it must be proved in the ordinary way, by the subscribing witness. Gilb. Ev. 99: Page's Case, 5 Co. 54; Goodson v. Jones, Styles, 545: Smartle v. Williams, 1 Salk. 280.

Letters Patent.]-Letters patent may be given in evidence, without further proof; or they may be proved by exemplifications under the great seal. See 1 Saund. 189, n.

Matters quasi of Record.

Proceedings in Parliament.]—Entries in the journals of the House of Lords and House of Commons may be proved by examined copies from their minute books. Jones v. Randall, Cowp. 17; 2 Doug. 594; or by copies purporting to be printed by the printers to the Crown, or to either House of Parliament. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 3. The journals of the House of Lords have been holden evidence to prove not only an address of the Lords to the King, but the King's answer also. R. v. Holt, 5 T. R. 445. But the resolutions of either House, with a view to ulterior proceedings, are no evidence of the facts therein stated; as, for instance, when the House of Commons resolved that a plot against the government existed, the resolution was holden to be no evidence of the existence of such a plot. 4 St. Tr. 39.

Proceedings in Courts of Equity.]—The bill and answer may be proved by examined copies. Gilb. Ev. 56; Hennell v. Lyon, 1 B. & Ald. 182. Hodgkinson v. Willis, 3 Camp. 401; which may be obtained from the Six Clerk's Office, upon an application for that purpose. In order to prove the answer, you are obliged to give in evidence an examined copy of the bill as well as of the answer; Gilb. Ev. 55; but where it was proved by the proper officer that he had searched diligently in the office for the bill and could not find it, the court allowed the answer to be read without it. Ib. See Ewer v. Ambrose, 4 B. & C. 25. 8 B. & C. 765. There is one exception, however, to this, namely, that upon an indictment for perjury alleged to have been committed in an answer, the answer itself must be produced, and it must be proved either that the party was sworn to it, or that the name subscribed to it is his handwriting, and that the name subscribed to the jurat is the name and handwriting of a master or other person having authority for that purpose. R. v. Morris, 2 Bur. 1189; R. v. Benson, 2 Camp. 508. See R. v. Spencer, Ry. & M. N. P. 97. And the same as to depositions in equity. See, as to the ad*missibility of decrees in equity, Layborn v. Crisp, 4 M. & [ *129 ] W. 320: 8 C. & P. 397: Pin v. Currell, 6 M. & W. 234.

A decree in equity, if it remain in paper, may be proved by an examined copy, together with an examined copy of the bill and answer; but if it have been enrolled, it must be proved by an exemplification under the great seal, which requires only to be produced in evidence, without further proof.

Proceedings in Courts of Law, not being Records.]-Rules of court are proved by office copies; Selby v. Harris, 1 Ld. Raym. 745: Duncan v. Scott, 1 Camp. 102, 471, n.; it is not necessary to have them examined. A rule of court is evidence that the court have ordered as is therein stated; but it is not evidence of any matters in it which are the mere suggestions of the party who obtained it. Woodroffe v. Williams, 6 Taunt. 19.

A judge's order may be proved by the production of the order itself, or by an office copy of the rule by which it has been made a rule of court. Still v. Halford, 4 Camp. 17. And by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 2, all courts, judges, justices, masters in chancery, masters of courts, commissioners, judicially acting, and other judicial officers, are thenceforth to take judicial notice of the signature of any of the equity or common-law judges of the superior courts at Westminster, attached or appended to any decree, order, certificate, or other judicial or official document.

Affidavits, being admissions upon oath, are evidence as such against the parties who made them. Gilb. Ev. 51, 56: Harmer v. Davis, 7 Taunt, 577. When filed with the clerk of the rules in the Queen's Bench, or with the secondaries in the common Pleas, they may, it should seem, be proved by office copies; but if filed with any other officer, such as a filacer, the signer of the writs &c., they must be proved by examined copies, or produced. All other affidavits not filed can be proved only by production of the affidavits themselves, and by parol evidence of their having been sworn; Gilb. Ev. 56; or, if not proved to be sworn, yet perhaps they may be received as admissions of the deponents, upon proof of their hand-writing. See Gilb. Ev. 56. Upon an indictment for perjury in an affidavit, however, the affidavit must in all cases be produced, whether filed or not, and it must be proved in the same manner as an answer to a bill in equity under the same circumstances. R. v. James, 1 Show. 397: Crook v. Dowling, 3 Dougl. 75: Rees v. Bowen, M’Clel. & Y. 383. Where an affidavit purported to have been sworn before a public commissioner, but his commission was not proved, Patteson, J. held the affidavit to be admissible, and that proof of the commissioner's acting was sufficient. R. v. Howard, 1 M. & Rob. 187.

