The American and English Railroad Cases Volume 42; A Collection of All Cases, Affecting Railroads of Every Kind, Decided by the Courts of Appellate Jurisdiction in the United States, England, and Canada [1894-1913]. (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1906 Excerpt: ...they are what is done, since the proceedings must be in writing." Wigmore on Ev. vol. 3, 1661. The author cites no cases illustrating what he means, but his view seems to be the idea above expressed. If so, expression in another form would be that they are not evidence that a thing was done, but are the evidence of the identity of the thing done; it being granted or proved that something was done, because whatever was done was put in writing, and the writing itself is the evidence of it. Proceeding, he says: "According to the other theory, they are merely entries of the oral doings, and are thus analogous to any ordinary person's contemporary entries of his doings." This makes them mere memoranda, to be considered as a part of the oral testimony of the clerk or officer who entered them, testifying as a witness that the things purporting to have been done were done. That this is the true interpretation of his language appears from the following: "The general practical difference between the two theories is as to their effect on the conclusiveness of the entries." Under the first theory, the written memorial of what was done could not be varied by parol evidence; under the second, it could. This shows that he does not mean to say the record is proof that it was made at the time, in the manner, and by the authority cited therein. Further proof of this is found in a subsequent paragraph of the same section, in which he says: "Books of entries of corporate proceedings are (as above quoted) ordinarily not receivable under the regular entries exception without calling the clerk or other entrant. But the records of a public officer are admissible under the present exception without calling the entrant, because he is a public off...