facts stated in it; as to the time and place of birth, age, description, &c. It should seem, however, that such particulars being supplied by private persons only, and not being within the knowledge of the registering officer, are not admissible as evidence of them against third persons, merely because they are officially entered on the register; Semb. per cur. Huntley v. Donovan, 15 Q. B. 96. And accordingly such certificate of birth is evidence of the fact, but not of the date of birth. Re Wintle, L. R., 9 Eq. 373. M. R. The judgment in R. v. Weaver, ante, p. 119, proceeds on a contrary assumption, but the point does not appear to have been noticed.

The Births and Deaths Registration Act 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 88), which is (by sect. 52) to be read with the earlier acts relating thereto, contains (sect. 38) restrictions on the admissibility of these registers of births and deaths in evidence, but the provisions are of too minute a character to be further noticed here. It would seem from this section that the entries of other registrars besides the Registrar-General may be evidence under certain limitations. Thus the district registrar's certificate is evidence of death. See Traill v. Kibblewhite, 10 Jur. 107, Shadwell, V. C., 1847.

The registration of a building under 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 85, for the solemnisation of marriages under that Act, may be proved either by a certified copy under 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 14, ante, p. 96, or by an examined copy of the register. R. v. Manwaring, 1 Dears. & B. 132; 26 L. J., M. C. 10. By stat. 19 & 20 Vict. c. 119, s. 24, every certified copy or extract sealed or stamped with the seal of the General Register Office, shall be received as evidence of the place of meeting therein mentioned having been, at the time therein stated, duly certified and registered or recorded as by law required, without any further or other proof of the same.

Marriages in Scotland and Ireland.] The Act 19 & 20 Vict. c. 96, s. 1, invalidates every irregular marriage in Scotland contracted after 31st December, 1856, unless one of the parties had at the date thereof his or her usual place of residence there, or had lived in Scotland for 21 days next preceding such marriage. By sect. 2, the registrar of the parish or burgh in which an irregular marriage has been contracted after the said day, is, upon receiving a certain warrant from the sheriff or sheriff-substitute, granted on the joint petition of the parties, to enter the marriage in a register, and a certified copy of such entry signed by the registrar is to be received in evidence of such marriage, and of such residence or of such previous living 21 days in Scotland, in all courts in the United Kingdom and dominions thereunto belonging.

The Irish Marriage Act, 7 & 8 Vict. c. 81, amended by and incorporated with 26 & 27 Vict. c. 27; 33 & 34 Vict. c. 110, Part II.; and 36 & 37 Vict. c. 16, provides for the registration of all marriages in Ireland. By 7 & 8 Vict. c. 81, s. 71, certified copies of entries are given at the register office in Dublin, and these if purporting to be sealed or stamped with the seal of the office, are made evidence of the marriage to which they relate without any further proof of such entry or of the seal.

Births, deaths, and marriages in India and the Colonies.] Books kept among the archives of the East India Company before the transfer of their supreme powers to the crown, being copies of marriage registers kept at each presidency, and transmitted officially to the company, are evidence of marriages in India, when produced from the proper custody. Ratcliff v. Ratcliff, 1 Sw. & Tr. 467; 29 L. J., P. M. & A. 171. So similar copies of registers of baptism in India are admissible in evidence. Queen's Proctor v.

Births, Deaths and Marriages at Sea.-Abroad.

121

Fry, 4 P. D. 230. These registers are deposited at the offices of the Secretary of State for India.

By the 14 & 15 Vict. c. 40, s. 11, provision was made for the registration of the marriages of persons professing the Christian religion in India, solemnised under that act before a registrar, and, by sect. 12, duplicates of the register were directed to be transmitted to the secretary to the government in the presidency or place, or place of residence of the registrar, to be kept by him; and in certain instances these duplicates were to be transmitted to the Registrar-General of births, &c., in England. Sect. 21 enacted, that the act was not to affect marriages solemnised in India by persons in holy orders, nor Scotch marriages there legalised by stat. 58 Geo. 3, c. 84, nor other legal marriages there; and the Governor-General was empowered to make laws for the registration of such marriages; and to provide for the transmission of duplicates to the Registrar-General of births, &c., in England. Sect. 22 provided that certified copies of the certificates delivered under this act to the Registrar-General, purporting to be sealed or stamped with the seal of the General Register Office, should be received as evidence of the marriage to which they relate, without further proof of such certificate, or of any entry therein. This act was repealed by the Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1875, with the proviso that such repeal shall not affect "the proof of any past act or thing." These marriages are now regulated by Indian Acts.