A cognovit filed in court may be proved by an examined copy, together with proof of the defendant's signature to the original. Scott v. Lewis, 7 C. & P. 349.

Proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Courts.]-The libel, answer, depositions, and sentence in the ecclesiastical courts, in matters within their jurisdiction, are proveable in the same manner as the bill, answer, depositions, and decree in equity. See ante, p. 128: Gilb. Ev. 66, 67: Com. Dig. Ev. (C. 3). Their sentence in matrimonial causes is in all cases evidence, and in all conclusive evidence, of the facts they establish, ex

cept in suits of jactitation. Duchess of Kingston's case, 11 St. Tr. 262; and see Clewes v. Bathurst, 2 Str. 960, 961; Hardw. 11, 18.

*The practice of the ecclesiastical courts may, it seems, [*130 ] be proved in the courts of common law by parol evidence. Beaurrain". Scott, 3 Camp. 388.

A copy of the probate of a will, under the seal of the ecclesiastical court, is sufficient evidence to prove a will of personal property, or that J. S. is the executor, or the like; and the seal of the court sufficiently authenticates it, without further proof. Gilb. Ev. 71; 1 Roll. Abr. 678: R. v. Nethersal, 4 T. R. 258: Hoe v. Nelthorpe, 3 Salk. 154: Bull. R. P. 46: and see Gordon v. Dyson, 1 B. & B. 219. The production of the original will, with the act of the ecclesiastical court, ordering probate, is sufficient evidence of the executor's title, without accounting for the nonproduction of the probate. Cox v. Allingham, 1 Jacob, 514. And where by the practice of an ecclesiastical court, no book was kept, but grants of probate were recorded by a minute indorsed on, or entered. at the foot of, the original will, and written by the officer of the court, it was held that the production of the will, with such minute on it, was sufficient. Doe d. Edwards v. Gunning, 2 Nev. & Per. 260: Doe d. Basset v. Mew, Id. 266. The copy of the probate is conclusive evidence in the above cases, that is, the other party shall not be permitted to allege that the will proved is not the last will and testament of the deceased. Gilb. Ev. 73: Chichester v. Phillips, T. Raym. 404-406: Noel v. Wells, Sid. 359; except upon an indictment for forging a will, in which the probate unrepealed is not conclusive evidence of the validity of the will, so as to bar the prosecution. R. v. Buttery, R. & R. 342; but the prosecutor may give in evidence that the probate is forged, or that it was obtained by surprise. Gilb. Ev. 73, 47: T. Raym. and 2 Sid., ubi supra. To prove a probate revoked, an entry of the revocation in the assignation book, in which all cases are officially entered, is good evidence. R. v. Ramsbottom, 1 Leach, 25, n.

Administration is proved by the production of the letters of administration, or by a certificate from the ecclesiastical court, that administration was granted; Bull. R. P. 246; or you may get a clerk from the Ecclesiastical Court to attend at the trial with the book of acts, containing the direction for letters of administration to be granted, and the surrogate's fiat for the same, ib.: Elden v. Keddle, 8 East, 187: and see Davis v. Williams, 13 East, 232.

Proceedings in the Court of Admiralty.]-The libel, answer, depositions, and sentence in the Admiralty Court are proved in the same manner as the bill, answer, deposition, and decree of a Court of equity. See Com. Dig. Evidence, (C. 1). The sentence is conclusive evidence of the facts it establishes, not only against those concerned in interest and

persons claiming under them, but also against strangers. Thus, a sentence condemning goods as captured from the enemy, is conclusive evidence that they were so captured. Sterling v. Vaughan, 2 Camp. 228.

Proceedings in Inferior Courts.]-Judgments in a court baron, county court, or other inferior court, may be proved by producing the books in which they are entered; or, it should seem, by examined copies. See Gilb. Ev. 74; Com. Dig. Ev. (C. 1).

The court rolls of a manor may be proved by examined copies; Gilb. Ev. 75; R. v. Hains, Comb. 337; 12 Mod. 24; or, it seems, by a copy under the steward's hand; Com. 128; 1 Keb. 576, 720; or you may get the steward or his deputy to produce them at the trial.

[ *131 ]

Gilb. Ev. 75.

