Adamthwaite v Synge
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 15 February 1816 |
| Date | 15 February 1816 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 171 E.R. 118
KING'S BENCH AND COMMON PLEAS
S. C. 1 Stark. 183.
[372] Thursday, Feb. 15, 1816 adamthwaite . synge. (To prove an examined copy of an Irish judgment, it is not enough for the witness to say that he examined the copy with a record produced to him in the room over the Four Courts at Dublin, where the records of the superior Irish Courts are kept, without seeing whence the record in question was taken, or knowing the person who produced it to be an officer of the Court) [S. C. I Stark. 183.] Debt upon a judgment of the Comrt of Exchequer in Ireland. Plea, nul tiel feeordf concluding to the country A witness was called to prove an examined copy of the judgment He said that he was taken by an attorney at Dublin to a room over the Four Courts there, where he was shewn a parchment roll, with which he compared the copy in question In this room are deposited the records of all the superior Irish Courts in different presses marked with the names of the different Courts respectively. But the witness did not see from whence the roll produced to him was taken, nor did he know who or what tie person was who produced it, nor did lie hear anything said upon the subject when it was produced, or while the examination was going forward. Objection being made that the evidence was insufficient, Courthope for the plaintiff contended, that it must be presumed that the roll produced in this place where the records of the Courts are kept was a record of one of them ; and that the reading of the copy would shew whether it was a judgment of the Court of Exchequer as alleged in the declaration [373] Lord Ellenborough.-I cannot look at the copy till I have evidence that it was examined with a record of the Court of Exchequer in Ireland ; and no such evidence has been brought forward. The attorney who introduced the witness to the place might have earned the supposed roll along with him in his pocket, having first manufactured it himself. We do not know that it was even produced by a person acting as an officer of the Court, or that it was ever stated at the time to be * Vtde 11 Geo. II c. 19, s 1 ; Co Litt. 47, a ; Rex v. Stoke, 2 T R. 451 ; Rex v, Bamptan, 4 T. R 348 ; Turner v Richardson, 7 East, 335 ; Wheeler v Bramah, 3 Campb. 340. 4 CAMP. 374. WAITHMAN V. MIIES 119 the record of a judgment. To allow this evidence to be sufficient would he establishing a precedent which might lead to very inconvenient and dangerous...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v George Shaw, and Sarah his Wife, and Thomas Percival
...As to th principle upon which the objection proceeded, see Bull N P 226, 228, 1 Phil. Edid, 387, 388 ; and AeUnnthwatfe v. Sytiqe, 4 Campb. 372; S C 1 Stark N P. 183. And a question might be made in the case of a writing being fraudulently altered or stolen before fikng it, or depositing it......
-
Web v Smith
...at all events, evidence should have been given to shew that the document in the Crown-office was the original; Adamthwaite v. Synge (4 Campb. 372); for the Court could not look at a copy first, to see whether or not a precept had been issued; and a copy, if admissible, should have been proc......