ture (3); but a copy of the will would not be evidence of that fact (4).

The probate of a will, devising real property, is not evidence of the contents, in an action of ejectment, even to prove a relationship; for where the original is in being, the copy is not admissible; and, besides, the seal of the court does not prove it a true copy, unless the suit relate only to personal property (5). But the ledger-book, says Mr. Just. Buller, is evidence in such a case, because this is not considered merely as a copy, but is a roll of the court; and though the law does not allow these rolls to prove a devise of lands, yet when the will is only to prove relationship, the rolls of the spiritual court, which has authority to enrol wills, are sufficient proof of such testament. And, under particular circumstances, the ledger-book may be evidence even in a devise of a real estate; as where, in an avowry *for a rent-charge, the avowant could not produce the will under which he claimed, that belonging to the devisee of the land, the ordinary's register of the will, and proof of former payments, were held to be sufficient evidence against the plaintiff, who was devisee of the land charged. However, in such a case, notice ought to be given to the other party to produce the will. It has been often held, that a copy of the ledger-book is not evidence, yet, since the original would be read as a roll of the court without further attestation, it seems fit, says Mr. Justice Buller, that the copy should also be read. The contrary practice, he adds, has been founded upon the mistaken supposition, that the ledger-book is read as a copy, when in fact it is read as a roll of the court (1).

To prove that the probate of a will has been revoked, an entry of the revocation in a book of the prerogative court, in which all causes were entered by the register, and which was kept as the only record of such proceedings and of

(3) Hoe v. Nelthorp, 3 Salk. 154; 1 Ld. Raym. 154. S. C. Per Holt, C. J. in R. v. Haynes, Skin. 584. See ante, p. 245.

(4) Bull. N. P. 246.
(5) Ib,

(1) Bull N. P. 246,

* 300 Letters of Administration.

* 301

Foreign judgment.

the decree of the court, has been admitted to be good evidence (2).

Administration is generally granted by writing under seal. It may also be granted by entry in the registry without letters under seal (3). The ecclesiastical court never grants an exemplification of letters of administration, but only a certificate, that administration was granted; therefore, when a lessee pleads an assignment of a term from an administrator, such certificate is good evidence (4). And the original book of acts, directing letters of administration to be granted, with the surrogate's fiat for the same, is evidence of the title of the party, to whom administration of the intestate's effects is granted, without producing the letters of administration themselves, (notwithstanding subsequent letters of administration granted to another,) if the *first are not recalled; for, the original book was the authority for the proper officer to make out letters of administration, and the letters of administration were only the copy of the original minutes of the court, drawn up in a more formal manner (1). So an examined copy of the actbook, stating that administration was granted to the defendant at such a time, is proof of his being administrator in an action against him, without giving him notice to produce the letters of administration (2).

In an action upon the judgment of a court of a foreign country, the sentence must be proved by proving the handwriting of the judge of the court, who subscribed it, and the authenticity of the seal affixed. Thus, in a late case (3), the plaintiff, who sued here on a judgment obtained in the island of Grenada, was nonsuited, because, he could not prove the seal affixed to be the seal of the island. And on a motion to set aside the nonsuit, the court said, they could not take official notice, that the seal affixed was the seal of

(2) Ramsbottom's case, 1 Leach Cr. C. 30, n. (c).

(3) Vin. Ab. Executor, D. p. 70. (4) Kempton dem. Boyfield v. Cross. Rep. temp. Hard. 108. Bull.

Ν. Ρ. 246.

(1) Elden v. Keddell, 8 East 187. 16 East 209. Garrett v. Lister, 1 Lev. 25. Bull. N. P. 246.

(2) Davis v. Williams, 13 East 232. Ray v. Clark, ib. 238. n. (a). (3) Henry v. Adey, 3 East 221.

the island, which was necessary to be shown, in order to prove the judgment, which it purported to authenticate; and that proving the judge's hand-writing could not advance the proof of the seal, unless by considering him in the nature of a witness to it, which was not pretended (a).

(a) Acc. Delafield v. Hand, 3 Johns. Rep. 310. It is said by Marshall, Ch. J., 2 Cranch 238., that foreign judgments are authenticated, 1. By an exemplification under the great seal. 2. By a copy proved to be a true copy. 3. By the certificate of an offi cer authorized by law, which certificate must itself be properly authenticated. These are the usual, and appear to be the most proper, if not the only modes of verifying foreign judgments. If they be all beyond the reach of the party, other testimony, inferior in its nature, might be received.

