Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/104

WISWELL V. JABVI8. 89 �Learing ; and the court is strongly inclined to hold that, under all the circumstances, it was not admissible for the object contemplated. If, liowever, it is received, it was not sufficient to establish the falsity of tlio statements of both of the respondents as to the ownership of the bankrupt in this vessel. Mrs. Jarvis, in her answer, states that he was the owner of three-fourths, and her husband, in bis deposition taken Angust 16, 1880, also swears that in April, 1871, he owned that interest in her. His attention was not called to this enrollment ; no explanation was demanded of him in relation to it ; but his testi- mony upon this point was left as originally given by him, without inti- mation of what was disclosed by the custom-house records. �This enrollment was made December 1, 1869 ; the deed was given in April, 1871, — more than a year after, — and if the fact was conceded that in 1869 he owned but one-sixteenth, it would not be very cogent testimony to discredit two witnesses who testify that in April, 1871, he was then the owner of three-fourths, as property of this nature is constantly ehanging ownership. It is also a matter of some importance that there is not produeed, from the custom-house, copies of any conveyances of this vessel, or of her register, obtained subsequent to this enrollment, as she was, when lost, sailing on a foreign voyage under a register, or any evidence that the records and files of the custom-house do not disclose that such instruments never existed. In the opinion of the court the evidence does not disprove the ownership of the bankrupt in three-fourths of the Mountain Eagle in the month of April, 1871. �The answer of Mrs. Jaryis and the deposition of her husband assert hi^ ownership, at that time, of one-fourth of the brig Isabella Beauman. This statement the eomplainant would disprove by a copy, duly attested, from the custom-house, of a bill of sale of the one- fourth of said brig from the bankrupt to Andrew Jackson Jarvis, dated March 8, 1867, and recorded March 19 of the same year. This copy is also objected to. Would the record itself of this deed be admissible as evidence of ownership without any proof whatever of the execution of the original instrument ? �Copies pf deeds are generally inadmissible to prove their con- tents. In this state, "office copies of deeds of real estate are admis- sible in actions touching the realty, but in all other actions the general principle of the law of evidence prevails, that a party oiiering to prove a fact by deed must produce it and prove its contents." Per Shepley, G. J., Hutchinson v. Chadbourne, 35 Me. 192; Kent v. Weld, 2 Fairf. e59. ��� �