officer whose duty it is to deliver out copies," as in the instance of the chirograph of a fine. Poll-books are documents of a public character, office copies of which are made evidence, and these copies delivered out by a clerk in the office of the clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and sealed with the seal of the office, are therefore, at common law admissible in evidence as office copies. In Mead v. Robinson (a) a copy of the poll taken at a borough election was held to be admissible. So, in Rex v. Hughes (b), the copy of a poll on the election of a mayor.

Fourthly, as to the register of voters produced by the town clerk. The document produced was a copy printed in accordance with the directions of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 49. The town clerk proved that it was a duplicate of the register in the possession of the returning officer. There was therefore evidence that this was an examined copy of the register. The register of voters in the custody of the returning officer is a public document of such a nature that it may be proved by the production of a copy.

Fifthly, as to the list signed by the revising barrister. This was the list handed to the town clerk in pursuance of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 48. In Regina v. Clarke (c), a similar list was admitted in evidence by Byles, J., for the purpose of proving that a particular person was a voter. [Channell, B.-It appears to me that the plaintiff does not want this list, because there is sufficient evidence without it.]

Sixthly, the time of the receipt of the writ is sufficiently proved by the return. The return under seal (which was an act done by a public officer in the execution of his duty, and must therefore be presumed to have been done rightly,) states the proclamation and the notice of holding the election. If that document is evidence, there was abundant (b) Cited Willes, 424.

(a) Willes, 422.

(c) 1 F. & F. 654.

1860.

REED

v.

LAMB.

1860.

REED

v.

LAMB.

proof that the election was rightly held. The return is the document which constituted the title of the member to his seat. [Channell, B., referred to The Irish Society v. The Bishop of Derry (a).]

Lastly, assuming that evidence material for the purpose of inducing the jury to come to a conclusion upon specific facts has been erroneously admitted, no new trial will be granted if it can be shewn that these facts need not have been proved. [Bramwell, B.-Suppose, in an action against the acceptor of a bill, the plaintiff attempted to prove the presentation, but did so by improper evidence, would that be wholly immaterial?] It is submitted that it would have been sufficient to prove an election de facto, without proving the regularity of it. The 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, after reciting that "the laws now in force for preventing corrupt practices in the election of members to serve in parliament have been found insufficient, and that it is expedient to consolidate and amend such laws and to make further provision for securing the freedom of such elections," by section 2 enacts that the following persons shall be deemed guilty of bribery and shall be punishable accordingly :-1.

66

Every person who shall &c. give, lend &c. any money or valuable consideration to or for any voter &c., in order to induce any voter to vote or refrain from voting &c. at any election." Under these words the offence may be complete though no election ever took place. "Any election" means "any election which may thereafter take place." The offence was complete by the corrupt act of purchasing or endeavouring to purchase the vote; therefore, even if the whole of the documentary evidence used at the trial were rejected, the offence would have been proved. [Wilde, B., referred to Doe d. Welsh v. Langfield (b).]

Middlemas proved that there was an election de facto. [Channell, B.— The election is held by a person filling the office of re(b) 16 M. & W. 497.

(a) 12 Cl. & F. 641.

turning officer: the question is whether his authority must not be shewn.] No doubt it was necessary to prove that Middlemas was a voter, but the fact that the defendant offered a bribe to Middlemas as a voter is evidence, as against the defendant, that he was a voter. There was no contest on that point, and no cross-examination with reference to it at the trial. The Court in its discretion will not grant a new trial on a point on which there was abundant evidence uncontradicted on the former trial.

