timony of a witness, may read his notes of such testimony as evidence upon a subsequent trial, although he has no independent recollection of such testimony, and can relate the same only by reading his notes thereof.17 Former testimony of a witness may be proven by any one who heard and recollects it, and the person testifying need not state the very language in which the testimony of a witness was given, but should give the substance thereof.18 § 1078. Contents of writing Parol evidence as to the terms of a contract is improper, where it appears that such contract was represented by a writing.19 The statute authorizing the introduction of books of account as evidence does not exclude a witness' testimony as to his present knowledge of transactions covered by book entries.20 But copies 17 Wright v. Wright, 50 P. 444, 58 Kan. 525. To reproduce the testimony of a witness deceased or absent from court who has testified on a former trial, it is not error to permit the court stenographer to translate and read his stenographic notes of such evidence in the hearing of the jury, instead of requiring them to be transcribed and certified. Id. Laws Kan. 1905, p. 810, c. 494, § 1, relating to stenographic notes of court reporters, does not restrict the use to be made of a stenographer's notes in a nisi prius trial to a written transcript thereof, but is an extension of such Wilmoth v. Wheaton, 105 P. 39, 81 Kan. 29. use. 18 Solomon R. Co. v. Jones, 8 P. 730, 34 Kan. 443. 19 In action for fraud based on alteration of a contract, copy of contract which defendant's attorney had certified as correct and filed with register of deeds, though differing from original contract attacked by plaintiff, was admissible. Mullarky v. Manker (Kan.) 170 P. 31. Where, in an action by an indorsee of a note, the payee is called as a witness and testifies that his authority to take and negotiate the note is contained in a written contract with his principal, statements as to such authority should be rejected on objection. Nickleson v. Dial, 93 P. 606, 77 Kan. 8. In an action on a note, defendant testified to an agreement that certain accounts to be turned over were to be accepted in payment of the note, and that accounts amounting to a certain sum were turned over, and never tendered back. On cross-examination he admitted that the agreement was in writing. Held, that it was error not to exclude his testimony in chief, on his failure to produce the writing, since the written agreement was the best evidence of the arrangement between the parties. Kingman v. Hett, 58 P. 1022, 9 Kan. App. 533. Subscriptions to the endowment fund of a university in writing may not be proved by parol, since the list itself is the best evidence. Beeler v. Highland University Co., 54 P. 295, 8 Kan. App. 89. 20 Whitcomb v. Oller, 137 P. 709, 41 Okl. 331. of such entries in books of account are not admissible, when the originals themselves are available.21 Secondary evidence of the contents of letters is inadmissible, when no foundation has been laid therefor.22 Where articles bearing inscriptions, labels, etc., can be readily brought into court, the articles themselves are the best evidence.2 § 1079. Collateral writings When title to realty is only collaterally involved, title deeds need not necessarily be produced, but parol evidence is admissible. 24 Where a nonresident defendant has been regularly served by publication, proof of such service may be made aliunde, where the judgment is called in question in a collateral proceeding.25 Where plaintiff, seeking damages for an interruption of the business of his skating rink, showed that he was in personal charge of the business, and knew its details, and what his receipts and expenses were, and had his bank books in court, he was qualified to testify directly as to amounts, and his summaries were not objectionable, as secondary.26 21 It is error to permit plaintiff to identify an account, including many transactions, extending over several months, and to permit introduction of a copy of account as evidence, when it is shown the witness was plaintiff's bookkeeper, and had made the original entries, and that the books were in the immediate possession of the witness, such attempt being in violation of Rev. Laws 1910, § 5114. Kasenberg v. Hartshorn, 30 Okl. 417, 120 P. 956. 22 Where a witness has identified a letter introduced as his writing, it is not proper to ask whether certain statements are contained in it; the letter being the best evidence. Martin v. Hoffman, 93 P. 625, 77 Kan. 185. Where the execution of a contract is in issue, and the plaintiff introduces a letter claimed to have been received from defendant relating to the contract, and defendant denies the writing of such letter and offers a copy of a letter which he testifies he did send to plaintiff, it is error to receive such copy without accounting for the original. Barton-Parker Mfg. Co. v. Miller Mercantile Co., 89 P. 1128, 18 Okl. 137. 