stock receipt to a person who employed the prisoner to purchase stock to that amount, and advanced the money, was holden sufficient evidence of an attempt to defraud, notwithstanding the belief of the party to whom it was uttered, that the prisoner had no such intention. R. v. Shepherd, R. & R. 169. So, where a man was indicted under the repealed statute 43 G. 3, c. 58, for setting fire to a mill, with intent to injure the occupiers, it was holden that the intent might be inferred from the act. R. v. Farrington, R. & R. 207. And upon an indictment for forgery, an intention to defraud the person who would have to pay the instrument if it were genuine, may be inferred, even though the instrument be so framed as not to impose upon him, and the intention to defraud be general, and not confined or in any way pointed to the person by whom, if genuine, the instrument would be paid. R. v. Mazagora, R. & R. 291: Reg. v. Hill, 2 Mood. C. C. 30; 8 C. & P. 274. Where a man has in possession a large quantity of counterfeit coin unaccounted for, it may be inferred that he procured it with intent to utter it, if there be no evidence that he was the maker. R. v. Fuller, R. &. R. 308. So, in every case, intention can be but matter of presumption arising either from the facts stated in the iudictment, or from extrinsic facts stated in evidence. See ante, p. 104. may also be necessary to observe, that the to be innocent, until the contrary be proved. Ald. 386; Sissons v. Dixon, 5 B. & C. 758. that "omnia præsumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta donec probetur in contrarium;" upon which ground it will be presumed, even in a case of murder, that a man who has acted in a public capacity or situation was duly appointed. R. v. Verelst, 3 Camp. 432; R. v. Gordon, 1 Leach, 315; Reg. v. Murphy, 8 C. & P. 297; Reg. v. Newton, 1 C. & K. 469. Although presumptive evidence must, from necessity, be admitted, yet in felony and treason it should be admitted cautiously. And Sir Matthew Hale, in particular, lays down two rules most prudent and necessary to be observed, in this respect: first, Never to convict a man for stealing the goods of a person unknown merely because he will give no account how he came by them unless an actual felony be proved of such goods; and secondly, Never to convict any person of murder or manslaughter, till at least the body be found-on account of two instances he mentions, where persons were executed for the murder of others who were then alive, although missing. 2 Hale, 290. It law presumes every man R. v. Twyning, 2 B. & *SECT. 3. [ *125 ] Written Evidence. 1. Records, 125. 2. Matters quasi of Record, 128. 3. Written Instruments of a Private Nature, 137. 1. Records. Public Statutes.]-PUBLIC STATUTES, the rules of the common law, and the general customs of the realm, are never required to be set forth in the pleadings, or proved at the trial: because the court are bound, ex officio, to take notice of them. And therefore, when the printed copy of of a public statute is produced at a trial, as is frequently the case, it is not to be deemed to be produced as evidence, but rather in aid of the memory of the court and jury. See Gilb. Ev. 10. By stat. 41 G. 3, c. 99, s. 9, the statutes of Ireland prior to the union, printed and published by the Queen's printer, shall be received as conclusive evidence in any court in Great Britain. Where the printed copy of a public statute was produced in proof of certain facts recited in the preamble, the court held that it was admissible evidence for that purpose. R. v. Sutton, 4 M. & Selw. 532. Private Statutes.]-Private statutes and particular customs must be set forth in pleading, and proved if put in issue. A private statute is proved by an examined copy of the parliament roll, Gilb. Ev., 12: and see R. v. Shaw, 12 East, 479, unless it be otherwise directed by the statute itself. And by the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 3, all copies of private and local and personal acts of parliament, not public acts, if purporting to be printed by the Queen's printers, shall be admitted as evidence thereof by all Courts, judges, justices, and others, without any proof being given that such copies were so printed. A private statute containing a clause that it shall be deemed and taken to be a public act, and shall be judicially noticed without being specially pleaded, must be proved in the regular manner, in order to make it evidence against strangers of the facts stated in it; Brett v. Beales, 1 M. & M. 421; but the printed copy is admissible in evidence, in the same manner as in the case of a public act properly so called. Ib.: Woodward v. Cotton, 1 C. M. & R. 44: Beaumont v. Mountain, 10 Bing. 404: 4 M. & Scott 177. Records of the Queen's Courts.]