d as a public document or official statement. Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Ed., Vol. 5, § 1630, et seq.; 32 C.J.S. 477, 478, 489, 506, 507; Am. Jur. 931, et seq.; Steel v. Johnson (1941), 9 Wn.2d 347, 115 P.2d 145; Gett v. Isaacson (1923), 98 Conn. 539, 120 A. 156, 158; Laginski v. McCollough (1924), 280 Pa. 286, 124 A. 431, 433; Gilmore v. U.S. (1938), 93 F.2d 774, 775 (C.C.A. 5); Ames v. Empire Star Mines Co. (1941), 17 Cal.2d 213, 110 P.2d 13, 19; In re Clark's Estate (1940), 228 Iowa 75, 290 N.E. 13, 27; Abbott v. Prudential Ins. Co. (1937), 89 N.H. 149, 195 A. 413, 415; Penn. R. Co. v. Driscoll (1939), 336 Pa. 310, 9 A. 621; Grant v. Fisher Flouring Mills Co. (1937), 190 Wn. 356, 68 P.2d 210, 215; Vallejo N.R. Co. v. Reed (1915), 169 Cal. 545, 147 P. 238, 250; Wheeler v. Fidelity Casualty Co. (1923), 298 Mo. 619, 251 S.W. 924, 931; Galli v. Wells (1922), 209 Mo. App. 460, 239 S.W. 894, 896; Knickerbocker v. Athletic Tea Co. (St. Louis Ct. of Appeals, Mo. 1926), 285 S.W. 797, 801; Higbee v. City of Bartlesville (1930), 147 Okla. 49, 294 P. 168, 169. But we need not decide that question, because error, if any, in the admission of this exhibit was harmless.

On this proposition, therefore, we confine our opinion to the latter contention. The defendants contend that said instrument was inadmissible under the authority of Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 30 Ala. App. 307, 5 So.2d 835; Commonwealth v. Slavski, 245 Mass. 405, 140 N.E. 465, 29 A.L.R. 281; Finnegan v. Checker Taxi Co., 300 Mass. 62, 14 N.E.2d 127; Home Owners Loan Corp. v. Grundy, 122 N.J.L. 301, 4 A.2d 784; Steel v. Johnson, 9 Wn.2d 347, 115 P.2d 145; Jones Commentaries on Evidence (2d Ed.) § 1700 et seq.; Wigmore on Evidence (2d Ed.) § 1639 et seq. The plaintiff seeks to justify the admission of the instrument under the authority of Arnold v. Board of County Commissioners of Creek County, 124 Okla. 42, 254 P. 31; Higbee v. City of Bartlesville, 147 Okla. 49, 294 P. 168; Carnahan v. Monroe, 117 W. Va. 279, 185 S.E. 234; Ezzo v. Geremlah, 107 Conn. 670, 142 A. 461. The questioned report purports to cover generally all the details as to the occurrence of the collision, and by expression of opinion and deduction therein the author of the report attempts to determine the cause and effects of the collision.