23 A card tacked to a railway tie, bearing the printed words "A. and T. Tie Company," and the written words "creosote treated ties," is the best evidence of the information the inscription imparts. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Palmore, 75 P. 509, 68 Kan. 545, 64 L. R. A. 90. 24 Shanks v. Robertson, 101 Kan. 463, 168 P. 316, 1 A. L. R. 1140. Where, in a vendor's action for the price, the plaintiff's ownership was not in issue, it was not error to permit him to give oral testimony that he owned the land when he deeded it to defendant. Newcomer v. Sheppard, 51 Okl. 335, 152 P. 66. 25 Lipscomb v. Citizens' Bank of Galena, 71 P. 583, 66 Kan. 243. 26 Mensing v. Wright, 119 P. 374, 86 Kan. 98. § 1080. Copies Different impressions of a writing produced by using carbon paper, if otherwise competent, are admissible without accounting for nonproduction of others. 27 But letter press copies or photographs of documents are admissible as secondary evidence only; 28 and copies of copies of letters are not admissible as secondary evidence.2 27 Maston v. Glen Lumber Co. (Okl.) 163 P. 128. When three letters or notices are written simultaneously by the agent of one of the parties and signed by the same individual, containing the same words and addressed to the same person, the principal of said agent, one being retained by the agent and the other by the party signing the same, and the other sent by registered letter to the principal, notice to produce the original papers in order to introduce one of the retained copies in evidence is not necessary, and such copy, when offered to charge the party principal to whom the same was sent by mail, may be considered, not as a copy, but as an original. Reeves & Co. v. Martin, 94 P. 1058, 20 Okl. 558. An impression copy of a shipment contract held admissible, if properly identified, legible, and not shown to have been altered. Enright v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 152 P. 629, 96 Kan. 546, Carbon impressions of bills of lading, being the same as the originals, are admissible in evidence. Wilkes v. S. V. Clark Coal & Grain Co., 148 P. 768, 95 Kan. 493. Carbon copies of official railroad reports made in the usual course of business, held admissible in an action for the death of a switchman. Giersch v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 158 P. 54, 98 Kan. 452. 28 Where original mortgage was in evidence, and no reason or excuse appears for introduction of photographic copy of original, such copy was properly excluded. Chase v. Cable Co. (Okl.) 170 P. 1172. It is error, under Rev. Laws 1910, § 5114, to permit a witness to read a long list of deposits of a bank and checks, showing the amount of money drawn, which purported copy was not made by the witness, nor certified as being a true copy of the original account, where no excuse is offered for failure to produce the original books, or to show that the same were lost, or that the person making the original entry was dead or absent, or why the books were not subpoenaed or deposition taken. Kasenberg v. Hartshorn, 30 Okl. 417, 120 P. 956. Loss of certain railroad waybills indicating the destination of certain cars in question having been proved, letter press copies thereof were admissible. Barker v. Kansas City, M. & O. Ry. Co., 129 P. 1151, 88 Kan. 767, 43 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1121. Secondary evidence of the contents of a deed which the grantee failed to produce held admissible, though record of the register of deeds showed a purported copy, where it was contended that the record was inaccurate. Wetmore State Bank v. Courter, 155 P. 27, 97 Kan. 178. Press copies of waybills used by a railroad company, the originals of 29 Jobes v. Lows, 66 P. 627, 63 Kan. 886. Where the original of a writing cannot be produced, a copy thereof made from memory by one knowing its contents is admissible.30 The original books of account should be produced, where copies made by a notary who took the deposition of the bookkeeper have been duly objected to, before the notary and at the trial, as not the best evidence.31 § 1081. Secondary evidence admissible when The best evidence the nature of the case will admit of is required, if possible to be had, but where not available, secondary evidence is admissible.382 Where the execution, delivery, and loss of an instrument of con which are not shown to be lost or destroyed, or incapable of production, are inadmissible in evidence, in an action between third parties, where the person who issued the waybills and made the copies is not shown to be dead. Haas v. Chubb, 74 P. 230, 67 Kan. 787. What purports to be a copy of the official county paper, containing notice of conveyance of unredeemed lands sold for taxes, found among the files of the county treasurer, though not required by law to be kept there, is sufficient to establish prima facie the contents of the notice. Morrow v. Inge, 131 P. 1184, 89 Kan. 481. 