View PDF - Digital Collections

Lir Norf ,.n.;judge it iin -misoion. in 1896.fqr .92 we ire -mncerned in 1896, at the time re filethe app1ication in this cane, the owe on trial, we filedrith the papers, in that case i 1606, rt motion to corpelthe :production of thee Doers; we lid all we could; ifthey were 11•t proluted it certainly is not our fault. and...out not be chrd ri::T.rtin;7t 2s. Vie did all '7,fe could,Now ., re have never beet able to locate them at any time;we 11,[otir that the office Inv been destroyel nxvil ilcontcntr. We tin- mircient to int1:7oduce secondaryevidence s; The point we 1.:n3e is this' to be i.,,,unetet evidencein th.iJ: Court it murt Lave been made competent it 1896thc certificate itself howe that the office •nrild record s weredestroyed in 1683, o..everal yerlrz 7.1,f'itor 19C, ile couldprof now this care in V -ir, ray any 1..:'..xDre tllinhe ...01,413. 77 -1,y inf5tractrA Pnt to have an affidavittrp..e 3tild filed t ccuie !Ind he fRilei to do it !Indwe cmot now fini it. aotever took pl.T.:!;e in this cane,•nlict have taken .p11.6, in 1896.The Attorney's positiot ii that he has done ever ycould to procure the affilAvitn. but the question In, are theyc .Ympetent at 9.11 1 don't think they are ootpetent. In thfirt place I lwi't see how you couli nrove it in this wayfrom the founition that you have laid; in the r7econiplace if you 7/11,,., the affidavits here a0,d they were takenin a different prooeelif I do :.ot nee how you could optthem in this case s Thin Court has held that where tLe