gislature, or when a private act is passed for his benefit, is not bound to look into and carefully examine the language of all other grants and private acts, in order to ascertain the true meaning of the grant or act made for his benefit. (a)

(a) Thomas v. Mahan, 4 Greenl. R. 513.

CHAPTER XXI.

OF THE PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF STATUTES.

§ 822. In ancient times, when acts of parliament were made, to the end that the same might be published and understood, especially before the use of printing, they were engrossed upon parchment, and bundled up together, with a writ in the king's name, under the great seal, directed to the sheriff of every county, sometimes written in Latin, and sometimes in French, commanding the sheriffs to proclaim the same in his bailiwick, as well within liberties as without. Such continued the course of proceeding even after printing came into use, as late as until the reign of Henry VII.

§ 823. We have seen in a previous chapter, that in England, notwithstanding the record of a statute may not be extant, so that resort cannot be had to that species of evidence, yet that general statutes, made within the time of memory, that is, since 1 Rich. I. do not lose the force of statutes, if any authentic memorials of their being such are to be found in books, seconded with a general received tradition attesting and approving the same. In conformity perhaps with this favorable presumption, it has become a rule, that courts are to take notice of general acts of parliament without pleading them; for statutes are never to be put in issue on a plea of nul tiel record, but are to be tried by the court, and if there be any difficulty or uncertainty, the judges are to make use of ancient copies, transcripts, books, pleadings, or any other memorials, to inform themselves.

§ 824. In 8th Coke(a) it was resolved that against a general act of parliament, or such an act whereof the judges ex officio ought to take notice, the other party cannot plead nul tiel record; for of such an act the judges ought to take notice; but if it be misrecited, the party ought to demur in law upon it. And in that case the law is grounded upon great reason, for it is in that case said, God forbid, if the record of such act be lost, or consumed by fire, or other means, that it should tend to the general prejudice of the commonwealth, but rather although it be lost or consumed, the judges, either by the printed copy, or by the record in which it is pleaded, or by other means may inform themselves of it. In England in the case of Rex v. Arundel, (b) it was held, that a statute should not be proven by a journal of parliament, nor should it in that way be shown that the assent of the house of commons was conditional. And now by statute 41 Geo. 3, c. 90, sec. 9, it is declared that copies of the statutes of Great Britain and Ireland, prior to the union, printed by the printer duly authorized, shall be received mutually as conclusive evidence of the several statutes in the courts of either kingdom.

§ 825. In several of the states of this Union similar provisions are made by statute, that printed copies of the statutes published under authority shall be evidence of public statutes. These statutory provisions in the several states will be hereafter referred to and stated, so far as we have been enabled to collect the same. In regard to the general rule, that public acts of parliament are to be taken notice of judicially by the courts of law without being formerly set forth, a distinction is to be taken between those acts which are public and those which are private. It is in reference to the former, and

not to the latter, that this rule obtains.(a) As to what acts are public and what private, has been considered in another chapter. Courts will not only notice the tenor of a public statute, but also the time of its passage, as well as the passage of contemporaneous public statutes. Savage, J., in one case recognized this rule, and intimated, that as the court were to take notice of all public acts, he was inclined to think, that under a plea of an insolvent's discharge as against the people of the state, as the court were bound to take notice of all public acts, they therefore knew that the law giving clerk's fees to the people was passed at the same session with the insolvent act, and the services in that case necessarily were rendered after the passage of the insolvent act.(b)

§ 826. Independent of the act authorizing a printed statute to be given in evidence in New York, it has been held, that a printed statute, containing a private act, may be given in evidence against one in whose favor it was passed (c) although in the same case it was held, that the printed statute book is not evidence of a private act. The rule that the statute book is only evidence of public statutes, was in this state changed by statute, sess. 34, c. 246, sec. 46, in which it was provided: "All private acts, passed or to be passed by the legislature, and printed by the printer of the state, shall and may be read in evidence in all cases, and in all courts in this state, from the printed statute book, any law or usage to the contrary notwithstanding. And under the revised statutes, "All laws, passed by the legislature, may be read in evidence from the volume printed by the state printer, in all courts of justice in this state, and all proceedings

(a) 1 Phil. Ev. 328: Comyn's Dig. tit. Parliament, R. 5, 6; Bac. Ab. tit. Statute, L. 2; Holland's case, 4 Co. 76; 2 Roll. Ab. 466; 2 Mod. R. 57. (b) The People v. Herkimer, 4 Cow. R. 348.

(c) Duncan v. Dubois, 3 John. Cas. 125.

before any officer, body, or board, in which it shall be thought necessary to refer thereto."(a) This act of

course includes all private as well as public acts. And all laws published by the state printer may be read in evidence from the paper in which it shall be contained, in all such cases, until three months after the close of the session in which it became a law.(b)

§ 827. In Indiana, under their statutes, the printed statute books of the state, and of the late territories of Indiana and Illinois, purporting to be printed under the authority of the state or territory, are evidence of the private acts therein contained. And the printed statute book of any state or territory of the Union, purporting to be printed under the authority of such state or territory, are prima facie evidence of the public and private acts contained in them. (c) Prior to these statutory provisions, the courts there took notice of public acts of that state or territory, although it did not of the laws of a foreign state, unless pleaded and proved.(d)

§ 828. In that state, notwithstanding the statute, private acts are not noticed by the courts, unless their contents are set out in the pleadings, a mere reference to them is insufficient. They are regarded in pleadings as matter of fact, the existence of which may denied by plea.(e) It has also been held, that by virtue of the act of February 17, 1838, the printed statute book of any of the states of the Union, purporting to be published by authority, are made prima facie evidence in the courts of that state, of the laws published in them; were it not

(a) 1 R. S. 2d ed., 168, sec. 12.

(b) Id. sec. 11.

(c) Statutes Ind. 1834, p. 79; Rev. Stat. Ind. 1838, p. 273; 4 Blackf. Ind. R. 54, note.

(d) Ibid. 54; Elliot v. Ray, 2 Blackf. R. 31.

(e) The Ohio and Ind. Railroad Co. v. Ridge, 5 Blackf. R. 78.