303. See Collins v. Carnegie, 3 Nev. & M. 703; 1 Adol. & Ell. 695. And although, by stat. 6 G. 4, c. 133, s. 7, the common seal of the Society of Apothecaries of the city of London shall be received as sufficient proof of the authenticity of the certificate to which the seal is affixed, it must be proved to be the genuine seal of the society. Chadwick v. Bunning, Ry. & M. N. P. 306.

Ancient Terriers, &c.]-Ancient terriers, surveys, and maps of manors, &c., when evidence, must be produced at the trial, and such circumstances connected with them stated in evidence as may induce the court and jury to give credit to them. See 1 Phil. Ev. 419.

Corporation Books, &c.]-Entries in corporation books, and in the books of public companies, relating to things public and general, and entries in other public books, may be proved by examined copies. R. v. Mothersell, Str. 93, 307; Mercers of Shrewsbury v. Hart, 1 C. & P. 114. Entries in the books of the Custom-house, of the Bank, and of the East India Company, of the South Sea Company, or the like, may be proved in the same manner. See Gerry v. Hopkins, 2 Ld. Raym. 851: Warriner v. Giles, 2 Str. 954, 1005: Edwards v. Vesey, Hardw. 128: 2 Doug. 593, n. 8: Breton v. Cope, Peake, 30; Hodgson v. Fullarton, 4 Taunt. 787: Mortimer v. M'Allan, 6 M. & W. 58. But instruments of a private nature, such as a letter found in the corporation chest, R. v. Gwyn, 1 Str. 401, or the like, must be proved in the ordinary way as any other instrument.

Inspection of corporation books and other public writings is granted in civil actions, but not in criminal cases, where it would have the effect of making a defendant furnish evidence to criminate *him- [ *137 ] self. R. v. Heydon, 1 W. Bl. 351: R. v Purnell, Id. 37; 1 Wils. 239; 1 Ld. Raym. 705; 2 Id. 927; 2 Str. 1210.

The production in evidence of many of the documents above mentioned has been much facilitated by the recent stat. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113: the first section of which enacts, that wherever by any act now in force or hereafter to be in force any certificate, official or public document, or document proceeding of any corporation or joint stock or other company, or any certified copy of any document, bye-law, entry in any register or other book, or of any other proceeding, shall be receivable in evidence of any particular in any court of justice, or before any legal tribunal, or either House of Parliament or any Committee of either House, or in any judicial proceedings, the same shall respectively be admitted in evidence, provided they respectively purport to be sealed or impressed with a stamp, or sealed and signed, or signed alone, as required, or impressed with a stamp and signed, as directed by the respective acts made or to be

hereafter made, without any proof of the seal or stamp, where a seal or stamp is necessary, or of the signature or of the official character of the person appearing to have signed the same and without any further proof thereof, in every case in which the original record could have been received in evidence.

Public Acts of State.]-The Gazette, printed and publised by the Queen's printer, is evidence of all acts of state. R. v. Holt, 5 T. R. 436. Therefore, a Gazette which stated that addresses had been presented to the King from several bodies of his subjects, expressive of their loyalty, was holden to be evidence of that fact. Ib. See R. v. Gardner, 2 Camp. 513. It is not evidence of a private matter contained therein, unless it be shewn that the party to be affected has read the article. Harratt v. Wise, 9 B. & C. 712. The mere production of the Gazette would seem to be sufficient, without proof that it was bought at the Gazette office, or from whence it came. R. v. Forsyth, R. & R. 277. The Queen's proclamations in the Gazette are evidence, see Van Omeron v. Dowich, 2 Camp. 44, and are proveable by copies thereof purporting to be printed by the printers to the crown or to either House of Parliament. 8 & 9 Vict c. 113, s. 3. Where a proclamation recited that it had been represented that certain outrages had been committed in different parts of certain counties, and offered a reward for the discovery and apprehension of the offenders, it was holden to be admissible evidence to prove an introductory averment in an information for a libel, that divers acts of outrage had been committed in those places. R. v. Sutton, 4 M. & Sel. 532.

So, the articles of war, printed by the Queen's printer, are evidence. Brough. Perkins, 5 T. R. 442, 446. So, the almanack annexed to the common prayer book, (R. v. Holt, 6 Mod. 81), is evidence that such a day of the year was Sunday, or the like. Page v. Fawcet, Cro. El. 227; 1 Leon. 242; 1 Sid. 300; 6 Mod. 41.

As to the acts of state of a foreign government, see ante, p. 134.

