the seal of said court, without requiring any proof of its genuineness or identity other than that afforded by the inspection thereof. Mangun v. Webster, 7 Gill. (Md.) 78.

Law Merchant.-The custom of merchants recognized by law, in this State, in relation to protests and notices of nonpayment of bills of exchange, is the same as that of England, and of which judicial notice will be taken. Fleming v. McClure, 1 Brev. (S. Car.) 428; s. c., 2 Am. Dec. 671.

Almanac. The time the sun rose on a certain day, is one of those facts of which a court may take judicial notice; formal proof of it is therefore unnecessary. It would have been sufficient to have called it to the knowledge of the judge at the trial; and if his memory was at fault, or his information not sufficiently full and precise to induce him to act upon it, he had a right to resort to an almanac, or any other book of reference, for the purpose of satisfying himself about it; and such knowledge would have been evidence. The PeoThe People v. Chee Kee, 61 Cal. 404; s. c., 59 Am. Dec. 185.

Contract Contrary to Public Policy.A contract for contingent compensation for obtaining an act of the legislature, is void as against public policy; and when such an infirmity is patent upon the record, it is the duty of the court to notice it ex officio, without its being pleaded, and to discountenance any attempt to enforce it. Gil z. Williams, 12 La. An. 219; s. c., 68 Am. Dec. 767.

1. Proceedings in One Case Not Noticed in Another.-If, pending a proceeding against an executor for an account, the will be overthrown in another proceeding, the fact, to be availed of, must be pleaded; judicial notice cannot be taken of it. Daniel v. Bellamy, 91 N. C. 78. Records of Chancery Court-Name of County. The court will take judicial notice from the records of the chancery court, that there never was, legally or constitutionally, a county of a certain name in the State. Brown . Elms, 10 Humph. (Tenn) 135.

and will presume the city referred to in the pleading is the one within the State. Woodward v. Chicago etc. R. Co. 21 Wis. 309.

State Laws Contradicting Allegations in Bill.-Upon a bill concerning the interests of the State, and professedly for their protection, the court will take judicial notice of the laws of the State, even though they contradict the allegations of the pleader. In this case the court took notice of a law, passed to enable a particular public officer to qualify. State v. Jarrett, 17 Md. 309.

of

Assistant District Attorney. The court will take judicial notice that a person who was present in the grand jury room during investigation charge contained in an an indictment, was a duly appointed assistant United States district attorney. People v. Lymen, 2 Utah 30.

Judicial Officers.-Judicial notice will be taken of the judicial character of an alderman. Fox v. Com. 32 Smith (Pa.) 511. See Com. v. Jeffts, 14 Gray (Mass.) 19.

Expiration of a Bank Charter.-Courts will take judicial cognizance of the expiration of a bank charter, and thereupon, dismiss an action on a dormant judgment against the bank. Terry v. Merchants & Planters' Bank, 66 Ga. 177.

Statute Not Shown to Have Been Pub

lished.-Courts will take cognizance of the existence and validity of a statute, although it does not affirmatively appear that it was published in compliance with the law of the State providing that statutes shall become operative from the time of their publication. People v. Hoyt, 3 Utah, 396.

Locality of City.-The supreme court of Illinois will take judicial notice that Chicago is in Cook county, and proof that a crime was committed in Chicago is proof that it was committed in Cook county. Sullivan . People, 122 III. 385; State v. Reader, 60 Iowa 527; Leuck v. State, 96 Ind. 16, hold the

same.

School District Offices.-The court will take judicial notice of the office of treasurer of a school district, without averments, showing how the office was created. State v. Dahl, 65 Wis. 510.

Village Organization.-Evidence in the record that a town has assumed to

act as a village incorporation-in the passage of ordinances, and the bringing of suits in its corporate village name, and that an offence has been committed as charged, within the corporate limits of the village of "A," held sufficient to warrant the court in taking judicial notice of the change of said town from its original organization to that under the general law, without proof that all the requirements of the statute had been complied with. Doyle v. Bradford, 90 Ill. 416, following Brush v. Lemina, 77 Ill. 496.

Signatures of Court Officers-of Parties. Courts will take judicial notice of the signatures of their own officers as such; but there is no rule which extends such notice to the signatures of the parties to a cause. Alderman v. Bell, 9 Cal. 315.

Signatures of Attorneys.-The judicial recognition by courts of the signatures of the attorneys of such courts does not extend beyond professional acts done in perform ance of their duties as attorneys; and the signature of an attorney admitting service of summons, when he is a defendant in the suit, is a private act of which judicial recognition will not be taken. Masterson v. LeClaire, 4 Minn. 108.

Decision of the Supreme Court. Where the supreme court had adjudged an act of the general assembly of Tennessee, which established a county, unconstitutional, held, that the circuit judge had the right, in the trial of a cause, to declare to the jury his judicial knowledge of such decision of the court in the specified case, and the result of such decision in fixing the boundaries of counties. Cash v. State, 10 Humph. (Tenn.) III.

