oreg. 273. 14 Kessel v. Albetis, 56 Barb. 362; Murphy v. Hendricks, 57 Ind. 593; Morris v. Davidson, 49 Ga. 361; Laidley v. Cummings, 83 Ky. 607; Mims v. Schwarz, 37 Tex. 13. 15 Hinde v. Vattier, 5 Pet. 398; courts construing them. On the other hand, the federal constitutions and statutes need never be proved in the state courts, as they are bound to take judicial notice of their enactment and contents, as well as of the constitutions and public statutes of their own state.3 In conformity with the rule that courts will take judicial notice of public statutes, municipal charters and acts incorporating public or quasi-public corporations need not be shown." Jones v. Hays, 4 McLean, 521; Course v. Head, 4 Dall. 22; Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152; Covington B. Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How. (U. S.) 227; Knower v. Haines, 31 Fed. Rep. 513; Fourth Nat. Bank v. Francklyn, 120 U. S. 751; Jasper v. Porter, 2 McLean, 579; Carpenter v. Dexter, 8 Wall. 515; New Jersey v. Yard, 95 U. S. 112; Gormley v. Bunyan, 138 U. S. 623; Gordon v. Hobart, 2 Sumn. 401; Newberry v. Robinson, 36 Fed. Rep. 841; Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S. 4. The federal courts will notice state laws only so far as the state courts notice them and as far they are called upon to administer them. If the state court is required to notice local or private laws, a federal court in that state must also do so. Abb. Brief on Facts, § 383, citing Beaty v. Knowler, 4 Pet. (U. S.) 152; Renaud v. Abbott, 116 U. S. 277. "The circuit courts of the United States are created by congress, not for the purpose of administering the local law of a single state alone, but to administer the laws of all the states in the Union in cases to which they respectively apply. The judicial power conferred on the general government by the constitution extends to many cases arising under the laws of the different states, and this court is called upon, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, constantly to take notice of and administer the jurisprudence of all the states. That jurisprudence, then, is in no sense a foreign jurisprudence to be proved in the courts of the United States by the ordinary modes of proof by which the laws of a foreign country are to be established, but it is to be judicially taken notice of in the same manner as the laws of the United States are taken notice of by these courts." The court, by Story, J., in Owings v. Hull, 9 Pet. (U. S.) 624. 1 Cheever v. Wilson, 9 Wall. 108; Pennington v. Gibson, 16 How. 65; Evans v. Railroad Co., 5 Phila. 512. 2 Morris v. Davidson, 49 Ga. 331; Caughran v. Gilman, 81 Iowa. 442; 46 N. W. Rep. 1005; Laidley v. Cummings, 83 Ky. 006; Baylis v. Chubb, 16 Gratt. 284; Wetumpka v. Wharf Co., 63 Ala. 611; Dwyer v. Brenham, 65 Tex. 526; Durch v. Chippewa, 60 Wis. 227; Bird v. Com., 21 Gratt. (Va.) 800; State v. Cooper, 101 N. C. 684. 3 Harpending v. Church, 16 Pet. 455; Van Swarton v. Com., 24 Pa. St. 131; Bowen v. Missouri P. etc. Co. (Mo., 1893), 24 S. W. Rep. 436; Lane v. Harris, 16 Ga. 217; Berliner v. Waterloo, 14 Wis. 378; State v. Bailey, 16 Ind. 46; Binkert v. Jensen, 94 Ill. 283. 4 Albritten v. Huntsville, 60 Ala, 486; Briggs v. Whipple, 7 Vt. 15; Washington v. Finley, 5 Eng. (Ark.) 423; State V. Murfreesboro, 11 The same rule is also applicable to statutes amending or repealing a city charter1 or other public statute.2 The rule that public laws will be judicially noticed is not violated by the fact that municipal ordinances and resolutions. must, independently of statute, be pleaded and proved, as these municipal enactments, like the by-laws of private corporations, are not public statutes within the meaning of the rule. But municipal courts will take judicial notice of ordinances." Courts will not take notice of private statutes affecting an individual or small number of persons unless authorized by statute to do so; for example, of a special act creating a private Humph. (Tenn.) 217; Payne v. Treadwell, 16 Cal. 220; Stier v. Oscaloosa, 41 Iowa, 353: Selma v. Perkins, 68 Ala. 145; Potwin v. Johnson, 108 Ill. 70 Solomon v. Hughes, 24 Kan. 211; State v. Sherman, 42 Mo. 210; Durch v. Chippewa, 60 Wis. 297; Dwyer v. Brenham, 65 Tex. 529; Pasadena v. Stimson, 27 Pac. Rep. 604; State v. Tosney, 26 Minn. 262; Smith v Janesville, 52 Wis. 680; Burpenning v. Railroad Co., 48 N. W. Rep. 444; Many v. Titcomb, 19 Ind. 136. New Jersey v. Yard. 95 U. S. 112; State v. Bergen, 34 N. J. L. 439; Swain v. Comstock, 18 Wis. 463; Bow v. Allentown, 34 N. H. 351; Railroad v. Chenoa, 43 Ill. 209; Virginia City v. Manufacturing Co., 2 Nev. 86: Railroad v. Plumas Co., 37 Cal. 354. If the city has been incorporated under a general law its incorporation must be shown. Temple v. State, 15 Tex. App. 405; Morgan v. Atlanta, 77 Ga. 662; Ingle v. Jones, 43 Iowa, 286. Contra, House v. Greensburg, 93 Ind. 533. 