3. Written Instruments of a Private Nature.

When a deed is to be given in evidence, the general rule is, that the deed itself must be produced at the trial. Leyfield's case, 10 Co. 92 b, To this, however, there are some exceptions, arising from

[ *138 ] *necessity; as, where the deed is in the hands of the opposite party, Read v. Brookman, 3 T. R. 153: Wymark's case, 5 Co. 73 a, or has been lost by time or accident, or by any other casualty, as by fire, &c., Read v. Brookman, 3 T. R. 151, 153, n., (see Kensington v. Inglis, 8 East, 273: Brewster v. Sewell, 3 B. & Ald. 296: Freeman v. Arkell, 2 B. & C. 494, as to proof of the loss, &c.), the contents of it may be proved by a copy, or other secondary evidence. Leyfield's

case, 10 Co. 92 b: Medlicot v. Joyner, 1 Mod. 4. Upon indictments for forgery, however, it is the generally understood rule, that the prisoner cannot be convicted unless the forged instrument be produced. But in

R. Hunter, 3 C. & P. 592, 4 C. & P. 128, where it appeared that the deed alleged to be forged was in the custody of the defendant, who, after notice, refused to produce it, secondary evidence of the deed was received.

Secondly, as to the proof of the execution of the deed: if there have been no subscribing witness to it, then proof of the handwriting of the parties will be sufficient, the law in such a case presuming a delivery. But if the deed were attested, the execution must be proved by at least one of the subscribing witnesses. Gilb. Ev. 99: Barnes v. Trompowsky, 7 T. R. 266: Breton v. Cope, Peake, 31: Manners v. Postan, 4 Esp. 240; and see England v. Roper, 1 Stark. 304: unless perhaps, where the fact of execution is one of the admissions in the cause; Milward v. Temple, 1 Camp. 375: for even the acknowledgment of the party, Abbot v. Plumbe, 1 Dougl. 216, or his admission in an answer to a bill of discovery, is in this case deemed merely secondary evidence. Call v. Dunning, 5 Esp. 16; 4 East, 53: Johnson v. Mason, 5 Esp. 16: and see 5 T. R. 366. It does not appear necessary that the subscribing witness should swear that the deed was actually executed in his presence; if he were afterwards desired to attest it by the party who executed it, Grellier v. Neale, Peake, N. P. C. 146: Powell v. Blackett, 1 Esp. 97, or in the presence of the party, Park v. Mears, 3 Esp. 171, 2 B. & P. 217, and he attested it accordingly, this will be sufficient, provided the attestation and execution be done so nearly at the same time, as fairly to be deemed parts of the same transaction. MS. E. 1914. On the other hand, a person who even sees an instrument executed, but who is not desired by the parties to attest it, cannot, by afterwards putting his name to it, prove it as an attesting witness. M'Craw v. Gentry, 3 Camp. 232. To this rule, of proving the execution by the evidence of an attesting witness, however, there are many exceptions. First, where the execution forms one of the admissions in the cause. Supra. Secondly, where the deed (and the same as to a will, although it be less than thirty years since the testator's death, Doe d. Oldnall v. Wolley, 8 B. & C. 22) is thirty years old or upwards, the court will presume that it has been duly executed, and will not require it to be proved, Bull. N. P. 255; Chelsea Water Works v. Cowper, 1 Esp. 275, 278, provided possession have followed the deed, or some satisfactory account be given of it, and provided there be no erasure or interlineation in it, and that it do not import fraud; otherwise it must be proved as in ordinary cases, either by the attesting witness, or by evidence of his and the party's handwriting. 2 Bac. Ab., Ev. (F); Bull. N. P. 255: and see 3 Taunt. 91. It may be necessary here to remark, that when you give an ancient obligation for

the payment of money in evidence, you should be prepared to prove the payment of interest within the last twenty years, or other circumstances

