his own original memoranda. Jones v. Stroud, 2 Car. & P. 196. The rule is consistent with the general principles of secondary evidence, by which the copy of a copy, unless in the nature of a duplicate original, is entirely inadmissible, and corresponds with the express dictum of Mr. Justice Patteson, that "the copy of an entry, not made by the witness contemporaneously, does not seem to be admissible for the purpose of refreshing a witness's memory." Burtod v. Plummer, 2 Ad. & El. 343. All copies and duplicates should be shown to the respective counsel as it is well settled that whenever a writing has been shown to a witness it may be inspected by the opposite party, and if proved by the witness, must be read in evidence before his testimony is closed, or it cannot be so read, except on recalling the witness, or with the permission of the court. a. Private Accounts and Documents Obtained by Seizure. -Public officials in their zeal to serve the commonwealth, seem totally ignorant of the fact, that private books, memoranda, documents and papers in the possession of the accused, are not evidence against him, when they are produced by the instrumentality of a search warrant, or in any other way are brought before the court by compulsion. So, too, there is general misconception as to the effect or failure of the accused to produce such books and documents. Such failure is not an admission of the charges the state claims it could prove; and where it has been sought to foist upon the statute book legislation to that effect, it may be wholly disregarded by the accused, and treated as an unconstitutional enactment. These views are sanctioned by a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which Mr. Justice Bradley, writing for reversal outlines the subtle distinction that should pervade this entire grade of evidence. Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 29 L. ed. 746. 35. The English Rule.-The English rules of evidence relating to this subject are stated by Sir James Stephen in the following language: "The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. Art. 63. "Primary evidence means the document itself produced for the inspection of the court, accompanied by the production of an attesting witness, in cases in which an attesting witness must be called, under the provision of articles 66 and 67, or an admission of its contents proved to have been made by a person whose admissions are relevant under articles 15-20. "Where a document is executed in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the document. "Where a document is executed in counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one or some of the parties only, each counterpart is primary evidence as against the parties executing it. "Where a number of documents are all made by printing, lithography, or photography, or any other process of such a nature as in itself to secure uniformity in the copies, each is primary evidence of the contents of the rest; but where they are all copies of a common original, no one of them is primary evidence of the contents of the original." Art. 64. "The contents of documents must, except in the cases mentioned in article 71, be proved by primary evidence; and in the cases mentioned in article 66 by calling an attesting witness." Art. 65. "If a document is required by law to be attested, it may not be used as evidence (except in the cases mentioned or referred to in the next article) if there be an attesting witness alive, sane, and subject to the process of the court, until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. "If it be shown that no such attesting witness is alive or can be found, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that per son. "The rule extends to cases in which the document has been burnt, or cancelled (or lost); the person by whom the document was executed is prepared to testify to his own execution of it; the person seeking to prove the document is prepared to prove an admission of its execution by the person who executed it, even if he is a party to the cause, unless such admission be made for the purpose of, or has reference to the cause." Art. 66. "In the following cases, and in the case mentioned in article 88 but in no others, a person seeking to prove the execution of a document required by law to be attested is not bound to call for that purpose either the party who executed the deed or any attesting witness, or to prove the handwriting of any such party or attesting witness (1) When he is entitled to give secondary evidence of the con tents of the document under article 71 (a); (2) When his opponent produces it when called upon; and claims an interest under it in reference to the subject-matter of the suit; (3) When a person against whom the document is sought to be proved is a public officer bound by law to procure its due execution, and who has dealt with it as a document duly executed." Art. 67. "If the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence." Art. 68. "An attested document not required by law to be attested may in all cases whatever, civil or criminal, be proved as if it was unattested." Art. 69. "Secondary evidence means (1) Examined copies, exemplifications, office copies, and certified copies; (2) Other copies made from the original and proved to be correct; (3) Counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them; (4) Oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it." Art. 