an averment in an information, that certain differences had existed between the King of England and King of Spain. (1) Parliament. The proceedings of the Lords and Commons, which are not Journals of Acts of Parliament, are properly evidenced by their journals. These are the documents peculiarly appropriated to the purpose of preserving the memory of such proceedings, which do not appear capable of other authentic or satisfactory proof. The journals of the House of Lords, indeed, are sometimes in the nature of a record of judicial proceedings. Thus, an entry in the journals of the House of Lords, stating that a judgment below had been reversed, is the proper record of the fact of reversal. (2) But the journals of the House of Lords, without reference to their judicial character, as well as those of the House of Commons, are evidence of public transactions which have taken place in either house, and of which it is the duty of the officers of the house to preserve a faithful memorial. Thus the journals have been admitted to prove an address from the House of Lords to the king, and the answer of the king. (3) Statements of facts in acts of state, emanating from the crown, Proclamation. have credit attached to them in Courts of Justice. Thus, in the case of the King v. Sutton, (4) before cited, the Court of King's Bench determined, that the king's proclamation (which 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 offenders) was admissible in evidence, as proof of an introductory averment in an information for a libel, that acts of outrages of that particular description had been committed in those parts of the country. The public acts of government, and acts by the king in his Gazettes. political capacity, are commonly announced in the gazette published by the authority of the crown. Of such acts announced to the public in the Gazette, the Gazette is admitted, (1) See Franklin's case, 17 Howell, 637; 9 St. Tr. 259, cited by Buller, J., in Rex v. Holt, 5 T. R. 445. (2) Jones v. Randall, Cowp. 17. (3) Rex v. Franklin, 17 Howell, 637. (4) 4 M. & S. 532. in Courts of Justice, to be good evidence. It has been held, that proclamations for reprisals, for a public peace, or for the performance of quarantine, may be proved by the Gazette. (1) A Gazette in which it was stated, that certain addresses had been presented to the king, has been judged to be proper evidence to prove an averment of that fact in an information for a libel; (2) "for they are addresses," said Lord Kenyon, "of different bodies of the king's subjects, received by the king in his public capacity, and they thus become acts of state." In some instances in which Gazettes are evidence of public transactions, it may be thought that the announcement in the Gazette was the fact itself to be proved; and generally the proof by primary evidence of the facts announced in the Gazette would be attended with much inconvenience, whilst the danger arising from accidental errors in the Gazette is not very considerable, and it is to be remembered, that intentionally to publish, especially in the royal Gazette, any thing as emanating from royal authority, with knowledge that it did not so emanate, would be a misdemeanor. But Gazettes are not evidence of private titles or private interests, which have no reference to the affairs of government, as a presentation, or the grant by the king to an individual, (3) nor is a Gazette evidence to prove an appointment to a commission in the army. (4) Notices relating to bankruptcies are frequently inserted in (1) Rex v. Holt, 5 T. R. 443. Atty. Gen. v. Theakestone, 8 Price, 89. Quelch's case, 8 St. Tr. 212. Dupays. Shepherd, Rep. temp. Holt, 296. Gen. Picton's case, 30 Howell, 493, in which case the articles of capitulation for the surrender of an island were proved by the Gazette. To ascertain the date of a declaration of war, the declaration from the Ambassador of the Court abroad transmitted by him to the Secretary of State's office, is evidence. Public noto riety has been held sufficient evidence of a war, Foster's Disc. ch. 2, sect. 12. 11 Ves. 292. Thelluson v. Cosling, 4 Esp. 266. Case of Eliza Ann, 1 Dods. Ad. Rep. 244. Similar questions have occurred as to foreign loans, whether they have been made to friendly or recognised governments. (2) Rex v. Holt, 5 T. R. 443. (3) See Rex v. Holt, 5 T. R. 443. (4) Kerwan v. Cockburn, 5 Esp. 233. Rex v. Gardner, 2 Camp. 513. the Gazette, but it seems, that, unless the party, who is to be affected by the notice, be proved to be in the habit of reading the Gazette, such evidence will be of little avail, though it is admissible. (1) Upon the same principle on which Gazettes are receivable in evidence, copies of written acts of state, purporting to be printed by the king's printer, are evidence of those acts. Thus Articles of war. articles of war, purporting to be printed by the king's printer, are allowed to be evidence of such articles. (2) ances. All public acts done by the crown, affecting the revenues and Crown conveypossessions of the crown, are considered as public evidence. The same rule applies to the acts of the king, when there is no Duke of Cornwall, or of the Duke of Cornwall, when there is one, affecting the revenues or possessions of the duchy; as, for example, an ancient caption of seisin to the use of the Duke of Cornwall, or the enrolment of the counterpart of a lease granted by the Duke. (3) In like manner, an enrolment of a lease of lands belonging to the crown, in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, is admissible, on account of the interest of the crown in the duchy. (4) The King's sign manual, authorizing the release of a prison- King's sign manual. (1) See Graham v. Hope, Peake, 154. Godfrey v. Macauley, ib. 155. 