By stat. 42 & 43 Vict. c. 8, registers kept under Queen's regulations of births, deaths, and marriages occurring out of the United Kingdom, among British officers and soldiers, are to be transmitted to the Registrar-General, and filed or copied in the "Army Register Books," which is to be deemed a certified copy of the register book within the meaning of the Registration Acts.

In Australia, Canada, Nova Scotia, the West Indies, and other of the British colonies, acts of parliament are in force for the registration of births, marriages, and deaths, and where such is the case the registers may be used in evidence.

Births, deaths, and marriages at sea.] By 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 282, the masters of ships for which official log-books were required were to enter therein births, marriages and deaths taking place on board, and, by sect. 285, these entries are to be received in evidence in any proceeding in any court of justice, saving all just exceptions; vide post, pp. 122, 123. The Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1874 (37 & 38 Vict. c. 88), by sect. 54, repeals 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, s. 282, so far as relates to entries to births and deaths, and by sect. 37, provides for the record of births and deaths happening on board ship. A return is to be made of such record to the RegistrarGeneral of Shipping and Seamen, who (sub-sect. 5) is to send a certified copy of such return to the Registrar-General of Births and Deaths. By sub-sect. 7, the copy is to be filed or copied in “ a marine Register-book,' which is to be deemed to be a certified copy of a register-book within the meaning of the Registration Acts.

Births, deaths, and marriages abroad.] Foreign registers of births, marriages, and deaths would seem to be admissible, if proved to have been prepared under official authority. In Abbott v. Abbott, 29 L. J. P. M. & A. 57, a certificate copied from a register made by the curé of a parish in Chili, under public authority, was received. In this case the certificate was signed by the curé, whose signature and character were verified by the certificate of a notary public, whose character was further certified by the certificate of three other notaries public, their character being in turn verified

by the Minister for Foreign Affairs for Chili, and this again by the British consul there. Registers of births, baptisms, marriages, and burials of British subjects beyond seas, which have been transmitted from different British embassies and factories on the continent of Europe and elsewhere, are now placed in the registry of the Consistory Court of London. By 12 & 13 Vict. c. 68, British consuls authorised to act for this country abroad may be empowered by a Secretary of State to grant licences for, and to solemnize marriages where both or one of the parties are British subjects; and by sects. 11, 12, they are directed to make entries of these marriages in a register book, copies of which are to be forwarded to the Secretary of State, and by him transmitted to the Registrar-General. Sect. 18 provides, that this Act shall be taken as part of the Act 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 86, ante, pp. 118, 119, and that every consul shall be deemed a registrar under that Act, and the provisions of that Act shall relate to consuls and the registers of marriages under this Act and certified copies thereof.

By the Consular Marriages Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. c. 61), s. 3, every person acting or legally authorized to act in the place of a British consul, duly authorized to solemnize marriages, shall be deemed a British consul duly authorized for all the purposes of the Act, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 68, supra.

Proof of Merchant Shipping Documents.

By the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104), various provisions are made for the easier proof of documents relating to such shipping. Thus all documents purporting to be issued or written by direction of the Board of Trade, and to be sealed with the seal of the Board or signed by one of the secretaries or assistant secretaries of such Board, shall be received in evidence and deemed to be so issued or written without further proof, unless the contrary be shown. Sect. 7.

