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 intrusted 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. VOL II. A (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 Victoriae. 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).1 (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 Victoriae applying also to them (ƒ). (a) 41 Geo. III, c. 99, 9-Bell's Pr., 2208-Tait Ev., 201-2 Phill., 127, 8— Taylor, 1016, 7. (b) Bell's Pr., supra-Tait, 202-Phill., supra-Taylor, supra -Macf. Pr., 185. (c) Woodward v. Cotton, 1834, 1 Cr. Me. and Ro., 44— Beaumont v. Mountain, 1884, 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. (f) 13 and 14 Vict., ib. (e) 13 and 14 Vict., c. 21, ? 7. 1 In England, the Courts, without requiring proof, judicially notice a variety of facts, such as "the existence and titles of the sovereign powers in the civilised world;" facts which may certainly be known from the invariable course of nature," and others of a like kind; Taylor on Evidence, 3d edition, p. 3. They have noticed judicially that an affidavit sworn abroad was notarially sealed; Cole v. Sherard, 11 Exch. Rep., 482— that the colony of Victoria is beyond seas; Cooke v. Wilson, 2 Jur. N. S., 1094—that the University of Oxford is a national institution, the purposes of which are the advancement of learning and religion; The Oxford Poor-rate, 8 El. and Bl., 184—and that a place is east or west of Greenwich; Curtis v. March, 4 Jur. N. S., 1112. 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). § 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).2 § 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). (g) Bell's Pr., supra-Tait, supra-Phill., supra-Taylor, supra. (h) Bell's Pr., 2208, note. The act 8 and 9 Vict., 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. (k) Taylor, 946, 1017See the sections on examining foreign lawyers, infra. (1) Taylor Ev., 1088Roscoe's Nisi Pr. (8th 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, 1714, 3 Mau. and Sel., 67-See R. v. Greene (next note). 2 The English Evidence Amendment Act, 14 and 15 Vict., c. 99, enacts, ? 7, "All proclamations, treaties, and other acts of state of any foreign state or of any British colony, and all judgments, decrees, orders, and other proceedings of any Court of Justice, in any foreign state or in any British colony, and all affidavits, pleadings, and other legal documents, filed or deposited in any such Court," may be proved either by examined copies, or by copies to which the Seal of the State is attached; or, in the case of proceedings before a Court, by the Seal of the Court; or, in the event of the Court having no seal, by the signature of a judge. In Abbot v. Abbot 1860 (29 L. J. Mat. Causes, 57), it was held that an extract certificate of a foreign marriage, being an extract from a register of marriages kept at Santiago in Chili, and signed by the curate-rector of the church where the marriage was solemnised, was admissible,—the signature of the curate being attested by a notary and other witnesses. In this case Justice Keating cited Biddulph v. Lord Camoys (unreported), where copies of French registers were admitted on its being proved by French lawyers that such registers were kept by official authority. |