T TITLE II. OF WRITINGS OF A PUBLIC AND OFFICIAL CHARACTER, And of ANALOGOUS WRITINGS. § 1051. Public and official written evidence comprehends all those documents which are prepared under the care of official persons, for the purpose of preserving evidence of matters in which the public are interested. Some of these documents relate to the affairs of the nation, and are preserved in the national archives. Others are immediately connected with private transactions, but are entrusted to official care, on account of the matters which they embody affecting the interest of third parties, or with a view to preserving them. There are also documents which, relating to private affairs and prepared by private persons, are compiled systematically with the same kind of care as is observed in public offices; for example, the business books of banking and railway companies and of extensive mercantile houses. The quasi official character of such writings, and their general trustworthiness, has given them a position in the law of evidence analogous to that occupied by official registers. CHAPTER I.-ACTS OF PARLIAMENT. § 1052. Acts of Parliament, the originals of which are preserved in the rolls of Parliament, are divided into classes, to which different rules of evidence apply. (1) Public Acts, that is, those which concern the Sovereign, the public generally, all persons or offices of any class within the country, and the like, are the general law of the realm, and are presumed to be known to every person. They are not matter of fact, and do not require to be given in evidence; but when any dispute arises as to their terms, these may be proved by copies bearing to be printed by the Queen's printer; the theory being, that the judge only requires to have his memory refreshed upon them (a). (2) Local and personal Acts relate to the concerns of particular districts or corporations, joint-stock companies, and similar bodies. For many years it has been customary to insert in them a clause providing that they shall be deemed to be public Acts, and be judicially noticed or received in evidence; and when there is such a provision, they may be proved in the same way as public statutes (b). This is also the rule as to Acts which merely provide that they shall be deemed and taken to be public Acts (c). When they do not contain either of these clauses, they can only be proved by copies sworn to have been collated with the Parliament roll (d), unless they were passed after the commencement of the session of Parliament 14th Victoriæ. Every Act passed subsequently to that time must be deemed and taken notice of judicially as a public Act, unless the contrary is expressly provided and declared by the Act itself (e). (3) Private Acts, when printed, are in the same position in these respects as local and personal Acts; the distinction between those passed before and after 14th Victoriæ applying also to them (ƒ). When unprinted, they may be proved by copies sworn to have been collated with the Parliament roll (g). These rules are very loosely dealt with in practice in Scotland; printed copies of private Acts being constantly received without opposition in cases where, according to strict law, they are inadmissible. But, if the objection were raised, it would be dealt with according to the rules above stated (h). § 1053. Errors in the authorised printed copies of Acts of Parliament may be proved by persons who have compared them with the Parliament roll (i). (a) 41 Geo. III., c. 99, § 9—Bell's Pr., § 2208-Tait, Ev., 201—2 Phill., 127, 8Taylor, 1016, 7. (b) Bell's Pr., supra-Tait, 202-Fhill., supra-Taylor, supra-Macf., Pr., 185. (c) Woodward v. Cotton, 1834, 1 Cr. Me. and Ro., 44-Beaumont v. Mountain, 1834, 10 Bing., 404—2 Phill., 128—Taylor, 1016, explaining Brett v. Beales, 1829, 1 Mo. and Mal., 421-Contra, Bell's Pr., supra. (d) Authorities in preceding note. (e) 13 and 14 Vic., c. 21, § 7. (ƒ) 13 and 14 Vic, ib. (g) Bell's Pr., supra-Tait, supra-Phill., supra-Taylor, supra. (h) Bell's Pr., § 2208, note. The Act 8 and 9 Vic., c. 113, § 3, provides, that all copies of local and personal Acts, if purporting to be printed by the Queen's printer, may be admitted without proof that they were actually so printed. But this Act does not extend to Scotland; ib., § 5. (i) 2 Phill., 129-1 Starkie, 277-R. v. Jeffries, 1720, 1 Str., 446-Spring v. Eve, 1676, 2 Mod., 240. § 1054. Foreign statutes may be proved by sworn copies. They must also be supported by the evidence of foreign lawyers, swearing that they are in force, and explaining (if necessary) any peculiarities in the phraseology (k). § 1055. Public statutes are admissible in evidence of all the facts which they contain; because they are open to challenge at their several stages, and are prepared with great care, and also because every subject is held to be privy to the making of them (1). But they may be contradicted as to matters which they do not enact (m). The statements in local and private acts, however, are not received in evidence against third parties. This is the rule, notwithstanding a provision in an act that it shall be received as a public act; which is only intended for convenience in pleading and proof, not to extend the effect of the act (n). Such acts, however, are admissible to prove reputation in questions of prescription, pedigree, and the like (0). CHAP. II.-JOURNALS OF PARLIAMENT. § 1056. The journals of the Houses of Parliament must be proved by examined copies (a); a late statute, which admits copies printed by her Majesty's printer, not extending to Scotland (b). These journals only prove the proceedings of Parliament-not the truth of facts set forth in the resolutions (c). (k) Taylor, 946, 1017.—See the sections on examining foreign lawyers, infru. (1) Taylor, Ev., 1088-Roscoe's Nisi Pr. (8 Ed.), 85. Thus, the preamble of a public act, narrating the existence of certain outrages, was received to prove that fact; R. v. Sutton, 1816, 4 Mau. and Sel., 532; and where several public acts recognised war with France, the Court of King's Bench said, they must judicially notice it; R. v. De. Berenger, 1814, 3 Mau. and Sel., 67-See R. v. Greene (next note). (m) Thus, the mention of a place as a borough, and of its members as a corporation, in the schedule to a public act, although prima facie evidence, may be contradicted; R. v. Greene, 1837, 6 Ad. and Ell., 548—See, also, per L. Ellenborough in R. v. Sutton, supra. (n) Brett v. Beales, 1836, 1 Mo. and Mal., 421—Ballard v. Way, 1836, 1 Me. and Wel., 520-Taylor v. Parry, 1840, 1 Man. and Gr., 604-2 Phill., 128-Taylor, 1088. (0) E. Carnarvon v. Villebois, 1844, 13 Me. and Wel., 313-Wharton Peerage ease, 1845, 12 Cl. and Finn., 295, 302-Starkie (4th Ed.), 278. (a) Bell's Pr., § 2210-Rosc. Ni. Pr., 85-R. v. Lord G. Gordon, 1781, 2 Doug., 593-R. v. L. Melville, 1806, 29 State Tr., 683-Jones v. Randal, 1774, Cowp., 17. (b) 8 and 9 Vic., c. 113, § 3, 5. (c) Bell's Pr., supra-But see R. v. Franklin, 1731, 17 St. Tr., 635, where the journals of the House of Lords were admitted to prove the existence of differences between this country and France, which they stated. See also Rosc. Ni. Pr., 86. |