|
1
<br />2d
<br />18
<br />MUNICIPALRIECORDS
<br />.. ............... .
<br />......................................... .
<br />and evidenceN%Fill 1,10t
<br />e e ed.In ...': 1a at:: fflo:n :: o. vary or# contradict such record
<br />when it is regular and complete on its face.`e t against direct
<br />attach for' or mistake," � ems.
<br />and o long a they stand as records'
<br />4# o \J n* ise).t`_:r earl % isin:is"Ck+i` rctl:tl,:.'. ,rA, #i,,:.,�Ai!' A.,. k.;�r:.-.-:]:�i;;E:-
<br />r impeaened on 13F in 'P'tobeedingsinstituted
<br />directly for the purpose, and to the end that the record may
<br />corrected, � � ion a they�
<br />are i existence and can e produced,
<br />they are the only competent evidence of the acts ef'the ora cor
<br />Igold seem that ��whenp tion. II
<br />such records are produced in evidence they
<br />establish themsel ves. 13 So, where the facts essential to 9ive council 'ri
<br />tion .o a town�� .� dYc-
<br />ere shown y its records, a presumption was
<br />deemed to prevail in Favor of its jurisdiction, and the state
<br />jurisdictional fact could n n�er�t of
<br />e denied upon a collateral attack, nor
<br />could plain errors affect it. 14
<br />The introduction of municipal records in evidence is usually regu-
<br />lated by statute. PrOof of vefity may"I or may not"' be ore
<br />admissibility f'ri � gyred far
<br />nal council minutes. However, while the origi-
<br />nal minutes, , or records, constitute the primary evidence of the
<br />recited therein,17 properly facts
<br />y authenticated copies of the proceedings
<br />of a municipal corporation or other m nic"pail body have frequently
<br />been admittedas e��ide ��
<br />evidence." But copies not attested or certified as
<br />codes are inadmissible as evidence of the proceedings,111 For a Col.��'�
<br />co }
<br />to permitthe introduction t ' �nal �•
<br />he origirntes, rather than to
<br />require a certified copy thereof, has been deemed not to constitute
<br />error.2o
<br />1 Florida. B�eck v. Littlefield (FL% ,, 68
<br />So2d 889.
<br />Kentucky. Dance Y_ Board of Educa.
<br />King Of Citi' of Middlesbom. 296 Hy 67,
<br />176SW2d 90, Princeton v. Baker, 237 I ii
<br />325, 35 S '2d 524; Winchester v. Ken-
<br />tucky Utilities Co., 182 KY 144, 206 SW
<br />296; Spalding v. Lebanon, 158 Ky 37, 180
<br />SW 75 1.
<br />Missouri, State v. Fatter, 324 Mo
<br />290, 23 %V2d 187.
<br />New York. Bochino v. Palmer (Misch,
<br />203 NYS2d 3301_
<br />Texas, Crabb v. Uvalde Paving Co.
<br />(Tex Com App), 23 SW2d 300.
<br />2 Florida. Beek v. Littlefield (Fla), 68
<br />Sro2d 8W
<br />a [united States. Owings V. Speed.
<br />Wheat f S) 420, Black %,. Street Improve-
<br />ment Dist. No. 2 of I ardanelle. Arkan-
<br />sas, 37 F Supp 894.
<br />Alabama. Penton %-. r m,n- rur r
<br />Inv. Co., 222 Ala 155, 131 So 14. quoting
<br />Mc~Quiliin text; Hamrick N% Albertville,
<br />213 Ala 465, 122 So 448: Perryman v.
<br />Greenville, 51 Ala 607.
<br />Conncecticut. Gr so v. Frattolillo,
<br />III Conn 209, 143 A 838; Isbell v. New
<br />York N. H. R., 25 Corin 556, School
<br />ILt. v. Blakeslee, 13 Conn 227.
<br />Idaho. Boise City v. Better Homes,
<br />Inc., 72 Idaho 441, 243 P2d 303.
<br />Illinois. St. Charles v. O'Maile . 18 Ill
<br />407.
<br />
|