1 Esp. 371, S. C. Newsome v. Coles, 2 Camp. 617. Gorham v. Thompson, Peake, 42. Leeson v. Holt, 1 Stark. 186. Mann v. Baker, 2 Stark. 255. The use of the Gazette, on such occasions, is not for the purpose of proving facts by the authority of the Gazette, which is more particularly the subject of the present section, but for the purpose of proving notice. As to the point of notice, it has been held, that knowledge of the blockade of a port is not to be necessarily presumed from the notification of such blockade in the Gazette, but is a question of fact for the jury, Harratt v. Wise, 9 B. & C. 712. See Q Q ter. er, is evidence to prove the legality of his being at large. 1) A Pope's .. ease. license from the Pope, granted in the reign of Edward 2, has been adjudged to be evidence of an impropriation, the Pope being formerly the supreme head of the church, and having the disposition of all spiritual benefices. (2) For the same reason, a Pope's Bull was formerly admitted in evidence, to shew that monastery lands had a special exemption from the payment of tithes. (3) The next species of public writings, to be considered, are those in which official persons are required to make a memorandum of particular transactions occurring in their presence. The obligation to make such a memorandum is sometimes imposed by statute, and sometimes is incident to the course of public business. Parish Registers began to be kept in the thirtieth year of Henry 8. The practice is said to have been adopted at the instigation of Lord Cromwell, who was at that time Vicar General, and in whose Court all wills of property, exceeding the amount of 200., were required to be proved. It served his purpose, therefore, to set on foot a registry. The keeping of parish registers was enforced by injunctions of Edward 6, and Queen Elizabeth, and also by one of the ecclesiastical canons, A. D., 1603. The practice first received the sanction of an act of parliament, by the statute 6 & 7 W. 3, c. 6. Particular provisions were afterwards made respecting parish registers, by the marriage act and other statutes. (4) Parochial registers are considered evidence, that the transactions, required to be recorded in them, occurred on the days specified in the register. Thus a register has been received as evidence between strangers, of the time of marriage. (5) (1) Miller's case, Leach, 69. (4) See the Attorney General's age, 332. Burn's Ecc. Law, 390. The Marriage Act, 26 Geo. 2, c. 33; stat. 52 Geo. 3, c. 146; and the recent statute, 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 86. (5) Doe d. Wollaston v. Barnes, 1 Mo. & R. 386. An entry by a Such registers are not, in general, evidence of any fact not required to be recorded in them, and which did not occur in the presence of the registering officer. Thus, an entry in a register of christenings, stating the year of the birth, is not evidence in support of a plea of infancy. (1) The register, used for it's proper purpose, may constitute part of a chain of evidence, to prove another fact, as birth within a particular parish, where, for example, it is shewn, by evidence dehors, that the child was extremely young when baptized; but the register, of itself, does not prove the fact of birth in the parish. (2) It is obvious that evidence dehors the register must in every case be necessary, in order to identify the parties. (3) Various questions have arisen as to what can be properly Legal registers. read as a register, so as to afford evidence of the truth of facts therein stated. It seems the better opinion, that the books of Fleet marriages cannot be read as registers, not having been compiled under public authority. (4) A copy of a register of baptism, kept in the island of Guernsey, is not admissible in minister of a baptism, which took place before he became minister, and of which he received information from the parish clerk, is not admissible, nor is the private memorandum made by the clerk, who was present at the baptism, Doe v. Bray, 8 B. & C. 813. (1) Wihen v. Law, 3 Stark. 63. Burghart v. Angerstein, 6 C. & P. 690. Rex v. Clapham, 4 C. & P. 29. Rex v. North Petherton, 5 B. & C. 508. Burghart v. Angerstein, 6 C. & P. 690. Duins v. Donovan, 3 Hagg. 301. It seems, however, that a statement in a register, that a child was base-born, has been received, Cope v. Cope, 1 Mo. & Ro. 269. It was said, that the same evidence had been received, in Morris v. Davis. (2) Rex v. North Petherton, 5 B. & C. 508. (3) Best v. Barlow, Doug. 170, as to the various ways in which the identity or the parties to the regis- 202. (4) Read v. Passer, 1 Esp. 213. Lloyd v. Passingham, 16 Ves. 59. Peake, 233; 1 Esp. 136, 197. Most of the Fleet books were purchased by Government in 1821, and deposited in the Consistory Court of London; they contain original entries of marriages solemnized in the Fleet prison from 1686 to 1754. See many curious particulars respecting Fleet marriages and Guernsey marriages, in Burn's Fleet Reg. The books have occasionally been received in evidence, Lawrence v. Deacon, Peake, 136; and see Doe v. Lloyd, 1 Esp. 215; Peake, 231. |