*1 619 August, BULLOCK v. WALLINGFORD. 1875.] so, or do inquiry to otherwise, shall that it be useless ascertain would mode, or should determine to in other rely attached the upon property The be served of the must language admits of no that the statute doubt process the or and defendant a not upon principal by by reading copy, aby summons. Bell v. 8 N. H. 64. Somerby, No error in the of unless it taxation the cost's has out, been pointed is the extra of and, they the officer for as charges attaching property; are in supported the is error by rules, affidavit there no required by the this respect". Judgment affirmed. Wallingford. v. Bullock Aug. 12, 1875. public of JEoidenee—Certificate officer.

A certificate from the United States commissionerof patents diligent that search has made, been and that it does that a not certain appear patent

has been issued, is not evidence of competent that fact. to recover the of note, contents a made by Assumpsit, promissory the defendant, to John C. payable order, or day on first Thompson, the of December, 1873, and said by to the Thompson plaintiff. indorsed Tried before STANLEY,J., and a was, The that jury. defence set up the note was without and obtained consideration, by Thompson by fraud; that it was faith, not purchased the by good in nor plaintiff indorsed until after it became due. The defendant evidence offered to tending show that the consideration of the note was sale by the Thompson to him of to the in various in right sell towns this state an improvement in mowing-machine to grinders, alleged have been patented one L. by P. ; and that said Thompson John G. Thompson and falsely fraudulently to him represented that a had been obtained patent upon this invention, and that he had seen the letters As evidence patent. to tending show that the note was without and that consideration, Thompson’s representations fraudulent, were and the false defendant offered a certificate to be from purporting issued the officeof the patent United States, of which the is a following copy:

THE U. S. PATENT OFFICE. all to whom : To these shall come presents persons is a This to that has and certify diligent made, search been it does not a lias L. P. that issued to for appear patent been Thompson improve- ment in from 1st to mowing-machine grinders, January date. present testimony whereof, I, Thaelier, In J. M. acting commissioner of have caused the seal of the officeto be

patents, patent hereunto this third of in of affixed, December, the our Lord day year [l. s.] thousand eight seventy-three, one hundred and and of the inde- States the of United pendence ninety-eighth. the J. M. commissioner. TEACHER, acting BULLOCK v. WALLINGFORD. 620 [Cheshire, ob- evidence; the of but The to admission this the plaintiff objected *2 to the evidence, in which overruled, the was and admitted jection paper defend- a for the The returned verdict jury having plaintiff excepted. trial; a new ant, moved that same be set aside and for the the plaintiff ordered, foregoing that of on the and it was the law arising questions to for case be transferred this court determination. for Faulkner, the plaintiff. Wheeler S? Wallace,for defendant. the

Wadleigh $ com- Thacher, acting J. I think J. M. signed by the paper Ladd, and does not It is of was inadmissible. not clearly missioner patents, in the any pension to be a of record or existing copy paper purport of the the of office, simply knowledge is statement a fact within the but that fact who it. The was entitled to have signed gentleman proved plaintiff in usual and of the way, privi- the could not legally deprived be of the form in statement was by put. cross-examination which the lege I the verdict must be set think aside. J. it is S., 166, 882, C. Rev. Stats. U. sec. By provided, p. Cushing, “ of the in books, records, documents, any of or any that Copies papers, authenticated the seals of such depart- under departments, executive the orig- shall be in with admitted respectively, equally

ments inals thereof.” evidence question that the in It is clear this section does not make certificate other statute evidence, it and of no since relates to I know only copies, statutory regulations, could to In the of which the case. absence apply It by rules evidence. ordinary this certificate must be the of governed it make oath, under to is not has it of the other any requisites neither as a admissible deposition. the It was SMITH, J. should have been rejected. The certificate of the drawn officer from examination certifying conclusion the the by Hanson in his and he mistaken. office, may have been records possibly certify 336. him to Scituate, v. 115 Mass. The statute authorizes So. shall of in effect correctness of records his office. to the What copies in to such a for when evidence. question be is the court given copies put record, to is no a desires the fact there prove negative When that party officer, do in usual the of

be must so the the way, by deposition proper — him so that he sworn and cross-ex by or in court be producing may If the summoning the of the search made. thoroughness amined as to at the testify to in the records call of such officer relation to public of with his by interfering shall found reason of impi’acticable a suitor be the must be found in further The duties, remedy legislation. public rules of meet the diffi court the evidence to disregard plain cannot culty. set aside and a new trial granted.

Verdict