—A record is proved, either by producing the record itself, or by an exemplification of it under the great seal, which is itself a record, and needs no further proof; Gilb. Ev. 14: Leyfield's case, 10 Co. 93; or by an exemplification of it under the seal of the court (whether of a court of common law, or of one created by act of Parliament), Olive v. Gwin, 2 Sid. 146; Gilb. Ev. 19, 17; 10 Co. 93: and see Hardr. 120, and which also needs no further proof, Gilb. Ev. 19; or by an examined copy, 10 Co. 92, b: 2 Ro. Abr. 678; 1. 45: Hardr. 119, according to circumstances. Where matter of record is but mere inducement, and not the gist of the pleadings, it may be proved by an examined copy. Gilb. Ev. 26. This copy may be had from the officer in whose custody the [ *126] *record is; and the person who is to prove it at the trial must examine the copy whilst the officer reads the record. It is not necessary that the officer should also read the copy whilst the witness examines the record. Reid v. Marginson, 1 Camp. 469: Giles v. Hill, Id. 471, n.: Rolf v. Dart, 2 Taunt. 52. But where matter of record forms the gist of the pleading, it must be proved by the production of the record itself, or by an exemplification of it. If it be a record of the same court in which it is pleaded, the record itself must be produced; (see R. v. Shaw, R. & R. 526); if it be a record of another court, an exemplification (that is, a copy under seal) of it is sufficient. Where the record of an inferior court forms the gist of the pleading in the court of Queen's Bench, and it is to be proved accordingly by an exemplification, sue out a certiorari, either with the cursitor, or with the proper officer of the Queen's Bench, directed to the chief justice, judge, or officer of the inferior court in whose custody the record is supposed to be, requiring him to certify the record to the court of Queen's Bench; and thereupon an exemplification of the record, under the seal of the inferior court, will be transmitted to the court of Queen's Bench, to be there used as evidence. See the form, 6 Went. 24. But where a record of the court of Queen's Bench is to be proved in an inferior court, you must sue out a certiorari with the cursitor, directed to the chief-justice of the Queen's Beach, requiring him to certify the record to the court of Chancery; and the record being thereupon accordingly certified, an exemplification of it under the great seal is thence sent by mittimus to the inferior court, to be there used as evidence. See Gilb. Ev. 14, 15. So, where the record of a court of quarter sessions is pleaded in a court of oyer or terminer, or the converse, or where the record of one court of oyer and terminer is pleaded in another, the exemplification, in strictness, should in like manner be obtained upon certiorari; but I believe the general practice is, to apply simply to the clerk of the peace or clerk of assize, who will make it out for you accordingly, without writ, or will attend with the record itself at the trial. A record is very seldom the gist of pleading in criminal cases except ing on a plea of auterfois acquit, &c., or upon an indictment for a felony after a previous conviction; and in the former, it is almost always a record of the same court that is pleaded. The record upon an indictment for a subsequent felony is proved by the production of the record itself, if it be a record in the same court, or by an exemplification, if it be the record of another court, as above mentioned. Or, it may be proved in the manner provided by statute, thus: By statute 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 28, s. 11, upon an indictment for a subsequent felony, after a previous conviction for felony, a certificate containing the substance and effect only (omitting the formal part) of the indictment and conviction for the previous felony, purporting to be signed by the clerk of the court, or other officer having the custody of the records of the court where the offender was first convicted, or by the deputy of such clerk or officer, is, upon proof of identity, sufficient evidence of the first conviction, without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have signed the same. & 8 G. 4, c. 28, s. 11. (See post, B. II. Part V.) 173. 