Ante,

(A. b. 26), pl. 19.

feized and carried into port by a belligerent power for the purpofe of fearch. Garrells & al. v. Kenfington, 8 Term Rep. B. R. 230.

9. But when it appears doubtful on the face of the fentence of condemnation, the grounds of it being ftated therein, whether it was pronounced upon the ground of the fhip not being neutral, or upon fome other fpecific ground, ex. gr. a fuppreffion or subtraction of papers; there the fentence is not conclufive evidence against a warranty of neutrality; but the party shall be let into evidence that the specific ground was really the cause of the condemnation. Bernardi v. Motteux, Doug. 554. Park on Mar.

Infur. 353.

10. A fentence of a foreign court of Admiralty is only conclufive in an action on a policy of infurance brought in this country as to the exprefs ground of the fentence; when therefore the fentence of a French court of Admiralty ftated in the preamble feveral grounds and facts, which induced the court to conclude that the ship was enemy's property, on which account she was looked upon as belonging to the eremies of the French republic: Held in B. R. that it was not conclufive evidence of any other facs, or of any thing except the veffel's being enemies' property. Chriftie v. Secretan, 8 Term Rep. B. R. 192.

11. But the fentence must be pronounced by a court which has a competent jurifdiction, that is, by the fentence of a court fituated within the dominion of the captors, or belligerents who are their allies. For where a British fhip had been captured by a French privateer, and carried into Bergen in Norway, Denmark being then in a state of neutrality in the war between France and England, and was there condemned by the French conful; the fentence was held to be a nullity on that account. Havelock v. Rockwood, 8 Term Rep. B. R. 268. See also the judgment of Sir W. Scott, in the cafe of the fhip Flad-Oyen. Ib. 270. (n. a).

Proteft.

12 Vin. 129.

TH

HE proteft of the mafter of a veffel is inadmiffible as evidence in chief. But it may be read to contradict the evidence given at the trial by the perfan who made it. Per Lord Kenyon, C. J. Chriftian v. Coombe, 2 Efpin. Ni. Pri. Caf. 439.

I.

(A. b. 60) Receipt.

N an action of affumpfit for money had and received by defendant and another, brought to recover the confideration paid for an annuity previously set aside in B. R., and the general iffue pleaded; a joint receipt given by both is not conclusive evidence against them, so as to prevent one of them fhewing that he was only a furety for the other who actually received the money, and that the plaintiff knew it. Stratton v. Raffall & al. 2 Term Repo B. R. 366.

Evidence.

2. Receipts for rent are not fufficient evidence of a title in the leffor, unless he proves actual payment, efpecially where the perfon who figned the receipt is living, for he ought to have been examined in the caufe. Per Lord Hardwicke, Canc. Manning v. Lechmere, 2 Atk. 453. .

(A. b. 62) Record.

295

12 Vin. 130.

1.TH
I. HE keeper of records cannot be examined as to the matter Poft.
of them, but he may give evidence of the condition of (1. b. 93).
them in general, without producing them. Leighton v. Leighton,

1 Str. 210.

2. In a quo warranto against the bailiff of a corporation, he Post. pleaded a nomination by A. and B. two bailiffs thereof. Iffue (P. b. 5). being taken upon their being bailiffs, a judgment of ouster in a quo warranto against them was held admiffible, but not conclufive evidence. Rex v. Hebden, 2 And. 388. 2 Str. 1109. S. C. Rex v. Grimes, 5 Burr. 2601. S. P.

2. The record of a criminal conviction cannot be given in evi- Vide RichWilliams, dence in a civil fuit, for it might have been on the evidence of a ardfon. party interested in the civil fuit. Gibson v. McCarty, Trin. 9G. 2. and Selby B. R. temp. H. 311.

v. Green, 12 Vin. s 37.

4. Therefore if A., convicted of forging a note from B. to himself, fues for other notes from B. to his inteftate, and reads a depofition of a dead witnefs to prove B.'s owning the forged note, yet the record of conviction cannot be read; but the forged note may, and the marks of forgery fhewn. Ib.