30 Walter v. Calhoun, 129 P. 1176, 88 Kan. 801. 31 Drumm-Flato Commission Co. v. Edmisson, 208 U. S. 534, 28 S. Ct. 367, 52 L. Ed. 606, affirming 17 Okl. 344, 87 P. 311. 32 Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Hartoon, 60 Okl. 193, 159 P. 844. Where a party makes a showing at the trial that the primary evidence, such as a letter is lost without his fault, it is not error to permit secondary evidence of its contents. Adams v. King (Okl.) 173 P. 206, reversing order on rehearing 170 P. 912. Where the books of the assured have been lost or stolen through no fault of his, oral proof to establish the property destroyed by fire is admissible. Commercial Union Assur. Co., Limited, of London, England, v. Wolfe, 137 P. 704, 41 Okl. 342. A taxpayer seeking to enjoin the extension of an additional tax for school purposes, pursuant to an election, under Rev. Laws 1910, § 7383, on the ground that 30 per cent. of the voters did not participate in the election, may establish such fact by parol evidence, the law requiring registration not applying to such election. McCreary v. Lee, 45 Okl. 201, 145 P. 777. The contents of a letter may be shown by secondary evidence when it appears that the original is not in the possession or under the control of the offering party, and is so situated that such party could not, by the use of the legal means applicable to such cases, have produced it, the same as when the original is shown to be destroyed. White v. White, 90 P. 1087, 76 Kan. 82. Where a number of chattels were destroyed so that detailed evidence of their value could not be given, testimony of their aggregate value is admissible. McKnight v. Strasburger Bldg. Co., 150 P. 542, 96 Kan. 118. veyance has been proved, secondary evidence of its existence and contents is admissible.33 The records of the register of deeds office are competent if the party offering them has not control of the originals.34 Parol evidence is competent, where the record and files are incomplete, to show actual proceedings of county commissioners except as to matters which the statutes specifically require to be recorded.35 Where book entries, vouchers, or accounts are voluminous or complicated, the testimony of a competent witness who has made an examination and summary of them may ordinarily be received.36 Under the statute, the records of a register of deeds or certified copies thereof may be received in evidence to prove a recorded instrument, where the original is not in the possession or control of the party desiring to use same.37 Evidence satisfying the court that an original instrument is not 83 Adkins v. Wright, 131 P. 686, 37 Okl. 771. Where court proceedings are attacked as void years after they occurred, and where the primary evidence of the proceedings is shown to have been lost or destroyed, secondary evidence may be considered, and every reasonable presumption will be entertained consistent with such evidence to support the validity of the proceedings. Brunbaugh v. Wilson, 107 P. 792, 82 Kan. 53. In 1905, county records were destroyed by fire. In an action in the district court, the only question was whether a certain section road was 60 or 40 feet wide. Held that, the destruction of the road records having been shown, parol evidence that a 60-foot road had been established and traveled since 1886 was admissible. Bowland v. McDonald Independent Telephone Co., 107 P. 797, 82 Kan. 84, motion to retax costs granted 107 P. 1119, 82 Kan. 357. 34 Sax v. Wilkerson, 51 P. 299, 6 Kan. App. 203. 35 Trotter v. Wood, 52 Okl. 20, 152 P. 600, 36 Haines v. Goodlander, 84 P. 986, 73 Kan. 183. Under the rule dispensing with the production of voluminous documents, a record in the office of a railroad's superintendent, consisting of tables compiled by his office force, was properly admitted in evidence to show an abnormal rush of business in one of the months. Bourquin v. Missouri Pac. Ry. Co., 127 P. 770, 88 Kan. 183. 37 Dyal v. Norton, 47 Okl. 794, 150 P. 703. A copy of a telegram, properly identified, may be introduced in evidence, where the evidence offered has established a conclusive presumption of the destruction of the original. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Collins, 53 P. 74, 7 Kan. App. 97. Secondary evidence of the contents of a letter held admissible where it |