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 of 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 to have filled either 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. In such a case, Pollock, C. B. said :-"Hearsay evidence is admissible when it is part of the transaction; and in that way the exclamations of a crowd may be received as evidence. But there is, generally speaking, this distinction between what is said and what is done; in order to admit the former, it is necessary that the 1 Appleton v. Braybrooke, 6 M. & G. 34. Sussex Peerage Case, 11 Cl. & Fin. 134. Van Der Doucht v. Thelluson, 8 C. B. 2. 5 Ibid. 2 Supra, p. 243. • Bristow v. Secqueville, 5 Exch. 275. authority of the speaker should be shown in order to affect third parties; but if it be something done, that is to be proved; and no authority is required, because there is no danger of being misled and I regard a placard or proclamation on a wall rather as something done. In a case before me at Guildford, where the plaintiff sought to recover the expenses of an election, I would not allow orders given by third parties by word of mouth to be admitted in evidence against the defendant, but I admitted inscriptions on coaches." PROCEEDINGS IN CHANCERY. The course of evidence in Chancery proceedings will be treated in a subsequent chapter: but it may be desirable to state, in this place, such a portion of this subject as is applicable to Courts of Common Law. 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.2 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.3 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.4 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.5 And where a witness at the trial gives evidence at variance with statements which he has made in an answer in 3 B. N. P. 735. 'Bruce v. Nicolupolo, 3 W. R. 483. Chancery, an examined copy of such answer will be admissible to contradict him.1 WRITS. The writ itself must be produced, or its non-production accounted for, when secondary evidence of it 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.2 RULES OF COURT. These may be proved by office copies purporting to be made by the proper officer.3 A JUDGE'S ORDER May be proved by an office copy of the order, or of the rule making it a rule of court.4 AFFIDAVITS. A voluntary affidavit is only evidence in the nature of an admission against the party making it. It may be proved, when filed, by office or examined copies. ON EVIDENCE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE MAGISTRATES AND CORONERS. 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. 1 Ewer v. Ambrose, 4 B. & C. 25. 2 B. N. P. 234. In trespass against justices, a conviction, unappealed against and unreversed, cannot be controverted in evidence; and, until quashed, it is conclusive evidence of the facts contained in it in favour of the justice of against whom it is tendered.2 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.3 But where the order refers to proceedings which are not strictly judicial, and which are also extrinsic to the controversy between the parties, the person in whose custody such documentary evidence is must be subpœnaed to produce it; and, if he refuse to appear, secondary evidence cannot be given, but the recusant witness may be attached.4 DEPOSITIONS. These are secondary evidence, and inadmissible in all cases where the original witness can be produced; but admissible in certain cases, and subject to certain common law and statutory restrictions, when he cannot be produced. The principle of this exclusion in the first instance rests on the hearsay nature of such evidence, and the prejudice to the adverse party who loses the benefit of his cross-examination. Absolutely and universally, they are inadmissible when such party has had no opportunity of controlling and explaining the evidence at the time of deposition, by cross-examining the deponent. But where he has had such opportunity, he is, in certain instances where 1 Fawcett v. Fowler, 7 B. & C. 394. 2 Strickland v. Ward, 7 T. R. 633. 3 R. v. Justices of Peterborough, 18 L. J. 79, M. C. R. v. Llanfaethly, 23 L. J. 33, M. C. |