A printed copy of the final rolls of citizens and freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes, prepared by the Commission, approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and printed under authority conferred by the act of Congress, is admissible in evidence."

the state; and, on proof that the deeds of the real estate are not in his possession or under his control, certified copies thereof may, under Comp. Laws 1885, c. 22, § 27, be read in evidence with like effect and on the same conditions as the original deeds. Pfefferle v. State, 17 P. 828, 39 Kan. 128.

Other states.-A certified copy of a plat on file or record in a public office of another state is not admissible in evidence; but the plat must be identified by the custodian thereof and a copy thereof proved by his oath, be fore it can be received. Munkres v. McCaskill, 68 P. 42, 64 Kan. 516.

A document offered in evidence, and reciting the appointment of a guardian by an Oklahoma probate judge who was his own clerk and having attached thereto the judge's certificate and seal and a complete copy of the letters of guardianship, held to substantially comply with Civ. Code, § 368 (Gen. St. 1909, § 5963), governing the authentication of records and proceedings in courts of other states. Brack v. Morris, 132 P. 1185, 90 Kan. 64.

A record of proceedings in the judicial district court of the territory of Utah, duly authenticated under the act of Congress, is admissible in evidence to show that such proceedings have been had. Friend v. Miller, 34 P. 397, 52 Kan. 139, 39 Am. St. Rep. 340.

To make a judgment of a justice of the peace in Missouri admissible in evidence, as an offset in an action in Kansas, a transcript of the record of the circuit court in which the transcript of the justice's judgment was filed duly certified, as required by act of Congress, is not sufficient, but a transcript of the justice's judgment must be certified according to the statutes of Kansas; the act of Congress not being applicable. Hinman v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 83 Kan. 35, 110 P. 102, 21 Ann. Cas. 1152.

Under Rev. St. U. S. § 905 (U. S. Comp. St. § 1519), providing that the records of courts of any state shall be admitted in any other court within the United States by the attestation of the clerk and the seal of the court with a certificate of the judge, an authentication signed by one A., probate judge and ex officio clerk, certifying that the document to which it is attached is a true copy of a journal entry on the records of the court, and it has been carefully compared, and that A. was the sole custodian of the records, together with a certificate by A., as judge of the probate court, to the effect that A., whose signature as clerk was attached is and was at the time of signing the same ex officio clerk of the probate court, is sufficient. Brown v. Baxter, 94 P. 155, 77 Kan. 97, rehearing denied 94 P. 574, 77 Kan. 97.

A copy of a judicial record of another state, not authenticated as required by the federal statute or by Code Civ. Proc. § 371, relating to proceedings in courts of foreign countries, is not admissible in evidence because certified in accordance with section 372, which provides for admission in evidence of copies of records required by law to be kept in any public office; such section having reference only to records kept under the authority of the law of the state or of the United States. Ayres v. Wm. Deering & Co., 90 P. 794, 76 Kan.

149.

79 Lawless v. Raddis, 129 P. 711, 36 Okl. 616.

Certificates required by statute to be made by officers in the discharge of their duties, as a rule, may be introduced in evidence when material.80

The record of a deed, without a notarial seal to the notary's certificate of acknowledgment, is inadmissible in evidence; such deed not being entitled to be recorded.81

A copy of the charter of a corporation created under the laws of this state, duly certified by the secretary of state, under the seal of the state, is evidence of the creation of such corporation."?

§ 1003. Court records and files

Where, in an action founded on a claim filed against an estate, an appeal is taken to the district court, the records of the court are admissible in evidence to show that complainant had filed her claim for only a portion of the claim now filed.83

An affidavit for a continuance cannot be read as evidence in a case, unless under a condition to admit it as the deposition of the absent witness, upon the refusal of such application. 84

Where it is sought to prove the contents and existence of a judgment, a duly authenticated copy of the judgment itself is sufficient.s

80 Marlow v. School Dist. No. 4, Murray County, 116 P. 797, 29 Okl. 304. Certificates by a county treasurer and county clerk purporting to state what is shown by the records in their custody, when not authorized by statute are not competent evidence. Id.

81 Meskimen v. Day, 10 P. 14, 35 Kan. 46.

The record of a deed acknowledged before a notary, but not authenticated with his seal, is not admissible, under Laws 1870, c. 87, § 12. Meskimen v. Day, 10 P. 14, 35 Kan. 46. Contra, see Rullman v. Barr, 39 P. 179, 54 Kan. 643.

$2 McCune Min. Co. v. Adams, 10 P. 468, 35 Kạn. 193.

83 Jordon v. Bevins, 10 Kan. App. 428, 61 P. 985.

84 Dempster Mill Manuf'g Co. v. Fitzwater, 49 P. 624, 6 Kan. App. 24.

85 Oliver v. Gimbel, 38 Okl. 50, 132 P. 144.

A duly-attested copy of a journal entry of a judgment rendered in another county may be read in evidence without proof that the original cannot be produced. Metzger v. Burnett, 48 P. 599, 5 Kan. App. 374.

Proceedings in aid of execution before a probate judge, and the orders made therein, are not records of the probate court; and hence copies of the same, certified by the probate judge, are not admissible to show what orders and proceedings were made and had. Bowersock v. Adams, 41 P. 971, 55 Kan. 681.