On a motion for a new trial, on the ground of newly discovered evidence, the testimony to be introduced was a copy of proceedings and condemnation at Para, which had been transmitted to Lisbon, from whence the copy was obtained, and purported to come through the secretary of state for foreign affairs of the kingdom of Portugal. Thompson, J. delivering the opinion of the court says:-" If it be, as has been contended, a regulation of the government of Portugal, that all judgments and decrees rendered at Para, are transmitted to Lisbon and registered in the department of state; that regulation should have been shown in some authentic way, and the document in question would then appear to come through the proper channel, and if duly authenticated, might be competent prima facie evidence of what it contains. But nothing appears to show that such is the regulation of the mother country with her colony. This document cannot be considered an exemplification of a judgment. That should be under the great seal; this is only under the seal of arms of the secretary of state: neither is it a sworn copy of the original, and it cannot be received as an office copy, it not appearing that the secretary of state has officially the custody of records of this description. The translation of this document from the Portuguese into the English language, ought to have been made on oath; interpreters are always sworn. The translation of a consul, not on oath, can have no greater validity, than that of any other respectable man." Vandervoort & another v. Smith, 2 Caines' Rep. 155.

Award.

The effect of an award has been before mentioned (4). In an action upon an award, it will be necessary to prove both the submission and the execution of the award. And, in general, (whether the validity of the award comes into

(4) See ante, p. 179.287.

In a case in the Supreme Court of the U. S. a copy of a decree made at Para, certified in the same manner by the secretary of state at Lisbon was held inadmissible. Marshall, Ch. J.-" If it be true that the decrees of the colonies are transmitted to the seat of government, and registered in the department of state, a certificate of that fact under the great seal, with a copy of the decree authenticated in the same manner, would be sufficient prima facie evidence of the verity of what was so certified; but the certificate offered to the court is under the private seal of the person giving it, which cannot be known to this court, and of consequence can authenticate nothing.-Admitting the originals in the Portuguese language to have been authenticated properly, yet there was error in admitting the translation to have been read on the certificate of the consul. Interpreters are always sworn, and the translation of a consul, not on oath, can have no greater validity than that of any other respectable man." Church v. Hubbart, 2 Cranch 187. Copies of proceedings in the vice admiralty court of Jamaica, certified under the seal of the court by the deputy registrar, who was certified by the judge of the court, who was certified by a notary public, were held admissible in evidence without proof of the seal and the hand-writing of the judge: Marshall, Ch. J.-" The sentence in this case is sufficiently authenticated to be received as evidence. Being a court acting under the law of nations, its proceedings may be proved according to the mode observed in the present case; and were this doubtful, that doubt would be removed by the circumstance that it is the form stipulated by treaty." Yeaton v. Fry, 5 Cranch 335. Where a sentence of a foreign prize courť was authenticated by a copy under the seal of the court, signed by the actuary in the absence of the register, though not signed by the judge, and such seal and signature were proved by the deposition of a witness, it was held sufficient. Gardere v. Columbian Ins. Compy, 7 Johns. Rep. 514. In an action of assumpsit on a foreign judgment a witness swore, that he applied to the reputed clerk of the court for the copy of the record of the question directly, or only incidentally,) the submission of all the parties ought to be regularly proved. Thus, where there had been a deed of reference, between a creditor and several partners, of all copartnership accounts and of all

judgment, that he assisted the clerk in comparing the copy with the record, and in affixing the seal of the court to the copy, and saw the same clerk attest the copy by putting his name to it. The verification of the record was held sufficient. Buttrick & Wife v. Allen, 8 Mass. Rep. 273. In an action on a judgment in a court in the island of St. Vincent, the plaintiff's counsel produced a document signed by the chief justice of the island, but without a seal; and Ld. Ellenborough refused to receive it in evidence, without satisfactory proof that the court had no seal, for until that was proved, it would be presumed that the court had a seal. Alves v. Bunbury, 4 Campb. 28. Proceedings in St. Domingo, during a short period, in which the possession of the island had passed from France to England, were, from the particular circumstances of the case, held sufficiently authenticated by the private seal of the governor. Hadfield v. Jameson, 2 Mun. 53. Though the courts of one country cannot judicially take notice of the seal of a foreign court, yet the public seal of a state stands on a different footing; it is matter of notoriety, and may be taken notice of by another as part of the law of nations, acknowledged by all. Anon. 9 Mod. 66. Peake's Ev. 73. п. (q).

The method of proving the laws of a foreign country seems to be naturally connected with the subject of the text and of the preceding part of this note, and a few observations upon it may not be improper. The courts of one country cannot judicially take notice of the laws of other countries, and therefore, where a contract is to be construed according to the laws of the country in which it was made, witnesses are examined to prove what those laws are. 1 P. Wms. 431. Peake's Ev. 73. n. (q). Peake's Cas. 18. Et vide Walpole v. Ewen, 2 Marsh. 762. But there is a material distinction between the written and unwritten law of a foreign country; the latter only can be proved by parol: the former must be proved by a duly authenticated copy of the statute itself. Livingston & Gilchrist v. Maryland Ins. Compy, 6 Cranch 274. Kenny v. Clarkson & Van Horne, 1 Johns. Rep. 385. Hulle v. Heightman, 4 Esp. Rep. 75. 3 Esp. Rep. (Day's Ed.)