This section is from the book "Dart's Treatise On The Law And Practice Relating To Vendors And Purchasers Of Real Estate", by J. Henry Dart . Also available from Amazon: A treatise on the law and practice relating to vendors and purchasers of real estate.
Evidence of reputation to be admissible must be that of persons having, or presumed to have, competent knowledge.
(s) Neill v. Duke of Devonshire, (1882) 8 A. C. p. 186; 31 W. R. 622. Consider Harris v. Earl of Chesterfield, 1911, A. C. 623.
(t) Sturla v. Freccia, (1880) 5 A. C. 623, 644; 50 L. J. Ch. 86.
(u) Evans v. Merthyr Tydfil Urb. Co., 1899, 1 Ch. 241; 68 L. J. Ch. 175. Cf. Stoney v. Eastbourne R. D. C, 1927, 1 Ch. 367.
(x) Smith v. Andrews, 1891, 2 Ch. 678.
(y) 1913, 1 Ch. 392. (z) Collis v. Amphlett, 1918, 1 Ch. 232.
(a) 1913, 2 Ch. 140. (b) lb. 155.
Thus, the depositions of deceased tenants of, or even more residents on, a manor are admissible as to the customs or bounds (c), and declarations of a deceased lord as to the extent of the wastes, but not, as to the extent of his rights (d); and depositions purporting to be made by copyholders in an ancient suit, are admissible without further proof of the witnesses having been copyholders, the special ground being that only as copyholders could such witnesses have given evidence (e). And reputation is generally admissible in evidence, though unsupported by proof of usage (f).
A grant from the Crown is regularly proved by an exemplification, or certified copy; but if the original is lost, and the vendor's solicitor ascertain and inform the purchaser where the grant is enrolled, the latter cannot, it appears, require a copy but must examine the enrolment at his own expense (g).
Proof of grant from Crown.
Proceedings in Courts of Law and Equity are proved by exemplifications under the seals of the Courts, or authenticated by the signature of the Judge (in cases where the Court has no seal) (h); and proof of the seal or signature is rendered unnecessary by the Evidence Act, 1845; and as regards all proceedings in the High Court, office copies are now sufficient proof (i); and all copies if appearing to be sealed with a seal of the Central Office are presumed to be office copies of the Central Office (k).
Of proceedings at Law and in Equity.
(c) Lord Dunraven v. Llewellyn, (1850) 15 Q. B. 791, per Parke, B.. at p. 809; and see Evans v. Merthyr Tydfil Urb. Co., 1899, 1 Ch. 241.
(d) Crease v. Barrett, (1835) 1 C. M. & E. 919; 4 L. J. Ex. 297.
(e) Freeman v. Phillipps, (1816) 4 M. & S. 486.
(f) Crease v. Barrett, sup. As to evidence of customs of manors generally, see A.-g. v. Tomline, (1877) 5 Ch. D. 750; 46 L. J. Ch. 654; Lascelles v. Lord Onslow, (1877) 2 Q. B. D. 433; 46 L. J. Q. B. 333; and see Foljambe v. Smith's Tadcaster Brew. Co., (1904) 73 L. J. Ch. 722, as to evidence from payment of rent that tenant of manor is a freeholder.
(g) Sug. 14th ed. 431.
(h) Alves v. Bunbury, (1814) 4 Camp. 28. As to foreign and colonial proceedings, see the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, 1851, s. 7; as to Irish documents, see s. 10.
(i) R. S. C. 1883, Ord. XXXVII. r. 4.
Under the Bkcy. Act, 1914, the production of a copy of the London Gazette, containing notice of a receiving order or of an order adjudging a debtor bankrupt, is made conclusive evidence in legal proceedings of the order having been duly made (l); and a minute of proceedings at a meeting of creditors, signed at the same or the next meeting by a person appearing to be chairman of the meeting, is to be received in evidence without further proof, and (until the contrary is proved;) every such meeting is to be deemed to have been duly convened and the resolutions passed to have been duly passed (m). Any petition or copy petition in bankruptcy, and order or certificate, and any affidavit or document used in bankruptcy proceedings, are to be receivable in evidence, if sealed with the seal of a Court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy, or purporting to be signed by a Judge, or certified by a registrar (n). A certificate of the Board of Trade that a person has been appointed! trustee under the Act is conclusive (o); and documents purporting to be orders or certificates issued by the Board of Trade, and to be sealed with the seal of the Board or signed by a secretary of the Board, are to be received in evidence (p).
Copies of, and extracts from, every registered award under the Copyhold Enfranchisement Act, 1852 (q), purporting to be sealed or stamped with the seal of the commissioners, are evidence, without the necessity of further proof; and under the Copyhold Act, 1894 (r.), copies purporting to be authenticated under the seal of the Minister of Agriculture (s) are receivable in proof as such unless the contrary is shown; and a certificate signed by the Minister of Agriculture or a member of that Ministry, that an instrument so purporting to be made or issued is so made or issued, is conclusive evidence of the fact; or in the case of awards of enfranchisement made in respect of copyholds held of a Crown manor, a certificate signed by the keeper of land revenue records and enrolments is admissible as evidence of the facts stated therein; and a copy of a memorial of a deed of enfranchisement of such land, which is required to be enrolled under that Act by the keeper, is, if signed and sealed by him, evidence of the deed, instrument, or fact6 referred to in such memorial (t).
Awards under the Copyhold Acts.
(k) R. S. C. 1883, Ord. LXI. r. 7.
(l) S. 137 (2). (m) S. 138.
(n) S. 139. (o) S. 143.
(p) S. 144. (q) S. 49.
(r) 8. 10, and see S. L. Act, 1925, s. 116.
(s) Board of Agriculture Act, 1889, s. 7.
Office copies of orders in Lunacy, purporting to be signed by a master, and sealed or stamped with the seal of his office are evidence for all purposes of such orders (u).
Orders in Lunacy.
Under the L. R. Act, 1925, s. 113 (x), office copies of and extracts from the register and of and from documents and plans filed in the registry are made admissible in evidence in all actions and matters and between all persons or parties to the same extent as the originals would be admissible, but any person suffering loss by reason of the inaccuracy of any such copy or extract is to be entitled to be indemnified under the Act, and no solicitor, trustee, or other person in a fiduciary position is to be answerable in respect of any loss occasioned by relying on any such copy or extract.