The Board issues forms of books, instruments, and papers required by the Act and sealed with its seal; and none “unless made in such form shall be admissible in evidence in any civil proceeding on the part of any owner or master of any ship." A form purporting to have been so issued, and bearing the seal is to be taken prima facie as in the form required. Sect. 8. Every register or declaration made in pursuance of Part II. of the Act, in respect of a British ship, may be proved either by production of the original, or by an examined copy, or by a copy purporting to be certified under the hand of the registrar or person in charge of the original; and every such register or copy, and every certificate of registry of a British ship, purporting to be signed by the registrar or proper officer, shall be received in evidence, as prima facie proof of all the matters contained or recited in the register, when the register or copy is produced, and of all matters contained in or endorsed on such certificate of registry, and purporting to be authenticated by the signature of a registrar, when such certificate is produced. Sect. 107. The several particulars to be declared, registered, or certified, are fully specified in the Act.

Sect. 280 requires official log-books to be kept in a prescribed form, containing certain entries, and by sect. 285 all entries so made in such logs, shall be received in evidence in any court subject to all just exceptions. See The Henry Coxon, 3 P. D. 156, cited ante, p. 59. The entry therein of births, marriages, and deaths, was provided for by sect. 282, but births and deaths are now registered under 37 & 38 Vict. c. 88, s. 37, vide ante, p. 121.

The saving in sects. 282, 285, leaves open the question of the admissi

Merchant Shipping Documents.-Corporation Deeds.

123 bility of such entries as evidence of the fact entered. It would seem too that the book must be proved to be the official log-book so kept under the Act.

Sect. 107 of 17 & 18 Vict. c. 104, ante, p. 122, corresponded almost verbatim with the provisions of sect. 12, of Lord Brougham's Evidence Act (14 & 15 Vict. c. 99), vide ante, pp. 95, et seq.; this latter section was repealed by the Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1875.

By the Merchant Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1855 ( 18 & 19 Vict. c. 91), s. 15, the copy or transcript of the register kept by the chief registrar in London, or by the Registrar-General of Shipping and (see 35 & 36 Vict. c. 73, s. 4) Seamen, is to have the same effect to all intents and purposes as the original register."

In R. v. Castro, Q. B. trial at bar, 28 Nov. 1873, ex relatione editoris, crew lists of vessels which had cleared from the custom-house at New York were allowed to be proved by examined copies, without accounting for the non-production of the originals, vide ante, p. 98.

Proof of Corporation Deeds.

Fixing the common seal is tantamount to delivery. Com. Dig. Fait (A. 3). The seal must be proved by some one who knows it, but it is not necessary to call a witness who saw it affixed. Moises v. Thornton, 8 T. R. 307; Brounker v. Atkyns, Skinn. 2. Some corporation seals, as that of London, require no proof. Doe d. Woodmass v. Mason, 1 Esp. 53. Not so the seal of the Bank of England; Semb. Doe d. Bank of England v. Chambers, 4 Ad. & E. 410; nor the seal of any other corporation, unless it be made to prove itself by some statute, or be made admissible by the Act 8 & 9 Vict. c. 113, s. 1, ante, p. 94.

If the seal of a corporation is attached to an instrument, it will be presumed, as against them, to have been regularly attached, and it lies on them to give strict proof to the contrary, so as to exclude such presumption. Clarke v. Imperial Gas Co., 4 B. & Ad. 315. The presumption may, however, be rebutted by evidence. Anon., 12 Mod. 423. The irregularity, when a defence might formerly have been shown under non est factum; Hill v. Manchester Waterworks Co., 5 B. & Ad. 866; R. British Bank v. Turquand, 5 E. & B. 256; D'Arcy v. Tamar, &c., Ry. Co., L. R., 2 Ex. 158. But it would now seem necessary to plead it specially, as the objection would be likely to take the plaintiff by surprise. See Rules 1883, O. xix., r. 15, ante, p. 72. A person who manages the affairs of a trading corporation must of necessity have power to use the corporate seal for those acts he is authorized to perform. Ex pte. Contract Corporation, L. R., 3 Ch. 105, 116. As to the power of de facto directors to bind their company, see In re County Life Assurance Co., L. R., 5 Ch. 288. It is not settled whether such a deed proves itself after thirty years. R. v. Bathwick, 2 B. & Ad. 639. Lapse of time does not increase the difficulty of proving a corporation seal, which is one, but not the only, reason for dispensing with proof.