5. In an action upon the cafe for unskilfully varnishing fome prints, the defence was, that defendant had recovered in an action for work and labour, in C. B., for varnishing thefe prints, and the record in that action was tendered as conclusive evidence that the varnishing had been fkilfully done, otherwise he ought not to have recovered. But Lord Kenyon, C. J, rejected the evidence. For a record is only evidence of fuch matter in iffue as appears upon it, and evidence cannot be received that any particular matter not mentioned in it came in queftion under it. Sintzenick v. Lucas, Efpin. Ca. at Ni. Pri. 43.

(A. b. 64) Register Book.

I. Na queftion concerning the plaintiff's legitimacy, on a trial at bar, an entry in a day-book, where the entries were made immediately after the chriftening, and pofted into the register every three months, was not allowed to be read to contradict the register-book, in which the plaintiff was entered in the fame manner as a lawful child. Per Probyn and Lee, Juftices. Page, J. contra. May v. May, 2 Str. 1,073.

2. The

12 Vin. 131.

1

Ante,

2. The register of the Navy-office, with proof of the method (A. b. 49). there used to return all perfons dead, with the mark d. d. is fufficient evidence of a death. Ex. dem. Whitcomb, P. 6 Ann. C. B. Bull. L. N. P. 249.

(A. b. 66) Rentals.

WHEN there are old rentals, and bailiffs have admitted mo

ney received by them, they are evidence of payment by the tenants, fo as to infer title in the leffor. Per Lord Hardwicke, C. Manning v. Lechmere, 1 Atk. 453.

I.

(A. b. 69) Seals of Courts, Universities, &c.

IT

T is not neceffary to prove the feal of a corporation in the fame manner as the feal of an individual, by producing the witness who faw the feal affixed. But when an instrument having a feal affixed to it, purporting to be a corporate feal, is produced in evidence, it is neceffary to prove that it is the feal of the corporation, if there be any doubt about it; otherwise any inftrument with a feal to it might be produced in court as an inftrument fealed by the corporation.

2. In an action, therefore, brought by a phyfician for calling him a quack, the declaration averred, that he had duly taken "the degree of Doctor of Phyfic," and to fupport the averment a diploma under the feal of the university of St. Andrews in Scotland was produced; but no proof being given of its being the feal of that body, the evidence was held infufficient by Lord Kenyon at the trial, and afterwards in B. R. upon motion to fet afide the nonfuit. Moifes v. Thornton, 8 Term Rep. B. R. 303.

(A. b. 71) Signet Manual.

THE king's fign-manual may be given in evidence by the defendant on an indictment for returning from transportation. The condition of it, in the prefent cafe, was his giving fecurity to the fatisfaction of the recorder, to tranfport himself. He gave the fecurity, but did not go abroad. The twelve judges were of opinion that as he had complied literally with the condition, he cannot be indicted for returning from trantportation, unlefs the king had revoked his grace on account of the fraud. Rex v. M. Miller, 2 Blackft. Rep. 797. Leach, Cro, Law Caf. 69. S. C.

(A. b. 72) Stamps.

I.

1. A

See ante,

(F. 2), pl. 12 & 13.

Leafe in writing, and not under feal, cannot be given in evidence unless it is ftamped. Goodtitle ex dem. Eftwicke v. Way. 1 Term Rep. B. R. 735. Nor a bill of fale of goods. (A. b. 26), 3 Term Rep. B. R. 413. pl. 9. Peft. (A. b. 76), pl. 15.

2. On an indictment for forging a bill of exchange, it need not be ftamped before it is received in evidence, pursuant to 23 G. 3. c. 49. refolved by the twelve judges, on a cafe referved. Rex v. Hawkfwood, 2 Term Rep. B. R. 606. n. S. C. Leach. Cro. Law Caf. 221. Rex v. John Lee, Ib. 222. (n.a). S. P. on the authority of this cafe.

3. A deed is good evidence, if ftamped when produced at the trial, though not ftamped when executed, or when first produced. Rex v. Bishop of Chester, Str. 624.

4. But annesing another piece of parchment with a stamp upon it will not do; the ftamp must be on the parchment itfelf, and to obtain this the penalty muft be paid. Rex v. Reeks, Str. 716. Lord Raym. 1445.