Edward James and Kemplay, in support of the rule.— First, the parol evidence without the documents was not sufficient to support the verdict. That which constitutes the offence in respect of which the plaintiff has brought his action for a penalty, is bribery at a particular election. The declaration states that, on the 20th of August, 1859, there was holden an election for the borough of Berwick upon Tweed, and that the defendant bribed Middlemas to "vote at the said election." In any case the plaintiff must prove that Middlemas was a voter. [Wilde, B.—In the interpretation clause (sect. 38) of the 17 & 18 Vict. c. 102 it is said, "the word 'voter' shall mean any person who has or claims a right to vote in the election of a member or members to serve in parliament."] That does not refer to a person who is not a voter, and never pretended to be so. The words "claims a right to vote" apply to a case where a voter, who has been excluded by the revising barrister, has a right to claim to be a voter and tender his vote. In committee on a scrutiny, voters whose names have been expunged by the revising barrister might be retained: 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 98. Independently of the documentary evidence, there was merely primâ facie evidence that Middlemas was a voter. The admission of the documentary evidence may have disabled the defendant's counsel

VOL. VI.-N. S.

L

EXCH.

1860.

REED

V.

LAMB.

1860.

REED

v.

LAMB.

from commenting successfully on the primâ facie evidence. [Wilde, B.-Would not the learned Judge have been bound to tell the jury that, if a bribe was offered to a person claiming to be a voter, the offence was complete?] It is submitted not, unless the claim was a real one. If the register had not been before the jury, it might have been contended with effect that the person bribed did not in reality claim to have a vote. [Channell, B.—The documentary evidence may be material to prove the averment in the declaration that the election was for a member for the borough of Berwick upon Tweed.] All that the jury would have been justified in inferring from the parol evidence was that something which was called an election was going on. There was nothing to shew that it was a proper assembly held in obedience to the writ. If there was no writ the supposed election was null and void, and no right of action for the penalty could have accrued.

Secondly, the documentary evidence was not admissible. With respect to the writ and return, the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 14, only provides for the admissibility of an examined or certified copy of any book or document of a public nature. There is no statute which renders a copy of a writ admissible. If there was no writ there could be no election. The document produced and said to be a certified copy turned out not to be so. It was allowed to be taken as read, under the mistaken notion that it was a certified copy.

Thirdly, the copy of the register of voters was inadmissible. By the 48th section of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18 the revising barrister must deliver to the town clerk the list of voters, and the town clerk must cause the list to be copied and printed in a book, which he must sign and deliver to the returning officer. By the 49th section the printed book so signed is made the register of voters. This register is not a document of such a public nature as to be admissible in evidence on its mere production by the returning

officer; but it would be necessary to prove the signature of the town clerk, for without his signature it would not be the register. [Channell, B.-The right to have a copy is not limited to the inhabitants of the particular borough, but any of the public may obtain one on payment. Pollock, C. B.-The transfer books of the Bank of England relate only to the holders of stock, and yet they are public documents. A number of other books and documents of a like nature are mentioned in Taylor on Evidence, sect. 1438, p. 1281, 3rd ed., such as parish registers, the books of the East India Company, the rolls of courts baron, assessments of land tax, &c. (a).] The 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18 does not require the register to be kept in any particular place, only in the custody of the returning officer. Corporation books are admissible if they come from the proper custody: Rex v. Mothersell (b), Phillipps on Evidence, vol. 2, p. 229, 10th ed.; but there is no authority that a copy of them may be given in evidence. So with terriers or surveys of glebe lands, which are required by the ecclesiastical canons to be returned into the registry of the bishop: Phillipps on Evidence, vol. 2, p. 235, 10th ed. Printed copies of the statements of the annual accounts of a turnpike trust, produced from the office of the clerk of the peace (to which the originals, signed by the chairman at the annual general meeting, had been returned pursuant to the 3 Geo. 4, c. 126, s. 78), are not admissible in evidence, in an action against the trustees, without proof that the originals were lost or destroyed: Pardoe v. Price (c). Besides, the copy produced was not proved to be an examined or certified copy.

Fourthly, there was no evidence of notice of the election. [Pollock, C. B.-The House of Commons cannot assemble

(a) See also Motteram v. The Eastern Counties Railway Com. pany, 7 C. B. N. S. 558.

(b) 1 Str. 93.

(c) 13 M. & W. 267.

1860.

REED

v.

LAMB.