70. "Secondary evidence may be given of the contents of a document in the following cases: "(a) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the adverse party, and when, after the notice mentioned in article 72, he does not produce it; "(b) When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of a stranger not legally bound to produce it, and who refuses to produce it after being served with a subpoena duces tecum, or after having been sworn as a witness and asked for the document and having admitted that it is in court; "(c) When the original has been destroyed or lost, and proper search has been made for it; "(d) When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable, or is in a country from which it is not permitted to be removed; "(e) When the original is a public document; "(f) When the party has been deprived of the original by fraud so that it cannot be procured; "(g) When the original is a document for the proof of which special provision is made by an Act of Parliament, or any law in force for the time being; or "(h) When the originals consist of numerous documents which cannot conveniently be examined in court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection; provided that that result is capable of being ascertained by calculation. "Subject to the provision hereinafter contained, any secondary evidence of a document is admissible. "In case (h), evidence may be given as to the general result of the documents by any person who has examined them, and who is skilled in the examination of such documents. "Questions as to the existence of facts rendering secondary evidence of the contents of documents admissible are to be decided by the judge, unless in deciding such a question the judge would in effect decide the matter in issue." Art. 71. "Secondary evidence of the contents of the documents referred to in article 71 (a) may not be given, unless the party proposing to give such secondary evidence has, "If the original is in the possession or under the control of the adverse party, given him such notice to produce it as the court regards as reasonably sufficient to enable it to be procured; or has, "If the original is in the possession of a stranger to the action, served him with a subpoena duces tecum requiring its production; "If a stranger so served does not produce the document, and has no lawful justification for refusing or omitting to do so, his omission does not entitle the party who served him with the subpoena to give secondary evidence of the contents of the document. "Such notice is not required in order to render secondary evidence admissible in any of the following cases: "(1) When the document to be proved is itself a notice; "(2) When the action is founded upon the assumption that the document is in the possession or power of the adverse party and requires its production; “(3) When it appears or is proved that the adverse party has obtained possession of the original from a person subpoenaed to produce it; "(4) When the adverse party or his agent has the original in court." Art. 72. § 36. Parol Evidence as Affecting.-Parol evidence is always admissible to show that any document offered as a record or transcript or certified copy is a mere forgery. State v. Gonce, 79 Mo. 600. But where there is no indicia of fraud a judicial record is evidence of a higher record and is received as conclusive proof of every fact material to the decision embodied in it. Public records are provable not only by the introduction of the original document, but a duly authenticated copy will have the same effect. State v. Voight, 90 N. C. 741. Records of conviction and sentence for crime are frequently proved in this manner. State v. Blaisdell, 59 N. H. 328. § 37. Maps, Charts, etc., in Evidence.-In the celebrated Tichborne case which enlisted the best legal talent of the day, Lord Ch. J. Cockburn admitted a map of Australia in evidence for the purpose of locating various places of interest. It is believed this practice will commend itself very generally, even in the entire absence of facts tending to show the sources of information open to the publishers of the map touching the accuracy of their outline. A map of public lands made by public surveyors pursuant to law which is duly certified and filed, is always admissible in civil or criminal cases. People v. Denison, 17 Wend. 312. The English rule upon this subject finds appropriate expression in Stephen, Dig. Ev. art. 37: "Statements as to matters of general public history, made in accredited historical books, are relevant, when the occurrence of any such matter is in issue or relevant to the issue; but statements in such works as to private rights or customs are irrelevant. Statements of facts in issue or relevant facts, made in published maps or charts generally offered for public sale as to matters of public notoriety, such as the relative position of towns and countries, and such as are usually represented or stated in such maps, or charts, are themselves relevant facts; but such statements are irrelevant if they relate to matters of private concern, or matters not likely to be accurately stated in such documents." Restated, the proposition amounts to this: "Historical works, mathematical works, and published maps or charts, when made by a person indifferent between the parties, are relevant as evi |