Second Hearing--Original Attorneys.Where an appearance is entered in the inferior court and is never withdrawn, and an appeal is taken to this court and the judgment below is reversed and the cause remanded, and after proceeding there another appeal is taken to this court, this court will judicially know what attorneys have appeared in the cause. Symmes v. Major, 21 Ind.

443.

Court's Own Judgment in Another Matter. A court may take judicial notice of its own judgment in garnishee proceedings, it being virtually a part of

the same record. Farrar v. Bates, 55 Tex. 193.

Election and Qualification of Judges.The election and qualification of judges of the circuit court are public acts of which the court will take judicial notice. Russell v. Sargent, 7 Ill. App. 98.

Prosecution Against Juror.--A judge may take judicial notice of the existence, before his court, of a prosecution for crime against one called as a juror. State v. Jackson, 35 La. An. 769.

Facts Lying Within the Judge's Knowledge.-No proof is necessary in support of a motion where the facts lie within the judge's knowledge; for instance a motion to strike a paper from the files because it was never presented to or signed by the judge. Secrist v. Petty, 109 Ill. 188.

Court's Own Knowledge of the Laws of Another State.-The court, on the trial of a cause, may proceed on its own knowledge of the laws of another State; and in that case it is not necessary to prove them, and its judgment will not be reversed when it acts on such knowledge, unless it appears that the court decided wrongly as to those laws. Herschfeld v. Dexel, 12 Ga. 582.

-

Criminal Acts. Acts which are criminal by the common law and the laws of civilized countries, will be presumed to be contrary to the laws of every State in the Union. Cluff v. M. B. Ins. Co., 13 Allen (Mass.) 308.

Grant of Land to Railroad.-The Alabama court knows judicially that the United States government has never taken any action declaring a forfeiture of the lands contained in the grant of the act of June 3rd, 1856, which had been allotted and set apart to the Tennessee & Coosa Rivers Railroad Company, as one of the beneficiaries of said grant. Mathis v. Tennessee etc. R. Co., 83 Ala. 411.

1. Value of Paper Currency.-The court judicially knows that "ten dollar bills and twenty dollar bills, currency of the United States," are, as matter of law, worth their face value. Gady v. State, 83 Ala. 51.

National Currency. The value of American gold and silver coin, and of "national currency" notes,being fixed by law, no proof of their value is necessary to sustain a conviction for their larceny. Grant v. State, 55 Ala. 201.

Fractional Township of Land.--Thę premises conveyed being described in a deed as subdivision of a section in "fractional township twenty, of range thirteen," the description is sufficiently certain and definite without adding the name of the county in which the lands lie; since the courts judicially know that there is but one fractional township answering the description, and that it is situated in Randolph county. Webb v. Mullins, 78 Ala. III.

Under the common school law of Arkansas, the State can sue on bonds previously executed to the common school commissioner of a county, without any assignment of the bond, and without stating in her complaint how she acquired the right to sue. The statute shows this, and the courts will take judicial notice of it. Williams v. State for the Use etc., 37 Ark. 463.

Condition of Fund. In a petition for mandamus to compel the treasurer to refund the money erroneously paid into the treasury, "out of the appropriation for refunding moneys erroneously paid," it is not necessary to allege the appropriation. That is matter of judicial cognizance, but it is necessary to allege that the sum demanded is not more than exhausts the appropraition. Pritchard v. Woodruff, 36 Ark. 196.

Steps Taken in Same Cause.- When matter of defence, consisting of steps previously taken in the same cause, is defectively pleaded, the court will take judicial cognizance of the facts, and the plea will be aided by the record. Johnson v. State, 29 Ark. 31.

Census.--The courts of California will take judicial notice of the United States census returns and the results of such census and resort for information to appropriate documents of reference. People v. Williams, 64 Cal 87.

Estoppel by Deed. The lower court found that, on a certain day, the plaintiff became the purchaser by "deed from the defendants and others," of the mining claims described in the complaint, and entered into possession thereof. Held, in the absence of proof of subsequently acquired title from a paramount source, the defendants are estopped from denying that they and their grantors were the owners and entitled to the possession of the mining claims at the execution of the deed. Belcher etc. Co. v. Deferrari, 62 Cal. 160.

The supreme court of California does not take judicial notice of the rules of the superior court. Sweeney v. Stanford, 60 Cal. 362.

Spanish Land Grant.-The supreme court will take judicial notice of the fact, that the claimant of land under a Mexican or Spanish grant presented his petition to the board of land commissioners for the confirmation of his title, and that the same was confirmed by said board, or the district or Supreme Court of the United States, before the patent was issued. Sample v. Hagar, 27 Cal. 163.

If the court excludes a remittitur as evidence, on the ground that it will take judicial notice of it, the presumption is that it did take judicial notice of it. Gambert v. Hart, 44 Cal. 542.

