5 Esp. 117. The book at Lloyd's, stating the capture of a ship, is said to be evidence of such capture in an action on a policy; but it is not evidence of notice of the loss, unless to a person who is a subscriber to Lloyd's and in the habit of examining the books there. Abel v. Potts, 3 Esp. 242. And a certificate by an agent of Lloyd's is not evidence of the amount of damage even against a subscriber. Drake v. Marryat, 1 B. & C. 473. The log-book of a man-of-war is evidence to prove the time of a vessel sailing under its convoy, in an action on a policy upon such vessel. D'Israeli v. Jowett, 1 Esp. 427. Such log-book, however, is only evidence when produced as an official public book from the Admiralty; Rundle v. Beaumont, 4 Bing. 537.; otherwise it can only be used to refresh the memory of the person who made the entries. Burrough v. Martin, 2 Camp. 112. An official letter written at the end of a voyage by the captain, and produced from the Admiralty, seems to have been held evidence of the facts stated in it, in a suit inter alios, in Watson v. King, 4 Camp. 275. Muster rolls of the King's ships, produced from the Admiralty, are evidence of the fact that persons therein named were then on board. Semb. Barber v. Holmes, 3 Esp. 190. A copy of the searcher's report at the Custom House is evidence of the cargo on board; being an official paper made under a statute. Johnson v. Ward, 6 Esp. 48. The bank-books are the best evidence to prove a transfer of stock; the testimony of the broker is not enough. Breton v. Cope, Peake, 30. So the book from the master's office in K. B. will prove a person an attorney of that court, without production of the roll. R. v. Crossley, 2 Esp. 526. The poll-books at an election are evidence. Mead v. Robinson, Willes, 424. So the polling papers, handed in at a municipal election and produced by the town clerk, are, it seems, evidence of the vote given; but the custody of them must be traced, so as to identify them as original papers; and the mere production of papers, purporting to be such, by a succeeding town clerk, is not enough. R. v. Ledgard, 8 A. & E. 535. So the books of the King's Bench and Fleet prisons are admissible to prove the dates of the commitment and discharge of prisoners; R. v. Aickles, Leach, C. L. 436.; but quære; for these books are not kept by any public authority; and they are at all events not evidence of the cause of commitment, of which the commitment itself is the best evidence. Salte v. Thomas, 3 B. & P. 188. The copy of an official paper containing the number of passengers on board a vessel, made by the captain in pursuance of an act of parliament and deposited at the India House, is admissible to show the number and description of the persons on board the vessel. Richardson v. Mellish, R. & M. 66. S. C. 2 Bing. 229. Excise books, transcribed from the malster's specimen paper, are evidence against him, without calling the officers who have transcribed them. R. v. Grimwood, 1 Price, 369. Shipping entries at the Custom House have been disallowed as evidence to fix a party with fraud, unless the original note, from which the entry was made, be produced, and it be traced to him or his agent. Hughes v. Wilson, 1 Stark. 179. So an entry of the sale of a ship in the register of the Custom House is not evidence of ownership without connecting the party with it, though made under an act of parliament. Fraser v. Hopkins, 2 Taunt. 5. The books of the clerk of the market, made up under 47 G. 3. s. 2. c. 68., are not per se evidence of the contract of sale as between the buyer and seller of coals in London, though the Act makes such entries evidence" in all actions touching any thing done in pur