See

*Proceedings on commisions of bankrupt were formerly proved either by producing the proceedings themselves duly enrolled, 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 91, or (if the original instrument in writing were filed in the office, or were officially in the possession of the Lord chancellor's secretary) by copies duly signed and attested, 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 97. But now the record of all commissions of bankrupt, and of all proceedings under the same, heretofore entered of record under the stat. 6 G. 4, c. 16 are removed into the Court of Bankruptcy, established by 1 & 2 W. 4, c. 56, and are kept as records of that court; and all proceedings in bankruptcy and copies thereof, purporting to be sealed with the seal of that court, are to be received as evidence. 2 & 3 W. 4, c. 114, s. 9. And by the stat. 5 & 6 Vict. c. 122, s. 25, in the event of the death of any witness deposing to the petitioning creditor's debt, trading, or act of bankruptcy, under any fiat in bankruptcy, his deposition, purporting to be sealed with the seal of the Court of Bankruptcy, or a copy thereof purporting to be so sealed, shall in all cases be receivable in evidence of the matters therein contained.

A judgment or other proceeding of the court for the relief of insolvent debtors, may be proved by the production of an office copy of it, under the seal of the court. By 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 46, a copy of any order under that act vesting the estate and effects of any prisoner in the provisional assignee, or of the appointment of the assignee or assignees of such estate and effects, made upon parchment, purporting to have the certificate of the provisional assignee, or his deputy appointed for that purpose, indorsed upon it, and sealed with the seal of the court, shall in all courts and places and without further proof, be recognised and received as sufficient evidence of such order and appointment having been made, and of the title of the provisional and other assignee or assignees under the same. And by the same statute, s. 105, a copy of the petition, vesting order, schedule order of adjudication, and other orders and proceedings, purporting to be signed by the officer, having the custody of them or his deputy, certi

fying the same to be a true copy and sealed with the seal of the court, is admissible in the same manner, without further proof of the same. See Neale v. Isaacs, 4 B. & C. 335; 6 D. & R. 484: Carpenter v. Waite, 3 Moore, 231; 3 B. & B. 625.

The informations and depositions of witnesses upon oath, before magistrates and coroners, in felonies and misdemeanors, (and which the magistrates and coroners are directed to put into writing and subscribe, and deliver to the officer of the court where the trial is to be, 7 G. 4, c. 64, ss. 2, 3, 4, 5), upon being produced at the trial, and proved to have been duly taken, may be given in evidence against the prisoner, if the person who made the depositions, &c., be dead, 1 Hale, 305; Bull. N. P. 245, or insane, (though the insanity be of a temporary nature, Reg. v. Marshall, C. & Mar. 147), R. v. Eriswell, 3 T. R. 720; or it appears satisfactorily to the court that he is kept out of the way by means of the procurement of the defendant; R. v. Harrison, 4 St. Tr. 492; R. v. Morley, Kel. 55; or, as it has been said, if he be sick, bedridden, or unable to travel. 1 Phil. Ev. 351; 1 Hale, 305; 2 Hale. 52: Reg. v. Wilshaw, C. & Mar. 144: but see 2 Stark. Ev. 487. But they cannot be thus read, if it merely appear that the witness is absent, and that the prosecutor has in vain used his endeavours to find him; Kel. 55; or that he is too ill to attend the assizes. R. v. Savage, 3 C. & P. 143. Nor can depositions be read upon an indictment for high treason. 5 & 6 Ed. 6; Fost. 337. *Depositions before magis- [ *132 ] trates, to be thus given in evidence, must be taken conformably with the statute, R. v. Smith, 2 Stark. 211, n. (a), and in the presence of the prisoner, so that he may have an opportunity of cross-examining the witness. R. v. Paine, 1 Salk. 281: R. v. Woodcock, 1 Leach, 500 Pyke v. Crouch, 1 Ld. Raym. 730: R. v. Dingler, 2 Leach, 561; 1 Str. 162; Bull. N. P. 243; 1 Holt, 599; and nothing should be returned as a deposition, unless the prisoner had an opportunity of knowing what was said, and of cross-examining the party making it. Reg. v. Arnold, 8 C. & P. 621. But where the depositions were not wholly taken in the presence of the prisoner, but the witness afterwards, in his presence, was re-sworn, and the depositions repeated, and signed, the judges held that they were, under these circumstances, admissible evidence; for the prisoner had then an opportunity of cross-examining the witness. R. v. Smith, R. & R. 339; 2 Stark. 208; 1 Holt, 614. In this respect there is a difference between depositions taken before a magistrate and before a coroner; for the latter are said to be evidence, even though the party accused be not present. Bull. N. P. 242: 1 Ph. Ev. 254, per Buller, J.: R. v. Eriswell, 3 T. R. 713. The reason given for this exception, is, that the coroner is an elective officer, appointed on behalf of the public to make inquiry of matters within his jurisdiction, who therefore is presumed to take the depositions fairly and impartially. Bull. N.