money-payments in lieu of tithes enumerated in it, was admissible, to shew that Dr. Eyre, who was clearly at the time rector, and had been so for many years preceding, and had received customary payments (there being also negative evidence that no payment of tithes in kind had been ever made), had given such receipt, and thereby acknowledged such payments. This paper was produced by the defendant's solicitor, who stated, that he received it from the defendant for the purpose of preparing his defence. It was not given to the defendant, but to another person of the same name, and who of course occupied lands in the parish, for none but an occupier could have acquired such a receipt. The Lord Chief Baron Thompson said, “That person being of the same name with the present defendant, there is a reasonable inference, that they were so connected as to make this the proper custody; and reasonable evidence of proper custody is all that can be required, and is sufficient." It was objected, also, that the handwriting of the paper had not been proved; "but," said the Chief Baron, "I do not think that any such proof was necessary to establish a document of this sort, at such a distance of time, any more than it would have been necessary to prove a deed of the same date."

The rule, respecting the proof of the custody in which documents have been kept, applies more particularly to ancient documents, whose authenticity depends in a great degree upon their custody, and which must be shewn to be connected with the party who produces them. In common cases, where the written instrument itself purports to belong to the party who produces it in evidence, no proof can be requisite as to the place in which it has been kept. On a question of settlement, where the respondents produced a certificate more than thirty years old, purporting to be granted to their parish by the appellant parish, the mere production of it was held to be sufficient, and the respondents were not obliged to show that the certificate had been kept in the parish chest; (1) and it would be sufficient, if the certificate were to be produced by a rated inhabitant of the parish. (2) So in an action for a false return to a manda

(1) Rex v. Ryton, 5 T. R. 259.

(2) Rex v. Netherthong, 2 Maule

mus, a corporator may produce the muniments of the corporation. (1)

In the case of the Bishop of Meath v. The Marquis of Winchester, (2) it was considered, that a particular document relating to the private interests of a bishop, though in some degree relating to the see, might more reasonably be expected to be preserved with his private papers and family documents, than in the public registry of the diocese; but that, under the circumstances of the case, considering the document as belonging to the see, it was not unreasonable that it should be found in the bishop's mansion house; for, upon the evidence, there was only one single ecclesiastical record preserved in the registry of the diocese of so early a date, whilst, on the other hand, the document was found in the same parcel with several papers relating to the see, and in the same room were several visitation books of the diocese and other papers relating to the see.

In delivering judgment in the last mentioned case, Chief Justice Tindal observes, with reference to the proper custody of documents, "It is not necessary that documents should be found in the best and most proper place of deposit. If documents continued in such custody, there never would be any question as to their authenticity; but it is when documents are found in other than the proper place of deposit, that the investigation commences, whether it was reasonable and natural, under the circumstances in the particular case, to expect that they should have been in the place where they were actually found. For it is obvious that whilst there can be only one place of deposit strictly and absolutely proper, there may be various, and many that are reasonable and probable, though differing in degree; some being more so, some less; and in those cases the proposition to be determined is, whether the actual custody is so reasonably and probably to be accounted for, that it impresses

& Selw. 337. This was before the late act of parliament, which made rated inhabitants competent witnesses on the trial of an appeal.

(1) 2 Maule & Selw. 338. The subject of the custody of documents

will be further adverted to, in treating of particular species of public writings, as terriers, registers and the like.

(2) 3 Bing. N. C. 203.

money-payments in lieu of tithes enumerated in it, was admissible, to shew that Dr. Eyre, who was clearly at the time rector, and had been so for many years preceding, and had received customary payments (there being also negative evidence that no payment of tithes in kind had been ever made), had given such receipt, and thereby acknowledged such payments. This paper was produced by the defendant's solicitor, who stated, that he received it from the defendant for the purpose of pre paring his defence. It was not given to the defendant, but ta another person of the same name, and who of course occupied lands in the parish, for none but an occupier could have acquires such a receipt. The Lord Chief Baron Thompson said, “That person being of the same name with the present defendant there is a reasonable inference, that they were so connected 2 to make this the proper custody; and reasonable evidence o proper custody is all that can be required, and is sufficient. It was objected, also, that the handwriting of the paper had not been proved; "but," said the Chief Baron, "I do not think that any such proof was necessary to establish a document o this sort, at such a distance of time, any more than it woul have been necessary to prove a deed of the same date."