Proceedings in Bankruptcy.-A court cannot take judicial notice of proceedings in bankruptcy in another court, affecting the parties before it; and its duty is to proceed as between the parties, until by some proper pleadings in the case, it is informed of the changed relations of any of such parties to the subject matter of the suit. Eyster v. Gaff, 91 U. S. 521, affirming same case in 2 Colo. 228.

1. The rising of the general assembly is taken judicial notice of by the courts. Perkins v. Perkins, 7 Conn. 564.

Names of Chartered Companies.-The court take judicial notice of the names of all companies chartered by the legislature. Where an indictment charged that an order, directed to the treasurer of the "Eagle and Manufacturing Columbus," was in the county of Muscogee, altered, etc.; it was fatally defective because there is no such company. Jackson v. State, 72 Ga. 28.

Human Nature.-A court of errors must take judicial notice of human nature. The special facts indicate the rule of responsibility founded on general principles. Ricks v. Broyles, 78 Ga. 610.

The superior courts are not bound to take judicial cognizance of what had previously transpired before them, unless the records of such proceedings are exhibited to them. Clifton v. State, 53 Ga. 241.

Judge's Official Acts in a Cause.--The doctrine is well recognized that a court will take judicial notice of the state of the pleadings, and the various

steps which have been taken in a particular cause, and consequently the judge must take notice of his own official acts in the progress of a case, and needs no proof to advise him what he has done in it. Secrist v. Petty, 109 Ill. ISS.

1. Appropriation Exhausted.--As under the constitution, all appropriations by the general assembly can only be made by public law, this court will take judicial notice of the fact that at the time of the commencement of these condemnation proceedings, the general assembly had already, by previous appropriations on account of the new capitol grounds, and construction and furnishing the State house, exhausted its house, exhausted its power; and also of the fact that there was no money in the State treasury which could be legally applied to that purpose. People v. Stuart, 97 Ill. 123.

A Number of Courts in Session.-The supreme court will take judicial notice of the fact that a number of courts of original jurisdiction are held in the city of Chicago in as many different rooms and are in session at the same time. Hearson v. Grandine, 87 Ill. 115.

The supreme court will take notice of the regular terms of the circuit courts in the State. Buckles v. Northern Bank, 63 Ill. 268.

Reports of Foreign Tribunals. Courts will take judicial notice of the construction given to foreign statutes by the foreign tribunals, and to enable them to do this they have always been in the habit of looking to the reports of such tribunals. McDeed . McDeed, 67 Ill. 545.

A demurrer to a recognizance only reaches matters appearing upon the record, and not matters outside of and not presented by it. The court cannot know judicially, on a demurrer, that a regular term of court was not held, or that a special term was held. The terms being fixed by law, it will be presumed they were held, and if not, the fact should be averred and proved; and so of holding a special term. Norfolk v. People, 43 Ill. 9.

What Matters Will be Noticed.--The boundaries of the territory, its division into judicial districts, the limits of such divisions, leading places and geographical features of the land, within such limits, leading cities, villages and public places therein, Indian reservations,

leading public proclamations affecting matters relative to their jurisdiction, embracing executive decrees, orders and ordinances of State, are matters of which courts will take judicial cognizance, and need not be proved. U. S. v. Beebe, 2 Dak. 292.

2. Whether a Judgment Was Rendered in Vacation.-Where the statute provides that the spring term of the circuit court shall begin in a county in the latter part of May and continue six weeks, and as much longer as may be necessary, the supreme court cannot judicially know that a judgment rendered on July 18th was rendered in vacation; but, if nothing is shown to the contrary, it will presume that the court was regularly in session. Bostwick v. Bryant, 113 Ind. 448; Carmody v. State, 105 Ind. 546.

Where a notice of intention to hold a mechanic's lien failed to disclose the county and State in which the real estate upon which the lien was situate, but the complaint for the foreclosure of the lien averred that the land was situate in the county where the action was pending, that the parties all resided in that county when the notice was filed, and that the notice was recorded in the recorder's office of the same county, these averments, taken in connection with judicial knowledge of the court that a section of land, corresponding generally with the one described in the notice, lies within that county, are sufficient to supply the defect. White v. Stanton, 111 Ind. 540.

Title Derived from Sheriff's Deed.-Where the plaintiff in an ejectment suit derives his title from a sheriff's deed on decree in foreclosure proceedings, it is competent for him to introduce in evidence the decree, the certified copy thereof issued to the sheriff, and the notices of sheriff's sale, although neither of them recited in terms that the land therein described is in the county where the proceedings were had; it appearing from the complaint and the mortgage exhibited therewith that the land was in such county, and the documents offered in evidence containing a proper description of such land by township and range, which brings the location within the judicial knowledge of the court. Bryan v. Scholl, 109 Ind. 367.

The history of a country, its topography and general condition are ele