suance of it." Brown v. Capel, M. & M. 374. Entries in the books of the clerk of the peace, of deputations many years since granted to gamekeepers by the owner of a manor, are evidence, without production of the deputations themselves, to show that the party therein mentioned exercised the right of appointing gamekeepers. Hunt v. Andrews, 3 B. & A. 341.; and see Rushworth v. Craven, 1 M'Cl. & Y. 417. A manuscript book of the date of Eliz., purporting to be written by an officer of the Duchy of Lancaster and describing the duties of the office, is not evidence in behalf of his successor claiming to exercise the same rights and duties under an appointment from the duchy, though the book has been always kept and referred to as authority in the duchy office. Jewison v. Dyson, 2 M. & Rob. 377. Where the plaintiff, the surgeon of a workhouse, was desirous of disproving neglect of a pauper, he was not permitted to put in evidence a journal kept by him and stating his attendances, though it was kept by order of the Poor Law Commissioners under 4 & 5 W. 4. c. 76. Merrick v. Wakley, 8 A. & E. 170. Returns of sales of corn under 1 & 2 G. 4. c. 87. are not conclusive evidence to show the parties to whom the corn was delivered; for it is no part of the duty of the corn factor to mention this in the return; and, quære, if they are evidence at all for this purpose? Woodley v. Brown, 2 Bing. 527. An entry in a vestry book, stating that A. was duly elected treasurer of the parish at a vestry duly held in pursuance of notice, is evidence of such election, and of its regularity. R. v. Martin, 2 Camp. 100. Hartley v. Cook, 5 C. & P. 441. But it must appear by the entry, or aliunde, that the meeting was duly convened after proper notice. Heysham v. Forster, 5 M. & R. 277. So a wardmote-book proves the election of a constable in the city of London. Underhill v. Witts, 3 Esp. 56. In an action for disturbing the plaintiff in the enjoyment of a pew claimed in right of his messuage, an old entry in the vestry-book, signed by the churchwardens, stating repairs of the pew by a former owner of the messuage (under whom the plaintiff claims), in consideration of his using it, is evidence to prove the plaintiff's title; for it is made by the churchwardens on a subject within the scope of their official authority. Price v. Littlewood, 3 Camp. 288. But see Cooke v. Banks, 2 C. & P. 478. The book kept by the Secretary of Bankrupts was held not even secondary evidence of a certificate. Henry v. Leigh, 3 Camp. 498. The transfer-book of a railway company is not evidence of the title of the transferee, though an act of parliament makes the entry necessary to complete the title. Hare v. Waring, 3 M. & W. 362. Nor is the memorial of a registered conveyance evidence of such conveyance. Per Parke B., ib. 379. But the book of proceedings of railway directors, purporting to be signed by the chairman or deputy chairman, is usually made evidence of the facts stated in it by the act passed for establishing the company and in such cases proof of the signature is unnecessary. Sheffield and Manchester Railway v. Woodcock, 7 M. & W. 574.

Land-tax books.] Land-tax assessment books are evidence of the occupation of land by the parties named in them. Doe v. Seaton, 2 A. & E. 171. But where it was proved to be usual to make no alteration in the name as long as the land was in the same family, they were rejected. Doe v. Arkwright, ib. 182.

;

Heralds' books.] The Heralds' visitation books, made under commissions regularly issued till the close of the seventeenth century (2 James 2.), are evidence of the facts therein recorded in matters of pedigree. B. N. P. 248. Report on Public Records, 1800, p. 82. And it is usual, and safer, to be prepared with evidence of the commissions though, as they were general ones, and not merely issued pro húc vice, such evidence is, perhaps, not strictly necessary. See ante, Proof of Inquisitions, pp. 75, 76. But a pedigree, deduced from these books and drawn up by a herald, is not admissible. King v. Foster, T. Jones, 224. 2 Rol. Ab. 686. So a written pedigree, purporting to be made by one of the family and entered in the herald's books, is not evidence. Per Fortescue J., 12 Vin. Evid. p. 119. An affidavit stating the members of deponent's family, found in the herald's office, may be good evidence as a declaration; and, where the original was lost, an entry of it in their books has been allowed as secondary evidence. Per Littledale J., Doe v. Gascoigne, 2 Stark. Ev. App. 1087.

