(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, 8Taylor, 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., 44Beaumont 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.

(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. Sherd, 11 Exch. Rep., 482that 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 (¿).

§ 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.

(k) Taylor, 946, 1017(1) Taylor Ev., 1088

(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. See the sections on examining foreign lawyers, infra. Roscoe'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.

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).3

CHAPTER 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).

A copy of the judgment of the House of Lords in an appeal case, certified by the proper officer, is sufficient proof to guide the Court of Session in applying the judgment. But if their Lordships are satisfied that the judgment as written out contains a clerical error,

(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 case, 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 Vict., 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.

3 Recitals in private acts of Parliament of very recent date are not evidence of the facts stated in them, such recitals being no longer submitted to the previous approval of the judges. Lord St Leonards-"That used to be the practice, but it is not so now. The evidence in support of private bills is not now submitted to and reported on by the judges; and future recitals will not therefore be evidence;" Shrewsbury Peerage Case, 1857-1858, 7 Clark's H. of L. Cases, 13.

they will give effect to it according to what they deem to be its proper tenor (d).

CHAPTER III.-ROTULI SCOTIAE.

§ 1057. The ancient Rotuli Scotiae, which contain a number of state papers, chiefly relating to the political transactions between Scotland and England in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries, are evidence in questions of peerage, propinquity, and the like. Their contents may be proved by a sworn copy or excerpt; but as the originals are in existence, a copy printed under the superintendence of Royal Commissioners, not proved an oath, is inadmissible (e).

CHAPTER IV.-GAZETTES.

§ 1058. Gazettes being prepared officially and with care, for the purpose of announcing matters of state procedure and acts of the Crown, are admissible and full proof of such transactions (a). This is the case in regard to entries of proclamations of war and peace; for performance of quarantines; and the presentation of public addresses to the Crown (b). But gazettes are not received as evidence of individual or private rights although flowing from the Crown, e.g., presentations to benefices, commissions in the Army, grants of land to subjects (c). On such matters the gazette contains merely an announcement that a certain grant has been made or dignity conferred, the party receiving a written title as the pro

(d) Aberdeen Ry. Co. v. Blaikies, 1854, 16 D., 570. Lindsay Peerage case, 1848, 2 Cl. and Finn., 534, 547. Tait, 51-2 Phill., 108-Taylor, 1089.

(e) Crawford and (a) Bell's Pr., 2209—

(b) King v. Holt, 1793, 5 Durf. and E., In Omeron v. Dourick, 1809, 2 Camp..

443-Att.-Gen. v. Theakson, 1820, 8 Price, 89. 42, the Court of King's Bench refused to listen to a plea that cutlasses were contraband; because the statute founded on only allowed the King to make them so by proclamation, and the gazette was not tendered to prove the proclamation. (c) Authorities in note (a)—R. v. Gardner, 1810, 2 Camp., 513-Kirkman v. Cockburn, 1805, 5 Esp., 233 -Per Kenyon in R. v. Holt, supra.

a

per evidence of his right; whereas in public matters the proclamation is full, and the original is preserved in the national archives.

$ 1059.. Gazettes also contain publications on some matters of private interest, with which the Crown is not connected, but which concern a number of individuals, e.g., sequestrations, cessios, and petitions under the disentailing act. Such notices are only proof of publication; and, being secondary evidence of the fact published, they are inadmissible as evidence of it. They may go to the jury in a question whether a certain party knew of the fact; but the mere publication does not necessarily prove knowledge ; and, therefore, there must in general be evidence tending to show that the party read the paper, as, from a copy of it having been found in his custody, from his having attended a reading-room where it was taken in, and having been acquainted with other matters contained in it, and the like (d). Such proof is especially necessary as to matters which are published in the gazette without statutory authority; as, for example, dissolutions of partnership (e). to matters of public interest, a gazette notice alone does not raise a presumption of knowledge to which the jury are obliged to give effect; and, therefore, in an action on a policy of marine insurance in England, where the underwriters pleaded that the policy was void because the voyage was to a port which the master knew was blockaded, the Court held that the jury were justified in negativing the issue of knowledge, although it appeared that the master had been in this country some time after the publication of the gazette in which the blockade was notified (f). Of course, wherever it is provided by statute that a gazette notice shall be held to prove knowledge, it must receive that effect (g).

Even as

CHAPTER V.-RECORDS OF COURTS OF LAW.

§ 1060.

The interlocutors and decrees of courts, the verdicts of juries, and the different steps of procedure throughout a cause, are set forth in the record prepared by the clerk of court, and in most

(dl) Bell's Pr., 2209—Taylor, 1092–Jenkins v. Blizard, 1816, 1 Stark R., 420 Godfrey v. M'Aulay, 1795, 1 Esp., 371-Graham v. Hope, 1793, 1 Pea. R., 154, per L. Kenyon. (e) Taylor, supra-Bell's Pr., supra.

( ) Harrat Wise, 1820, 9 B. and C., 712.

(9) See, c.9., 6 Geo. IV, c. 16, $ 83.