5. A bond, in the condition whereof a mortgage demife is contained, need not have two ftamps. Barnes, 463.

6. A writing without ftamps, being an agreement (" that A. "and partners fhall work mines in B.'s ground, and B. to have a "proportion, and be alfo partner for an eighth,") and neither a leafe nor an affignment, may be given in evidence in trespass brought by A. against a stranger. Harker v. Birckbeck, 3 Burr. 1556. 7. A written agreement in thefe words: "A. doth let and "fell to B. for the term of three years," cannot be given in evidence without a stamp. For though a parol leafe for three years is good, yet if a man through caution will reduce it into writing, he must pay for the ftamp. Proffor v. Philips, Hereford Sum. Af 1765, cor. Perrott, B. L. N. P. 269.

But now it

must.

23 G. 3.

c. 58, &t.

Eftwicke v.

Way, 1Term

Rep. B. R. 735.

Thomas,

8. Articles of agreement under feal cannot be given in evi- In Allan v. dence, unless ftamped with a deed ftamp, although they are Maid. Sum. ftamped with an agreement ftamp, which is of the fame value, Afl: 1791, but differently formed. Held in B. R. after confideration of the faid to have cafe of Legge v. Tyte, B. R. East. 30 G. 3. where the fame point otherwife by was faid to have been ruled differently. Robinson v. Dryborough, Gould, J. 6 Term Rep. B. R. 317.

9. A promiffory note written upon a ftamp of greater value than that required by the ftamp acts cannot be received in evidence, though the ftamp is applicable to the fame kind of inftrument,, i. e would have been proper for a note given for a larger fum. Farr v. Price, Eaft. Rep. 55.

10. But a copy of a newfpaper may be read in evidence in an information for a libel, though not ftamped; for the ftatute only fubjects the publisher to a penalty, and does not declare, like thofe which relate to deeds and agreements, that they fhall not be read in evidence till ftamped. Rex v. Pearce, Peake's Ni. Pri. Ca. 75.

been ruled

12 Vin. 132.

(A. b. 73) Things done or fworn at another Trial.

See poft. (A. b. 76.)

Arte,

HE poftea is good evidence that a trial was had between the fame parties, fo as to introduce an account of what a wit nefs swore at that trial, who is fince dead. Pitton v. Walter, Surrey Aizes, 5 G. 3. Per Pratt, C. J. 1 Str. 162. Rex v. Minns, B. L. N. P. 243.

2. The poftea in a former action produced by the affociate, is fufficient to prove that such action was tried and referred, as alledged in the declaration of the fecond. Fiber v. Kitchingman, Barnes, 449.

3. If a man has fworn at one trial different from what he has fworn at another, this is good evidence to his difcredit. Bull. L. N. P. 242.

4. A witnefs was fworn in a trial at bar in C. B. between the fame parties on the same issue, and he was fubpoenaed by the defendant to appear at a second trial in K. B. and his charges given him, but he not appearing, perfons were admitted to swear what he fwore in C. B., for the court faid they would prefume he was kept away by the plaintiff's practice. Green v. Gatewick, -Mich. 24 Car. 2. Bull. L. N. P. 243.

5. In courts of law, the evidence which a witness gave on a (A. b. 31), former trial may be ufed on a fubfequent one, if he die in the inpi. 150 terim; as I remember was agreed on all hands in a trial at bar in the instance of Lord Palmer fton. But as the perfon who wished to give Lord Palmerfton's evidence could not undertake to give his words, but merely to fwear to the effect of them, he was rejected. Per Lord Kenyon, C. J. arguendo, Rex v. Jolliffe, 4 Term Rep. B. R. 290.

See ante,
(A. b. 26),
pl. 12.

12 Vin.136.

See ante,
(A. b. 25),
pl. 24 & 25.

1. AN old terrier or furvey of a manor, whether ecclefiaftical, or temporal, may be given in evidence, for there can be no other way of afcertaining the old tenures or boundaries. Bull. L. N. P. 248.

2. A terrier of glebe is not evidence for the parfon unlefs figned by the churchwardens as well as the parfon; nor then neither, if they be of his nomination; and though it be figned by them, yet it feems to deferve very little credit, unlefs it be likewife figned by the substantial inhabitants; but in all cafes it is strong evidence against the parfon. Ib.

A

(A. b. 75) Transfer Books of a Company.

Broker's teftimony is not evidence to prove the transfer of ftock. Copies from the books at the Bank fhould be proved, Per Lord Kenyon, C. J. Breton`v. Cope, Executor, Peake's Ni Pri. Caf. 30.