Bishop's registers.] The register book of the bishop, containing entries of the business transacted at visitations, has been admitted as evidence of the right of nomination to a curacy. Arnold v. Bishop of Bath and Wells, 5 Bing. 316. So episcopal books have been admitted as evidence of vicarial endowments. Tucker v. Wilkins, 4 Sim. 262. Leonard v. Franklyn, 1 Daniel, 34. An enrolment book of leases granted by the Bishop of Durham was allowed as secondary evidence of a lease, on behalf of one claiming under the bishop; being a public muniment; Humble v. Hunt, Holt Ñ. P. C. 601.; and a similar register of Chapter leases, from the Chapter House of Salisbury, was admitted as evidence of reputation respecting the limits of a parish. Per Tindal C. J. in Coombs v. Coether, M. & M. 398. See antè, p. 74. 95. as to Enrolments.

Certificates.] Notarial and consular certificates are not evidence of the facts certified. Ex parte Church, 1 D. & R. 324. Waldron v. Coombe, 3 Taunt. 162., antè, p. 145, 146.; and a copy of a charter-party made by a foreign notary, and delivered to the parties, is not admissible proof of the contract, though such copies are received in the foreign courts. Brown v. Thornton, 6 A. & E. 185. A certificate of ordination under the seal of the bishop is evidence of holy orders. R. v. Bathwick, 2 B. & Ad. 639.

Post-mark.] The post-mark on a letter has been admitted as evidence of the date of its being sent; Abbey v. Lill, 5 Bing. 299.; Plumer's case, R. & R. C. C. 264.; and as proof of the receipt of its contents. Arcangelo v. Thompson, 2 Camp. 620. But a post-mark may be contradicted by parol evidence of the real date of posting. Stocken v. Collin, 7 M. & W. 515. Vide antè, p. 83.

Books of history.] A general history may be given in evidence to prove a matter relating to the kingdom in general. B. N. P. 248. Vin. Ab. Ev. (A. b. 40.). Thus chronicles have been admitted to prove that at a certain period Charles the Fifth of Spain had not surrendered the crown to Philip. Neale v. Fry, cited 1 Salk. 282. But historical evidence of this kind is only to be used in proof of a matter concerning the government, and was therefore rejected as proof that King Alfred

was the founder of a college. Cockman v. Mather, 1 Barnardist. 14. See Brounker v. Atkyns, Skin. Rep. 15. Nor can it be admitted in proof of a local custom: thus, Camden's Britannia was held to be no evidence on an issue whether, by the custom of Droitwich, salt-pits could be sunk in any part of the town. Stainer v. Burgesses of Droitwich, 1 Salk. 281. Nor is it evidence of the creation of a peerage. Vaux Peerage, 5 Cl. & F. 526.

Effect of Corporation Books.

The public acts of a municipal corporation, registered in their books, may be proved by the books themselves, which are evidence of them even as between strangers. Case of Thetford, 12 Vin. Ab. 90., and cases cited antè, p. 84. Thus an entry of the disfranchisement of a corporator is evidence to restore his competency as a witness, and cannot be collaterally examined on the merits. Brown v. London, 11 Mod. 225. But the books of a corporation, whether public or private, are not admissible in their favour as to matters of a private nature; as, to establish a claim of toll; Brett v. Beales, M. & M. 419., cited antè, p. 33.; S. C. 5 M. & R. 435.; Marriage v. Lawrence, 3 B. & A. 142.; London v. Lynn, 1 H. Bl. 214. (n); or a right to appoint a curate, as against the vicar; Att. Gen. v. Warwick, 4 Russ. 222.; or an exclusive right of trading. Davies v. Morgan, 1 C. & J. 590--3. So where a water company was sued on a bond, their books were rejected as proof, for them, that the bond was executed at an irregular meeting, although the plaintiff was a proprietor, and the private act required such books to be kept, and to be open for inspection to proprietors. Hill v. Manchester Water Works, 5 B. & Ad. 866. Where plaintiff sued the corporation (of which he was an alderman) on a bond, and defendants pleaded, 1. Fraud, 2. That the bond was irregularly executed contrary to a bye-law, Parke B. admitted the books of the corporation to prove the bye-law, but rejected them as evidence for the defendants of a pecuniary transaction between the plaintiff and the corporation in proof of the fraud. Holdsworth v. Mayor of Dartmouth, Exeter, S. A. 1838, MSS.