2 Belmont v. Warrell, 69 Me. 314; Parent v. Walmsley's Adm'r, 20 Ind. 82. 'The courts do not notice judicially the by-laws of a private corporation (Benev. Soc. v. Phillips, 36 Mich. 22), and the same rule is recognized in the case of the private rules for the government of the members of a board of brokers. Goldsmith v. Sawyer, 46 Cal. 209. 4 Garvin v. Wells, 8 Iowa, 286; Central Bank v. Baltimore, 20 Atl. Rep. 444; Garland v. Denver, 11 Colo. 534; State v. Mayor, 11 Humph. 217; Young v. Bank, 4 Cranch, 384; Porter v. Waring, 69 N. Y. 250; Clapp v. Hartford, 35 Conn. 66; Prell v. McDonald, 7 Kan. 426; Lucker v. Com., 4 Bush (Ky.), 440; Ingle v. Jones, 43 Iowa, 286; Stier v. Oscaloosa, 41 Iowa, 353; Case v. Mobile, 30 Ala. 538; Clarke v. Bank, 10 Ark. 516; Pettit v. May, 34 Wis. 666; People v. Potter, 35 Cal. 110; Winona v. Burke, 23 Minn. 254; Briggs v. Whipple, 7 Vt. 15; Beaty v. Knowler, 4 Pet. 152. 5 Moundsville v. Velton, 13 S. E. Rep. 373; 35 W. Va. 217; Anderson v. O'Donnell, 29 S. C. 355. 6 Hart v. Balt. etc. Co., 6 W. Va. 336; Somervill v. Winbush, 7 Gratt. (Va.) 205; Bixler v. Barker, 3 Bush (Ky.), 166; Morgan v. Cree, 46 Vt. 786; Collier v. Society, 8 B. Mon. 68; Halbert v. Skyler, 1 A. K. Marsh, 368. corporation, or one relating exclusively to the settlement of an estate. Such private acts relating to a few persons are not matters of general public knowledge, and are regarded somewhat as quasi-contracts between the state and those persons specially interested, with the terms of which the court is ignorant until it shall have ascertained them from the evidence.3 So courts will not take notice of foreign laws, either statute or common, and they will usually have to be alleged and proved as matters of fact. The states and territories of the United 1 Danville, etc. Co. v. State, 16 Ind. 456; Kelly v. Railroad Co., 58 Ala. 489; Holloway v. Railroad Co., 23 Tex. 465; Jackson v. Plumb, 8 Johns. 295; Peoria, etc. Co. v. Scott, 116 Ill. 401. Sometimes proof of corporation charters is dispensed with by statute unless incorporation is the fact in issue. Star Brick Co. v. Redsdale, 36 N. J. L. 229. So when organized under general laws the courts will notice the latter, but not the incorporation under it. Covington Draw. Co. v. Shepherd, 20 How. (U. S.) 227; Danville, etc. Co. v. State, 16 Ind. 456. 4 Millard v. Truax (Mich., 1888), 41 N. W. Rep. 328; Pickering v. Fisk, 6 Vt. 102; Liverpool, etc. G. W. Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 464 (English statute); Spellier, etc. Co. v. Geiger, 23 Atl. Rep. 547; 147 Pa. St. 399; Cont. Bank v. Wells, 73 Wis. 352; Leatherwood v. Sullivan, 81 Ala. 458; Dainese v. Hall, 91 U. S. 13; Bouldin v. Phelps, 30 Fed. Rep. 547; Polk v. Butterfield, 9 Colo. 325; Taylor v. Boardman, 25 Vt. 581; Ludlow v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. 95 (foreign revenue laws); Insurance Co. v. Forchheimer, 86 Ala. 541; St. Louis v. San Francisco R. R. Co., 35 2 Leland v. Wilkinson, 6 Pet. 317; Kan. 426; Mobile, etc. R. R. Co. v. Ellis v. Eastman, 32 Cal. 447. 3 Collier v. Society, 8 B. Mon. 68; Leland v. Wilkinson, 6 Pet. 317; State v. Pose, 33 La. Ann. 932; Banks v. Gruben, 87 Pa. St. 468; Perdicaris v. Trenton, etc. Bridge Co., 5 Dutch. (N. J.) 367; Broad Street Hotel Co. v. Weaver, 57 Ala. 26; Allegheny v. Nelson, 25 Pa. St. 332. "The courts of justice are bound, ex officio, to take notice of public acts without their being pleaded, for they are part of the general law of the land, which all persons, and particularly the judges, are presumed to know; but they are not bound to take notice of private acts unless they be specially pleaded and shown in proof by the party claiming the effect of them." 1 Kent's Com. 430. Whitney, 39 Ala. 468; Walsh v. Dart, 12 Wis. 635; Cavender v. Guild, 4 Cal. 250; Anderson v. Anderson, 23 Tex. 639; Talbot v. Seaman, 1 Cranch (U. S.), 38; Ennis v. Smith, 14 How. (U. S.) 400; Chumasero v. Gilbert, 24 Ill. 293; Haines v. Hanrahan, 105 Mass. 480; Cutler v. Wright, 22 N. Y. 472. In Liverpool Steam Co. v. Phenix Ins. Co., 129 U. S. 444, the court said: "The law of Great Britain, since the Declaration of Independence, is the law of a foreign country, and like any other foreign law is a matter of fact which the courts of this country cannot be presumed to be acquainted with or to have judicial knowledge of, unless it is pleaded and proved. The rule that the courts of one country can |