(d) Lyell v. Kennedy, sup.; Plant v. Taylor, (1861) 7 H. &; N. 211; Smith v. Tebbitt, (1867) L. R. 1 P. & D. 354. As to what is meant by "blood relations" within the meaning of this rule, see Taylor, 11th ed. 437, 440.

(e) Johnson v. Lawson, (1824) 2 Bing. 86; 9 Moore, 183; Crease v. Barrett, (1836) 1 C. M. & R. at p. 928; 4 L. J. N. S. Ex. 297; Casey v. O'shaunessy, (1843) 7 Jur. 1140.

(f) See Sussex Peerage case, (1844) 11 C. & F. 85, 112; 8 Jur. 793; Lloyd v. Wait, (1842) 1 Ph. 61; 6 Jur. 45.

(g) 1926, Ch. 284.

Records of visitations of the Heralds from the Heralds' College are admitted as evidence as public documents (h), and certain other documents in their possession are admissible as evidence in pedigree cases (i): so, statements of pedigree contained in letters, or entries in books, whether religious or otherwise (k), are admissible in Court, if the handwriting be proved to be that of a deceased member of the family (l). So also, old statements of pedigree are held admissible, on account of their public exposure to and recognition by the family, even though they cannot be distinctly attributed to any particular member of it; e.g., inscriptions on monuments or tombstones (m), an authenticated copy of a mural inscription in the parish church (n), coffin plates (0), inscriptions upon portraits or on the walls of the mansion house (p), engravings on rings (q); hatchments (r); pedigrees hung up in the mansion (s), or preserved in the family library (t), a marriage certificate received from the family (u), entries in a family Bible, or, it would appear, in any other book which has been treated by the family as being in the nature of a family register (x); and, if coming from proper custody, no evidence of their authorship or handwriting is required (y); so a cancelled (z), or unexecuted (a) will of an ancestor; so, also, a pedigree presented by a third person to a member of the family, and recognised by him, is admissible in proof of the relationship of persons therein described as living, and who might be presumed to be personally known to him, even though the general pedigree be inadmissible by reason of its purporting to be collected from registers, wills, etc, and history (b): but a printed collection of monumental inscriptions was rejected as evidence of what had been the inscription on a partly-defaced tomb (c): so, a case for the opinion of counsel seems to be inadmissible, as being generally drawn by the solicitor and not by the party himself, and being often framed with a view to drive the opposite party to a reference, or for other purposes (d).

Records of Heralds' College; entries in books, etc.; old pedigrees; inscriptions, etc.

(h) Be L'isle Peerage, Min. of Ev. 228; Shrewsbury Peerage case, (1858) 7 H. L. C. 1, 24. As the last of these visitations took place in 1687, any later books are apparently inadmissible; see Sturla v. Freccia, (1880) 5 A. C. €23, 644; 50 L. J. Ch. 86.

(i) For a list of such documents, see Hub. Ev. 538 et seq.

(k) See Herbert v. Tuckal, (1663) T. Raym. 84; Berkeley Peerage case, (1815) 4 Camp. at p. 418; Slane Peerage case, (1835) 5 C. & F. 23; Tracy Peerage, (1843) 10 C. & F. 154; 1 L. T. (0. S.) 310; Best. Ev. 12th ed. 422; but see Walker v. Lady Beauchamp, (1838) 6 C. & P. 552.

(l) See Fitzwalter Peerage, (1843) 10 C. & F. 193; Tracy Peerage. (1843) 10 C. & F. 154; 1 L. T. (O. S.) 310.

(m) See Peerage cases, cited Hub. on Ev. 688; and see 10 C. & F. 154; Shrewsbury Peerage case, (1858) 7 H. L. C. 1; Monkton v. A.-g.. (1831) 2 R. & M. at p. 163; Goodright v. Moss, (1777) 2 Cowp. at p. 594; Haslam v. Cron, (1871) 19 W. R. 968.

(n) Slaney v. Wade, (1836) 1 M.&o. 338; 7 Si. at p. 614; and see Be Perth Earldom, (1848) 2 H. L. C. 876.

(o) Chandos Peerage, Min. of Ev. 10; Rokeby Peerage, ib. 4; Lovat Peerage, ib. 77; Hub. on Ev. 693. Coffin plates and monumental inscriptions frequently misstate the age by reducing it a year: anno Štatis being undertakers' Latin for aged.

(p) Camoys Barony, (1839) 6 C. & F. at p. 801; West, 34.

(q) Vowles v. Young, (1806) 13 Ves. at p. 144.

(r) Kungate v. Gascoigne, (1846) 2 C. P. Coop. t. Cott. 414.

And it seems probable that such evidence is admissible to prove not only the facts of birth, marriage, and death, but also such collateral matters (e.g., the local derivation of the family) as tend to show the identity of the parties (e).

Whether admissible in proof of collateral matters.

(s) See Slaney v. Wade, (1836) l M. & C. 356; 7 Si. at p. 614.

(t) Camoys Barony, (1839) 6 C. & F. 802; West, 34; and see Davies v. Lowndes, (1843) 7 Sc. N. R. 141; (1840) 1 M. & G. 473; and Re Perth Earldom, (1849) 2 H. L. C. at p. 876.

(u) Doe v. Davies, (1847) 10 Q. B. 314; 16 L. J. Q. B. 218.

(x) See Monkton v. A.-g., (1831) 2 R. & 31. 162; Hood v. Beau-champ, (1836) 8 Si. 26; Slane Peerage case, (1835) 5 C. & F. 24; Berkeley Peerage case, (1815) 4 Gamp. 418; Ooodright v. Moss, (1777) 2 Cowp. 591; Best Ev. 12th ed. 422.

(y) Hubbard v. Lees, (1866) L. R. 1 Ex. 255; 35 L. J. Ex. 169.

(z) Doe v. Pembroke (Earl of), (1809) 11 East, 504.

(a) Re Lambert, (1887) 56 L. J. Ch. 122.

(b) Davies v. Lowndes, (1843) 7 Sc. N. R. 141, 208 et seq.; (1840) 1 Man. & G. 473.

(c) Shrewsbury Peerage case, (1858) 7 H. L. C. 1. A photograph of a subsequently defaced inscription would probably be now received in evidence.

(d) Slane Peerage, (1835) 5 C. & F. at p. 40.

All such evidence is generally inadmissible if made during existing (f), or with a view to anticipated (g), litigation or controversy involving the point in question: it seems, however, that the mere fact of the declarant having a distinct object in view in making his declaration, e.g., the prevention of disputes in a family, will not render the declaration inadmissible, though such object can only be gained by using the declaration in evidence (h): and in a peerage case (i), a pedigree transmitted by a father to his son, with a view to induce him to make a claim to the peerage, which, however, never was made, was held admissible as evidence in favour of a party claiming through an elder branch of the family.