sufficient to rebut the presumption which the law will other[*139] *wise raise of such obligation having been satisfied. See 1 Burr. 444; 2 Str. 826; W. Bl. 532; 1 T. R. 272. Thirdly, where a deed enrolled (and to which enrollment was necessary) is given in evidence, it is not necessary to prove the execution of it by the subscribing witness; but it may be proved by the enrollment indorsed on it, or, if the deed be lost, by an examined copy of the enrollment, as already mentioned, ante, p. 128. Fourthly, where one deed is recited in another, proof of the second deed is deemed proof of the one recited, as against the parties to the second deed and those claiming under them, 2 Bac. Abr. Ev. (F). Fifthly, if the name of a fictitious person be put as the only subscribing witness, evidence of the handwriting of the party alone will be sufficient. Fasset v. Brown, Peake, N. P. C. 23. So if the subscribing witness be since dead, Nelson v. Whittall, 1 B. & A. 19: and see 6 East, 85, or have became insane, 12 Vin. Abr. 224: Currie v. Child, 3 Camp. 283, or be abroad, out of reach of the process of the court, Holmes v. Pontin, Peake, N. P. C. 99: Cooper v. Marsden, 1 Esp. 2: Willis v. Delancey, 7 T. R. 265; 12 Vin. Abr. 224: and see Hodnet v. Foreman, 1 Stark. 90; whether there domiciled or not; Prince v. Blackburn, 2 East, 250; or if he have set out for the purpose of leaving the kingdom; Ward v. Wells, 1 Taunt. 461; or if from circumstances it may fairly be presumed that he has left the kingdom; Wardell v. Farmer, 2 Camb. 282: Wyatt v. Bateman, 7 C. & P. 586; or if it appear that he is serving in the navy, Parker v. Hoskins, 2 Taunt. 223, or the like; or if, after a bona fide serious and diligent inquiry, be cannot be found; Cochlan v. Williamson, 1 Doug. 93: Cunliffe v. Sefton, 2 East, 183; Barnes v. Trompowsky, 7 T. R. 266: Crowsby v. Percy, 1 Camp. 303; 1 Taunt. 364: Wardle v. Farmer, 2 Camp. 282: Wilman v. Worrall, 8 C. & P. 280: Earl of Falmouth v. Roberts, 9 M. & W. 469; or if he be interested in the event, of the suit, Buckley v. Smith, 2 Esp. 697: Swire v. Bell, 5 T. R. 371: Godfrey v. Morris, 1 Str. 34, (unless by the act of the party who calls him, Hovill v. Stephenson, 5 Bing. 493), or have become subsequently incompetent as a witness from infamy; Jones v. Mason, 2 Str. 833; Peake, Ev. 102: then, upon proof of any one of these circumstances, you will be permit ted to give secondary evidence of the execution of the deed; that is, you may prove the deed by proving the handwriting of the witness and the party. See Nelson v. Whittaker, 1 B. & Ald. 19; Moo. & M. 286. And the rule on this subject is not affected by the power to examine witnesses abroad on interrogatories, under the stat. 1 W. 4, c. 22, s. 4. Glubb v. Edwards, 2 M. & Rob. 300. But the declarations of the wit

ness himself as to the place of his residence, or hearsay statements of others on the subject, cannot be admitted to prove that he is abroad. Doe d. Beard v. Powell, 7 C. & P. 617. And although the subscribing witness have become blind, the instrument cannot be read without calling him. Crank v. Frith, 2 M. & Rob. 262; 9 C. & P. 197: but see Wood v. Drury, 1 Ld. Raym. 734: Pedler v. Paige, 1 M. & Rob. 258, contra. In a late case, Lord Tenterden held, that proof of the handwriting of the subscribing witness, who was dead, was sufficient, without any further proof of the identity of the parties than the identity of the name and description. Page t. Mann, Moo. & M. 79. But see Whitelocke v. Musgrove, 1 C. & M. 511: Jones v. Jones, 9 M. & W. 75. If there be two witnesses to the deed, and any of the circumstances just now mentioned apply only to one of them, the deed must of course be proved by the other. Also, by stat. 26 G. 3, c. 56, s. 38, deeds executed in the East Indies, when the subscribing [ *140 ] witnesses are resident there, may be given in evidence in Great Britain, upon proof of the handwriting of the parties and of the witnesses. Sixthly, if the deed appear to be attested by one or more persons, but in point of fact these persons never saw the deed executed or delivered, the attestation may be deemed a nullity, and the deed be proved by proving the handwriting of the party. Phipps v. Parker, 2 Camp. 635, 636: Lee v. Ballard, 3 Esp. 173, n.: Grellier v. Neale, Peake, N. P. C. 146: but see Fitzgerald v. Elsee, 1 Camp. 412. subscribing witness at the trial is unable, or refuses, to the deed may be proved by other witnesses. Burr. 2224: Talbot v. Hodson, 7 Taunt. 251.

Lastly, where the

disclose the truth, Goodtitle v. Clayton, 4

Upon an indictment for forging a deed or other written instrument, all that it is incumbent upon the prosecutor to prove is, that the name subscribed to the deed is not the handwriting of the party whose signature it purports to be, which may now be proved by the party whose name is forged. 9 G. 4, c. 32, s. 2.

To prove a will of lands, it is only necessary to call one of the witnesses who attested it; Peake, Ev. 103: Doe v. Smith, 1 Esp. 391; Skin. 413; 2 Str. 1253: 1 W. Bl. 8; if the opposite party wish, he may call the others. Bull. N. P. 264. The witness called, however, should be prepared to give parol evidence of every circumstance attending the attestation, necessary to shew that the will was duly executed and attested according to the directions of the statute.

All other writings not under seal are proved in the same manner as deeds; that is, by the subscribing witness, if there be one; Witherstone v. Edgington, 2 Camp. 94; 1 Stark. 53; 2 Stark. 180; or if not, then by proof of the party's handwriting. It is said, also, that a writing of this kind, if ancient, shall be received in evidence without proof, in the same maner as an ancient deed. Tr. per pais, 370: but see Fortesc.