Martin v. Hall

Supreme Court of Alabama

Martin v. Hall

72 Ala. 587

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedDecember 15, 1882

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 72 Ala. 587 (Martin v. Hall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Martin v. Hall, 72 Ala. 587 (Ala. 1882).

Pincite

Opinion

SOMERVILLE, J.

The court very clearly did not err in excluding from the jury, as evidencie, the book produced from the office of the probate judge, purporting to contain a recorded copy of the official bond of Hall as constable. There is no statute which requires or authorizes constables’ bonds to be re-cordcd in the offic.es of probate judges. The statute merely prescribes that the original bond shall be “ approved by the judge of probate, and leapt in his office.” — Code of 1876, § 764. In the absence of such a statutory requirement, the mere recording of a bond, or other instrument, does not make a copy of it evidence. The copy, to be admissible, must be shown to be correct, after laying the usual predicate for such secondary evidence, by proving the loss of the original, and the failure to find it after diligent search. — 1 Green!. Ev. § 91; 1 Whart. Ev. § 115. Or else a certified copy of the original, which is made by statute pi’esumptive evidence in any civil cause, was required to be produced. — Code, 1876, § 3047.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SOMERVILLE, J.

The court very clearly did not err in excluding from the jury, as evidencie, the book produced from the office of the probate judge, purporting to contain a recorded copy of the official bond of Hall as constable. There is no statute which requires or authorizes constables’ bonds to be re-cordcd in the offic.es of probate judges. The statute merely prescribes that the original bond shall be “ approved by the judge of probate, and leapt in his office.” — Code of 1876, § 764. In the absence of such a statutory requirement, the mere recording of a bond, or other instrument, does not make a copy of it evidence. The copy, to be admissible, must be shown to be correct, after laying the usual predicate for such secondary evidence, by proving the loss of the original, and the failure to find it after diligent search. — 1 Green!. Ev. § 91; 1 Whart. Ev. § 115. Or else a certified copy of the original, which is made by statute pi’esumptive evidence in any civil cause, was required to be produced. — Code, 1876, § 3047.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Ala. 587, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-hall-ala-1882.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack