Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/66

lEWIN V. TOWN or ONTARIO. 69 �case the affidavit and the consents, and the proofs and acknowl- edgments attached together, were, with a eopy of the assess- ment roll of the town for the year 1869, filed in the office of the clerk of the county on the tenth of September, 1870. In the present case the application to the county judge and his order, and the affidavit of the assessors, and the consent and the proof of the signatures to the consents, these papers, conatituting the bonding roll, were, when produced in evidence at the trial from the office of the county clerk, attached together, and were marked on the outside as being filed and recorded in the office of the clerk of the county on the twenty-third of December, 1870. This means that they were filed at one and the same time, as constituting by the sum of their parts one paper, or bonding roll, those parts being parts of one and the same proceeding. In addition to this the affidavit of the assessors, and each consent, and each proof of the signatures to the consents, was separately marked by the proper officera as filed in the county clerk's office on the twenty-third of December, 1870, the day of the filing of the whole as a whole. �As the affidavit of the assessors, and the consents, and the proof of the signatures to the consents, were so filed separately at the same time, and were attached together when produced on the trial, and were filed as a whole at one and the same time, it necessarily follows that they must be regarded as hav- ing been physically attached together as one whole when they were filed. This makes the case like that of Phelps v. The Town of Lewiston. It is of no consequence that it might have been shown that the affidavit, when it was subscribed and sworn to by the assessors, was on a separate sheet of paper, unattached to the consents, and that none of the consents were present when the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to. Such evidence would not show, or tend to show, that the consents referred to in the affidavit were not the con- sents filed with the affidavit. In regard to such form of affi- davit it was said, in Phelps v. The Town of Lewiston : "But it is contended the affidavit of the assessor is defective. The affidavit is shown by the evidence to have been attached to ����