The rule, respecting the proof of the custody in which docu ments have been kept, applies more particularly to ancient docu ments, whose authenticity depends in a great degree upon the custody, and which must be shewn to be connected with the party who produces them. In common cases, where the writte instrument itself purports to belong to the party who produces it in evidence, no proof can be requisite as to the place in which it has been kept. On a question of settlement, where the re spondents produced a certificate more than thirty years o purporting to be granted to their parish by the appellant parish the mere production of it was held to be sufficient, and the re spondents were not obliged to show that the certificate h been kept in the parish chest ; (1) and it would be sufficient, the certificate were to be produced by a rated inhabitant of the parish. (2) So in an action for a false return to a manda

(1) Rex v. Ryton, 5 T. R. 259.

(2) Rex v. Netherthong, 2 Maule

mus, a corporator may produce the muniments of the corporation. (1)

In the case of the Bishop of Meath v. The Marquis of Winhester, (2) it was considered, that a particular document reating to the private interests of a bishop, though in some deree relating to the see, might more reasonably be expected to e preserved with his private papers and family documents, lan in the public registry of the diocese; but that, under the rcumstances of the case, considering the document as belongg to the see, it was not unreasonable that it should be found the bishop's mansion house; for, upon the evidence, there as only one single ecclesiastical record preserved in the restry of the diocese of so early a date, whilst, on the other and, the document was found in the same parcel with several pers relating to the see, and in the same room were several vitation books of the diocese and other papers relating to the see.

In delivering judgment in the last mentioned case, Chief istice Tindal observes, with reference to the proper custody documents, "It is not necessary that documents should be und in the best and most proper place of deposit. If docuents continued in such custody, there never would be any lestion as to their authenticity; but it is when documents are and in other than the proper place of deposit, that the investigain commences, whether it was reasonable and natural, under the rcumstances in the particular case, to expect that they should ive been in the place where they were actually found. For it obvious that whilst there can be only one place of deposit rictly and absolutely proper, there may be various, and many at are reasonable and probable, though differing in degree; me being more so, some less; and in those cases the propotion to be determined is, whether the actual custody is so asonably and probably to be accounted for, that it impresses

Selw. 337. This was before the te act of parliament, which made ted inhabitants competent witesses on the trial of an appeal. (1) 2 Maule & Selw. 338. The abject of the custody of documents

will be further adverted to, in treating of particular species of public writings, as terriers, registers and the like.

(2) 3 Bing. N. C. 203.

Examined copy.

Public books.

the mind with the conviction, that the instrument found in such custody must be genuine. That such is the character and description of the custody, which is held sufficiently genuine to render a document admissible, appears from all the cases. On the one hand, old grants to abbeys have been rejected as evidence of private rights, where the possession of them has appeared altogether unconnected with the persons who had any interest in the estate. Thus, in the case of Lygon v. Strutt, a manuscript found in the Herald's Office, enumerating the possessions of the dissolved monastery of Tutbury; in Michell v. Rabbits, a manuscript found in the Bodleian Library, Oxford; in Swinnerton v. Marquis of Stafford, an old grant to a priory brought from the Cottonian MSS. in the British Museum; were held to be inadmissible, the possession of the documents being unconnected with the interests in the property. On the other hand, in the case of Bullen v. Michell, an old chartulary of the dissolved abbey lands of Glastonbury was held to be admissible, because found in the possession of the owner of part of the abbey lands, though not of the principal proprietor. This was not the proper custody, which, as Lord Redesdale observed, would have been the augmentation office, and, as between the different proprietors of the abbey lands, it might have been more reasonably expected to have been deposited with the largest proprietor; but it was, as the Court argued, a place of custody, where it might be reasonably expected to be found. So also, in the case of Jones v. Waller, the collector's book would have been as well authenticated, if produced from the custody of the executor of the incumbent or his successor, as from the hands of the successor of the collector. And the case of Bertie v. Beaumont, is to the same effect."

In like manner, as in the case with regard to judicial documents, the rule appears to be generally applicable to public writings, namely, that wherever an original is admitted in evidence upon the footing of a public document, an examined copy will equally be admitted. (1) Thus, examined copies of the journals of the House of Lords or Commons, (2) or of the entries Comb. 337.

(1) Holt, Ch. J. in Lynch v. Clark, 3 Salk. 153. Rex v. Haines,

(2) Lord Melville's case, 24 How.