7 In all other cases except those provided for by statute, where a copy of a record is given in evidence, it must be a copy of the whole record; because the omission of part might have the effect of altering the *sense and import of the residue. Gilb. Ev. 23; 3 Inst. [ *127 ] Records are not complete until delivered into court on parchment; therefore, a minute book, from which an entry of the proceedings at sessions is made, and from which book the roll containing the record of such proceedings is subsequently made up, is not a record. R. v. Bellamy, R. & M. N. P. 171: R. v. Thring, 5 C. & P. 507. Thus, to prove a verdict, you must give in evidence a copy of the whole record, including the judgment; Bull. N. P. 234: Gilb. Ev. 37; for otherwise. it would not appear but that judgment had been arrested or a new trial granted; Bull. N. P. 234; Pitton v. Walter, 1 Str. 162; unless in the case of an issue out of Chancery, where no judgment is entered up. Bull. N. P. 234. But if it be required to prove merely that a certain trial was had, the nisi prius record, with the postea indorsed upon it, is sufficient evidence for this purpose; Fisher v. Kitchingman, Barnes, 449; and see Foster v. Compton, 2 Stark, 364; or if the postea be not drawn. up, it may be proved by the production of the nisi prius record, if the minute of the verdict be indorsed on the jury panel by the officer of the court. R. v. Brown, Moo. & M. 315; 8 B. & C. 341. If it be necessary to prove what a witness said upon a former trial, it may be read from the judge's notes, or proved upon oath from the notes or recollections of any person who was present at the time; Doncaster v. Day, 3 Taunt. 262; 12 Mod. 318; Gilb. Ev. 68, 69; but in order to let in such evidence, it must be first proved that the former trial took place; and this can be done only by giving in evidence an examined copy of the record, Gilb. Ev. 68, or the nisi prius record with the postea indorsed on it, as above mentioned. Pitton v. Walter, 1 Str. 162. In order to prove a writ, if it be the gist of the pleading, you must get it returned, and then procure and give in evidence an examined copy of it. But if it be matter of inducement merely, it is not necessary that it should be returned or proved by an examined copy; Gilb. Ev. 39; but the writ itself, if in your possession, may be given in evidence; or if in the possession of the other party, then, upon proving the service of a notice upon him to produce it, and that it has been returned and filed, but that it was in the other party's possession after the day on which it was returnable, you will be allowed to give a copy of it in evidence. Edmonstone v. Plaisted, 4 Esp. 160. See Knight v. Dawler, Hardr. 223: Wright v. Pindar, Alleyn, 18. Until the non-production is sufficiently accounted for, parol evidence of its contents is not admissible. Lester v. Jenkins, 8 B. & C. 339. A judgment of the House of Lords is proved by an examined copy of it from the minute book; Jones v. Randall, Cowp. 17; which may be had, upon application, at the office of the Clerk in Parliament. An allegation that judgment was "entered up" in an action, is proved by the production of the book from the judgment-office, in which the incipitur is entered. Reg. v. Gordon,, C. & Mar. 410. Convictions before justices of peace are proved by examined copies, which the clerk of the peace of the upper county will make out for you upon an application for that purpose. R. v. Gilkes, 8 B. & C. 439. And by stat. 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 29, s. 74, and 7 & 8 G. 4, c. 30, s. 40, and several other statutes (see the different titles, post, Book II.), copies of convictions for offences within those acts respectively, certified by the proper officer of the court, or proved to be true copies shall be sufficient evidence to prove a conviction of a former offence. To prove the passing of a fine, the chirograph is conclusive [128] evidence without further proof. Plowd. 110 b; Gilb. Ev. 24; Bull. N. P. 229; but if it be necessary to prove the proclamations, that must be done by an examined copy. Gilb. Ev. 25: Doe v. Bluck, 6 Taunt. 485. A common recovery is proved in the same manner as an ordinary judgment. See stat. 27 E). c. 9; 14 G. 2, c. 20, s. 4. To prove a deed which has been enrolled, the endorsement of the enrolment is evidence sufficient, without further proof of the deed; Gilt. Ev. 24, 96: Smartle v. Williams, 1 Salk. 280; and see Kinnersley . Orpe, 1 Doug. 56; 8 B. & C. 755; but if the deed be lost, it can be proved only by an examined copy of the enrolment. Gilb. Ev. 25; 3 Camp. 20. All this, however, must be understood of deeds only which need enrolment; for if any other deed be enrolled, (as, for instance, a bargain and sale for years, or the like), and be afterwards offered in evidence, |