Ch.II. f.2. Yates v. Harris, Hil. Aff. 1702, Gilb. Law Ev. 78 Ancient maps have generally been claffed under this head of public writings not of record, though perhaps they would more properly have been confidered as private inftruments; however, as thefe are in fome degree analogous to terriers, I fhall here obferve that an ancient map will be received as evidence where it has accompanied poffeffion, and agreed Bridgman v.Jennings with the boundaries as adjusted by ancient ILdRaym. purchases. If two manors are in the hands 734of the fame perfon, and a map is made by him, and afterwards one of the manors is conveyed to another perfon, and then at a diftant time, disputes arife as to the boundaries, the map fo taken will be evidence; but if the perfon, under whofe direction the map was taken, was poffeffed of only one manor, or a lord defcribes the boundaries of his wafte, or the church-wardens caufe a copper-plate map to be made, wherein they defcribe land which PeakeN.P. an individual claims, to be a public highway; in any of these cafes, the map fo taken is not evidence against the rights of perfons not parties to the making of it. The Pope's Licence, without the King's, hasbeen held good evidence of an impropriation, because, anciently the Pope was taken for the fupreme head of the church, and, therefore, was holden to have the difpofition of all Spiritual Benefices, with the concurrence of the patron, without any regard of the prince of the country, and thefe ancient matters muft Ibid. 1 Stra. 95. S. P. Pollard V. Scott, 18. Papal Licence and Bull. Cope v. Palm. 427. Bedford, Ch.II.f.z. muft be judged according to the error of the Pope's Bull. times in which they were transacted. Palm. 38. So alfo the Pope's Bull is evidence, upon a fpecial prefcription to be difcharged of 'tythe, where it is contended that the lands belonged to a particular monaftery, and were difcharged at the time of the diffolution; for then they continue difcharged by the Act of Parliament: but it is no evidence to prove a general prefeription, which can only be from time immemorial, becaufe it fhews the commencement of the cuftom. An exemplification under the Cafe,cited, bishop's feal, is good evidence of the pope's Hard. 118. bull. Sir T. Books. Corporation Corporation Books, concerning the public government of a city or town, when publicly Motherfall kept, and the entries made by a proper officer, Rex v. 1 Stra. 93. of London, Moreman, are received as evidence of the facts contained in them; and examined copies of them being Brocas v. evidence, a Court of Juftice will not order Mayor,&c. the production of the originals, unless a parStra. 307. ticular ground for that purpofe is laid before Downes v. them. Where an old agreement was in the Banb.199. Bodleian Library, whence the Oxford ftatutes prohibit its removal, a copy was received in evidence; but, in general, that which is in its nature a private inftrument, will not, by belonging to a public body, and remaining in their cuftody for a number of years, gain that degree of credit, which entitles a copy of it to be read in evidence; and, therefore, where a letter, fifty years old, was found in a Rex v. Stra. 401. corporation corporation cheft, the Court held that the Ch.II.f.z. original must be produced. Corporation Public books of another defcription, have, of late years come into ufe, which, though in one Bank Books. point of view, they do not in the leaft refemble records, but are rather memoranda of the contracts of individuals; yet, as they concern the public in general, and are neceffarily confined to one place, judges have, by analogy to the cafe of records, permitted copies to be read in evidence. Thus it has been held, that to prove a transfer of stock in the public funds, copies from the Bank books are good evidence; and the like feems to be the cafe with refpect to the books of the East India Company (though vide Doug, this point has not been exprefsly decided), 593. note. for they are equally within the principle, 3 Salk.154 that "wherever an original is of a public na 66 66 ture, and would be evidence if produced, an immediate fworn copy thereof is evi"dence." Bretton v. Peake N.P, Cope, 30. SECTION III. Of the Inspection of public Writings. THOUGH all the documents mentioned in the two preceding fections are of a public nature, yet it should be obferved that they are not for all purposes equally open to the public. The Ch.II. f.3. 'Herbert V. Afhburner. 1 Wilf. 297. Wilfon v. Rogers, 2 Stra. 1242. Edwards v. Veley, Hardw. 128. The proceedings of Courts of Justice may, it fhould feem, be infpected by every perfon who is interested in them' (v). Copies from the books of public offices may alfo be called for by the perfons interefted, unlefs where public policy requires that the contents of them fhould not be difclofed. Thus, accefs has been granted to the books of the commiffionCaf. temp. ers for fettling the debts of the army at the prayer of an officer's widow; but refufed to Moody v. the books containing an account of the re1 Stra.304. venue, for the purpofe of fettling a mere idle wager as to the amount of the duties. In like manner the books and muniments of a cor Thuriton, 3 Ather fold v. Beard, 616. 2 T. Rep. poration containing the rights of its members are open to all of them; and if, when a fuit is depending, application be made to the perfon who has the cuftody of them, and he refufes an infpection, the Court, in which it is (v) In the cafes cited, No. 1, leave was given to inspect the books of the Quarter Seffions, the Court of Confcience, and the Commiffioners of Lieutenancy, as to proceedings against the party in the action; and where an action for falfe imprisonment, was brought against the informer, the Juftice of the peace, who convicted him, was ordered to give a copy of his information (Welch v. Richards, Barnes, 468); but in Groin-volt v. Burrel, 1 Lord Raym. 252, and Abeny v. Dickenson, Say. 250, where actions were brought for false imprisonment in the execution of the sentence of the College of Phyficians in the one case; and of the order of the Commissioners of Hackney-coaches in the other; the Court refused to grant rules for the plaintiff to inspect their books, on the ground that the perfons in whofe cuftody they were, were no parties to the fuit, fo Rex v. Hollister, Hardw. 245. Caf. temp. fo depending, will compel him to give it.' Ch.11. f. 3. But when a difpute takes place between the corporation and an individual, who is no inem ber of it, as when a corporation fues a stranger for tolls, the corporation being as to him the fame as a private perfon, a Court of Justice will not grant an infpection of the books in order to enable the party to find evidence against the body with whom he is contending; more than they would to infpect private title deeds, if the difpute exifted between two individuals. Rex v. Fraternity of HoltNewcattle 2 stra. 1223 of South men in upon Tyne Mayor ampton v. Graves, 8 T. Rep. 590. 3Baldwyn Barnes237. + Hobfon v. Parker, The fame principle applies to the Court Rolls of a manor, as between the lord and the tenants, or between the tenants themfelves, they afcertain the rights of the refpective parties, and are v. Trudge, therefore open to all; fo that if a lord claims an amercement, or two tenants are difputing bid. about the caftom of a manor, the tenant has, in either cafe, a right to inspect, and use as evidence, the rolls relating to his title; and, if the lord refufes the infpection, the Court will make a rule on his steward for that purpofe.' But if the difpute be between the lord and a ftranger, as if the lord pleads a modus in a fuit by the parfon for tythes, or brings an ejectment for lands, claiming them as copyhold, and the defendant contends they are freehold; or the lords of two neighbouring manors difpute about the boundaries, the lord is not obliged to produce, nor will a Court of Justice compel him to fhew the rolls of his manor 5 Ibid. • Bishop of HereDuke of ford v. Bridgewater, Bunb. 269. 7 Smith v. Davies, Will 104, vide 3 T. Rep. 151. * Talboty. Vilieboys, 3 Rep. 142. cited, T. |