As to proof where the deed is attested, vide post, p. 124; and as to what constitutes attestation, vide post, p. 126. The name of a corporation as stated in a deed must be the same in substance with the true name, but need not be the same in words or syllables. R. v. Haughley, 4 B. & Ad. 650, citing Lynn's (Mayor of) Case, 10 Rep. 124; Croydon Hospital v. Farley, 6 Taunt. 467. And where a municipal corporation who, under 21 & 22 Vict. c. 98, s. 24, were also the local board of health, entered into a contract under seal as such local board, the corporation were held to be bound; Andrews v. Ryde, Mayor, &c., of, L. R., 9 Ex. 302.

Where a question arises as to the effect of two deeds relating to the same subject-matter, both executed on the same day, it must be proved which was in fact executed first; but if there is anything in the deeds themselves to. show an intention either that they shall take effect pari passu, or even that the later deed shall take effect in priority to the earlier, then the Court will presume that the deeds were executed in such order as to give effect to that intention. Gartside v. Silkstone & Dodworth Coal & Iron Co., 21 Ch. D. 761.

Proof of Private Deeds and Writings.

Attesting witness, when to be called.] It was long a settled rule that wherever a deed or other instrument is subscribed by attesting witnesses, one of them at least must be called to prove the execution; and it was held that such testimony could not be dispensed with, though the defendant had admitted the execution in his answer to a bill in Chancery. Call v. Dunning, 4 East, 53. Thus a notice to quit (Doe d. Sykes v. Durnford, 2 M. & S. 62) or a warrant to distrain (Higgs v. Dixon, 2 Stark. 180), if attested, could only be proved by calling the attesting witnesses. This rule was considered of indispensable obligation, and to be "so inflexible, clear, and universal, as not to be set aside by any reasoning, however cogent." Hence, although Slatterie v. Pooley, 6 M. & W. 664, had decided that an admission by a party was primary evidence against him of any document and its contents, and although the stat. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 99, s. 2, had provided that parties to a suit were competent and compellable to give evidence in it, yet it was ruled in Whyman v. Garth (8 Exch. 803; 22 L. J., Ex. 316), that the plaintiff can neither prove the execution of an attested deed by the testimony in open court of the defendant who executed it, nor examine such defendant as to the contents of it. The law has now been partially amended by the C. L. P. Act, 1854, s. 26, which enacts, that "it shall not be necessary to prove by the attesting witness any instrument to the validity of which attestation is not requisite; and such instrument may be proved by admission or otherwise, as if there had been no attesting witness thereto." But as there are many instruments to which attestation is essential, as wills, instruments under powers, bills of sale, &c., it is still necessary to retain many of the old decisions on the subject, although even in these cases the necessity for calling the attesting witnesses only arises where it is necessary to prove the instrument, for the parties against whom any of these instruments requiring attestation are sought to be used may waive the necessity for calling the attesting witness by admissions. Thus, if in the course of the proceedings in the cause, the party voluntarily admits the execution, or if by his pleadings he does not require the execution to be proved, there is no necessity for calling the attesting witness. But where proof has to be given of attestation, the necessity for calling the attesting witness cannot be avoided by putting the party to the deed, and against whom it is sought to be used, into the witness-box, and extracting an admission of the execution from him; Whyman v. Garth, supra.

Where the attesting witness is dead (Anon., 12 Mod. 607), or insane (Currie v. Child, 3 Camp. 283), or infamous (Jones v. Mason, 2 Stra. 833), or absent in a foreign country, or not amenable to the process of the superior courts (Prince v. Blackburn, 2 East, 252), although he might have been examined on interrogatories (Glubb v. Edwards, 2 M. & Rob. 300), or where he cannot be found after diligent inquiry (Spooner v. Payne, 4 C. B. 328; Cunliffe v. Sefton, 2 East, 183);-evidence of the witness's handwriting has always been admissible. A subscribing witness, who has become blind,