Effect of Parish Registers, &c.

The registers of christenings, marriages, and burials, preserved in churches, are good evidence of the facts which it is the duty of the officiating minister to record in them. B. N. P. 247. Doe v. Bray, 8 B. & C. 816. Where it appeared that the practice was to make entries in the general parish register, once in three months, out of a daybook in which the entries were made immediately after the christening, or on the same morning; and in the day-book, after a particular entry, the letters B. B. (signifying base-born) were inserted which were omitted in the register, it was held that evidence of the day-book could not be received; for that there could not be two parish registers. May v. May, 2 Stra. 1073. The register is in itself no evidence of the identity of the parties. Birt v. Barlow, 1 Doug. 170.

The books of Fleet, King's Bench, and May Fair marriages are not evidence to prove a marriage; for they were not made by public authority. They are, in fact, only private memorandums kept by ministers who officiated at clandestine marriages contrary to the canons of the

church. See Burn on Fleet Registers, ch. 6. Such a register, however, may, if signed by a party, be equivalent to a declaration by such party; and, as such, admissible where hearsay is admissible. Lloyd v. Passingham, 16 Ves. 59. A register of a foreign chapel is not admissible in our courts to prove a marriage abroad; Leader v. Barry, 1 Esp. 353.; nor of a dissenting chapel; for it is not a public document. Newham v. Raithby, 1 Phill. Rep. 315. Ex parte Taylor, J. & W. 483. So a copy of a register of baptism kept in the island of Guernsey is not admissible. Huet v. Le Mesurier, 1 Cox's Ca. 275. But the legislature has lately provided that certain non-parochial registers of births, baptisms, deaths, burials, and marriages shall be admissible evidence. See 3 & 4 Vict. c. 92., cited antè, p. 84.

An entry, in a parish register of baptism, of the time of a child's birth is not evidence of the age, the clergyman having no authority to make it. Wihen v. Law, 3 Stark. 63. But it may, if it can be shown on whose information it was made, be admissible as a declaration; S. C.; and in the ecclesiastical courts it is "adminicular" evidence of minority. Agg v. Davies, 2 Phill. Rep. 345. Nor is the register of the christening of a child in a particular parish evidence, unaccompanied by other circumstances, that the child was born in that parish. R. v. North Petherton, 5 B. & C. 508. It seems, however, that, if the age of the party baptized can be shown to correspond with the date of the entry, so as to prove baptism immediately after birth, this is some evidence of birth in that parish. R. v. St. Katharine, 5 B. & Ad. 970.; and see R. v. Lubbenham, ib. 968. Where a register of baptism stated that the child was illegitimate, Alderson J. admitted it as proof of that fact, observing that similar evidence had been admitted in another case. Cope v. Cope, 1 M. & Rob. 269. But the evidence was allowed to be of little weight, and to amount to mere "reputation in the village." Ib. 276. A register of marriage is evidence of the time of the marriage. Doe v. Barnes, 1 M. & Rob. 386. An entry by a 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 of the fact, made by the clerk who was present at the baptism. Doe v. Bray, 8 B. & C. 813.

As to the provisions of the late acts for registering births, deaths, and marriages, see antè, p. 84, 85. As those acts require a fuller statement to be entered in the registers than heretofore, a question may hereafter arise how far the register will be evidence of all the facts stated in it; as the time and place of birth, age, description, &c.

Effect of Ship's Register.

A ship's register, describing it to be British built, is no evidence of that fact as against third persons. Reusse v. Meyers, 3 Camp. 475. The register made under the Shipping Acts (antè, p. 85.) is not evidence of ownership, except as against the persons who made the affidavit or declaration. Cooper v. South, 4 Taunt. 802.

Effect of Awards.

An award, regularly made by an arbitrator to whom matters in difference are referred, is conclusive in an action at law between the parties to the reference upon all matters inquired into within the