Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

to show that an indictment was there found against A. B., but the record must be made up and produced, or an examined copy of it.1

A former conviction or acquittal may now be proved under the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 13, by a certificate purporting to be "under the hand of the clerk of the court, or other officer having the custody of the records of the court where such conviction or acquittal took place, or by the deputy of such clerk or other officer, that the paper produced is a copy of the record of indictment, trial, conviction, and judgment, or acquittal, as the case may be, omitting the formal parts thereof."

On trials for perjury it is enacted by the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 100, s. 22, that such a certificate, "containing the substance and effect only, omitting the formal portion of the indictment and trial for any felony or misdemeanor," shall be sufficient evidence of the same. But the mere fact of the trial may be proved by the officer of the court on production of his minutes; or apparently by any one who was present at the first trial.2

VERDICTS.

A verdict may be proved by producing the postea, indorsed on the Nisi Prius record, where it is only required to show that a trial took place. But the whole record and a copy of the judgment will be necessary to establish the finding of any substantial fact.4

DEPOSITIONS.

A copy of depositions sworn at a judge's chambers, delivered out by his clerk, and attested by the judge's signature, is evidence, without proof that it has been compared with the original.5

1 R. v. Smith, 8 B. & C. 341.
2 R. v. Newman, 21 L. J. 75, M. C.
3 Petton v. Walter, 1 Stra. 162.
42 Phill. 204.

51 Camp. 101.

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL JUDGMENTS, ETC.

These are now regulated by 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 7, which enacts, that "all proclamations, treaties, and other acts of state of any foreign state, or of any British colony, and all judgments, decrees, orders, and other judicial 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 in any court of justice, or before any person having by law, or by consent of parties, authority to hear, receive, and examine evidence, either by examined copies, or by copies authenticated as hereinafter mentioned; that is to say, if the document sought to be proved be a proclamation, treaty, or other act of state, the authenticated copy, to be admissible in evidence, must purport to be sealed with the seal of the foreign state or British colony to which the original document belongs: and if the document sought to be proved be a judgment, decree, order, or other judicial proceeding of any foreign or colonial court, or an affidavit, pleading, or other legal document filed or deposited in any such court, the authenticated copy, to be admissible in evidence, must purport either to be sealed with the seal of the foreign or colonial court to which the original document belongs, or in the event of such court having no seal, to be signed by the judge, or if there be more than one judge, by any one of the judges of the said court; and such judge shall attach to his signature a statement in writing on the said copy that the court whereof he is a judge has no seal; but if any of the aforesaid authenticated copies shall purport to be sealed or signed as hereinbefore respectively directed, the same shall respectively be received in evidence without any proof of the seal where a seal is necessary, or of the signature or of the statement attached thereto, where such statement or signature are necessary, or of the judicial character of the

person appearing to have made such signature and

statement.'

But foreign and colonial judgments and other proceedings may still be proved, as before the statute, by examined copies.1

Foreign laws, as already stated, 2 must be proved by skilled witnesses: and the courts will not take judicial notice of them, but require them to be proved as ordinary facts. It is held that the witness must either be a professional man, such as an advocate or a judge; or connected in such a way with the profession, or to have had such daily experience of the law in question, as to create a reasonable presumption that he has a competent knowledge of it.3 But no witness will be competent unless he appear either to have filled an official position, or to be connected manifestly with the legal profession, or to have been in some position in which it is probable that he would have acquired a practical acquaintance with the law. Accordingly, a person who formerly carried on business as a merchant and commissioner of stocks at Brussels has been allowed to prove what the law of Belgium is as to the presentment of promissory notes there.5 But a person who has acquired, by study in one country, a merely theoretical knowledge of the laws of another country, is not competent to prove the laws of such country.

6

A foreign proclamation, contained in a printed placard, may be proved by production of a copy proved to be similar; but a verbal proclamation is inadmissible as hearsay. In the former case it appears also that the proclamation is in the nature of an inscription or act done, and may be proved by oral evidence.7

1 Appleton v. Braybrooke, 6 M. & G. 34. 2 Supra, p. 280.

3 Sussex Peerage Case, 11 Cl. & Fin. 134. Van Der Doucht v. Thelluson, 8 C. B. 2.

5 Ibid.

• Bristow ▾ Secqueville, 5 Exch. 275. 7 Cf. sup. p. 89.

PROCEEDINGS IN CHANCERY.

A decree in Chancery may be proved by an exemplification under the court seal; or by an examined copy, or by a decretal order, or paper, with proof of the bill and answer.1

If it be required only to show that a decree was made, or that it has been reversed, the enrolled and sealed decree is sufficient, without producing the bill and answer.2

A bill or answer is no evidence of the facts contained in it, not even of those on which the prayer of relief is founded.3

But where the parties to a suit are parties in an action in which the same matters are in issue, the statements of either, in a bill or answer, are evidence against the maker in the nature of admissions.4 And where a witness at the trial gives evidence at variance with statements which he has made in an answer in Chancery, an examined copy of such answer will be admissible to contradict him. 5

It is not within the plan of this work to treat of evidence in the Court of Chancery; but it may be stated shortly that such evidence is taken, in ordinary course, on affidavits of the parties; but either party may, by leave of the court, obtain an order to have the evidence taken orally before an examiner of the court. In this case the witnesses are summoned, examined, and cross-examined by counsel, according to the practice of the common law courts; and their depositions are taken and returned to the court, according to the practice in examinations under commissions.6

1 Trowell v. Castle, 1 Keb. 21.

2 B. N. P. 735.

3 Doe d. Bowerman v. Sybourn, 7 T. R. 2.. Hodgkinson v. Willis, Camp. 401.

Ewer v. Ambrose, 4 B. & C. 25.

15 & 16 Vict. c. 86, ss. 29-40; see Appendix.

WRITS.

The writ itself must be produced, or its non-production accounted for, when secondary evidence of it I will be admissible. But where the writ is the gist of the action, it ought to be proved by the record, or an authorized copy.1

AFFIDAVITS.

A voluntary affidavit is only evidence in the nature of an admission against the party making it.2 It may be proved, when filed, by office or examined copies.

CONVICTIONS.

Convictions before magistrates are proved by examined copies, which are made out, on application,

by the clerk of the peace. In many cases also, under

particular statutes, copies certified by the proper officer are sufficient evidence.

In trespass against justices, a conviction, unappealed against and unreversed, cannot be controverted in evidence;3 and, until quashed, it is conclusive evidence of the facts contained in it in favour of the justice against whom it is tendered.4

ORDERS.

The original order, as in cases of removal, must be produced if possible; but secondary evidence may be given of it, if it appear that the party, whose duty it is to produce it, has been served with notice.5 But where the order refers to proceedings which are not strictly judicial, and which are also extrinsic to the

1 B. N. P. 234.

2 Ibid. 242.

3 Fawcett v. Fowler, 7 B. & C. 394.

• Strickland v. Ward, 7 T. R. 633.

5 R. v. Justices of Peterborough, 18 L. J. 79, M. C.

[EV.]

2 c

« ElőzőTovább »