A warrant issued by a justice of the peace for the arrest of a person charged with a criminal offense is a "proceeding," within the meaning of Gen. St. HON.PL.& PRAC.-58

1

(913)

Where defendant to sustain his plea of res judicata, offered the entire record of a former trial between the parties to the present action, and such record showed affirmatively that the subject-matter of the later controversy was not involved in the former action, the evidence is properly rejected.8¢

The identity of the parties must clearly appear, or else the same must be duly shown, before the record is admissible.87

In actions for conversion, exclusion of records and files in former suit pleaded in estoppel is error.88

The judgment must be shown by the judgment of the court, and not by the files in the case, and so a precedent for a journal entry of a judgment signed by the judge and filed in the cause is not competent evidence of rendition of the judgment.89

A judgment rendered upon constructive service only is not competent evidence in support of a counterclaim pleaded by answer alleging the recovery of a personal judgment against plaintiff. 90

In an action on a guardian's bond, letters of guardianship are competent evidence of the guardian's appointment.91

The enrollment records are not admissible as to the age of the grantor of a conveyance prior to the enactment of Act Cong. May 27, 1908, where there are living witnesses who testified directly to her age."2

An order of county court adjudging a person incompetent is not admissible as evidence of his incompetency at time of his previous conveyance of real estate.":

93

1897, c. 97, § 4, providing that copies of proceedings had before a justice of the peace, where the justice is out of office, certified by the justice in possession of the docket and papers of such justice, shall be received in evidence in any court. Drumm v. Cessnum, 59 P. 1078, 61 Kan. 467.

S6 Winans v. Rosecrans, 54 P. 508, 8 Kan. App. 455.

87 Exclusion of a judgment finding Mrs. J. E. Vandergrift guilty of an offense held not error, where the materiality of the judgment depended on the identity of the party named with Mrs. Larenia T. Vandergrift, and the identity was not shown. Sarlls v. Hawk, 46 Okl. 343, 148 P. 1030,

88 Pierce v. Barks, 60 Okl. 97, 159 P. 323.

89 Bouquot v. Awad, 54 Okl. 55, 153 P. 1104.

90 Smith v. Kreager, 51 P. 813, 6 Kan. App. 271,

91 Lyons v. Fulsom, 54 Okl. 84, 153 P. 868.

92 Jackson v. Lair, 48 Okl. 269, 150 P. 162.

93 McIntosh v. Reason (Okl.) 172 P. 446.

A judgment against the principal in a bond is admissible in an action against surety, although surety was not a party to that ac-. tion, and had no notice thereof, and is at least prima facie evidence against surety, who, however, may defend by showing all matters that might have been asserted by principal on the bond.9*

Petitions filed in an action instigated long after conclusion of the litigation in which the services sued for were performed, and after termination of such services, are properly excluded.95

Where a foreclosure is invalid because the owner of the legal title was not made a party, and the purchaser at foreclosure sale brings a second action against the mortgagor and his grantee, he must prove the existence of the lien sought to be foreclosed, and the findings and judgment in the first proceeding are not competent evidence for that purpose.

A duly certified transcript of the evidence taken before the board of dental examiners is competent evidence.97

§ 1004. Records of justice of the peace

"Copies of proceedings before justices of the peace, certified by the justice before whom the proceedings are had, shall be evidence of such proceedings." 98

"Copies of the proceedings had before a justice of the peace, where such justice is out of office, certified by the justice who is in possession of the docket and papers of such justice, shall be received in evidence in any court in this state." "99

§ 1005. Departmental records

"Exemplifications from the books of any of the departments of the government of the United States, or any papers filed therein, shall be admitted in evidence in the same manner and with like effect as the originals, when attested by the officer having the custody of such originals."

94 Peery v. Merrill, 75 Okl. 55, 179 P. 28.

95 Turner v.

Maxey, 45 Okl. 125, 144 P. 1064.

96 Stough v. Badger Lumber Co., 79 P. 737, 70 Kan. 713.

97 Sess. Laws 1919, p. 68, § 22.

98 Rev. Laws 1910, § 5104.

99 Rev. Laws 1910, § 5105.

1 Rev. Laws 1910, § 5112.

Census enumeration lists held admissible as to age, if duly authenticated. Bradshaw v. State (Okl. Cr. App.) 197 P. 715.

This statute makes certified copies from books of any department of the United States government, or any papers filed therein, admissible only where original record would be competent and admissible.2

The certificate is no part of a certified copy of the record of a department of the federal government, nor is it evidence of any fact not appearing in the record proper.3

§ 1006. Land office receipts and records

"The usual duplicate receipt of the receiver of any land office, or, if that be lost or destroyed, or beyond the reach of the party, the certificate of such receiver that the books of his office show the sale of a tract of land to a certain individual, is proof of title equivalent to a patent against all but the holder of an actual patent.*

"Copies of all papers and documents lawfully deposited in the office of the register or receiver of any land office of the United States within this state, and copies of any official letter or communication, received by the register or receiver of any such land office, from any department of the government of the United States, when duly certified by the register or receiver having the custody of such paper, document, letter or other official communication, shall be received in evidence in the same manner and with like effect as the originals."

An exemplification, certified by the commissioner of the general land office, of a railway map, is admissible in evidence, with like effect as the original.

2 Hughes v. Watkins, 75 Okl. 166, 173 P. 369.

3 Jackson v. McGilbray, 46 Okl. 208, 148 P. 703.

4 Rev. Laws 1910, § 5110.

5 Rev. Laws 1910, § 5111.

The copy of an official letter received by the register or receiver of any land office of the United States from any department of the government of the United States, that has been duly certified by the register or receiver having the custody of such letter, is admissible in evidence the same as the original; and, where the official character of the letter is apparent upon its face, it is unnecessary for the certifying officer to state in his certificate that it is the copy of an official letter. Darcy v. McCarthy, 12 P. 104, 35 Kan. 722; Hibbard v. Craycraft, 121 P. 198, 32 Okl. 160; Stinson v. Geer, 22 P. 586, 42 Kan. 520.

6 Rierson v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 51 P. 901, 59 Kan. 32.