Folsom v. Blood
Opinion
The attestation of the judgment by the clerk of the common pleas is not indispensable. Willard v. Harvey, 24 N. H. 344; Hall v. Manchester, 40 N. H. 410; Sumner v. Sebee, 3 Me. 223. *12 If it were prescribed by statute, the statute would be directory, and other evidence of the authenticity of the record would be received. Secombe v. Steele, 20 How. 94, 102. The clerk of the superior court, having the custody of the records of the common pleas, is the proper officer to furnish copies of those records, and his certificate is evidence of what they are. Carlisle v. Thompson, 5 N. H. 411; Mahurin v. Bickford, 6 N. H. 567, 570, 571; Hall v. Manchester, supra; 1 Greenl. Ev., s. 506.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
58 N.H. 11 (Folsom v. Blood) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.