Opinion
March, 1799.
The cause of action had been submitted by these parties to arbitration, and Bayard, for the plaintiff, offered to prove by one of the referees what had been given in evidence before them by a witness living in the State of Maryland.
Upon the objection of Wilson, the Court ruled that the evidence was not admissible, because the witness might be produced, or his testimony obtained by a commission.
In the course of the cause Wilson proposed proving by depositions regularly taken that a certain Postly was a justice of the peace in Maryland, and that certain proceedings had been had before him, under which the property in question had been sold to the plaintiff.
Bayard objected that parol proof was inadmissible to prove that Postly was a Justice. His commission or appointment must be on record, a copy of which ought to be shown. That in the state it might be sufficient to show that a man acted as a magistrate, because the Court might take notice of officers of the state, but the fact should be strictly proved when existing under a different government.
Wilson, on the other side, insisted that it was sufficient to show that one acted as an officer, and that exercising an office was sufficient evidence between third persons that the officer was duly empowered to exercise the office. He cited 4 Term 336, Morg. Ess. 80, [2] Esp.N.P. 783.
We consider that parol evidence is not competent to prove Postly a justice of the peace in Maryland. His acting as a justice of the peace in Maryland cannot be allowed as proof of the fact that he was duly empowered. The party might produce better evidence, and such evidence in this case we are bound to require. We do not conceive that justices abroad and at home stand upon the same footing. We take notice of the laws of the state; under those laws our justices are appointed and act, and exercising their offices under the same government, we may here take notice of them without further proof of their being officers than the fact of their exercising the office. We can judicially take notice of nothing out of the state which is not regularly proved. We might be as well acquainted with the laws of Maryland as of this state, and yet if the objection were made, we should be obliged to require proof on the subject according to the common rules of evidence. The evidence is not admissible for the purpose for which it was offered.
The exceptionable parts of the depositions were not read.