Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/478

Rh 

1789.

the bar, the Counfel on both fides agreed, by writing under their hands, that the verdict fhould be taken by the Clerk of the Court agreeably to what fhould appear to be the intent of the Jury, and that they would mould it into form. After this conduct, and fuch proceedings, I think the objection ought not to be fupported.

But, as any brethren think differently from me on thefe points, the judgment in both caufes muft be reverfed.

Rush,Juʃtice. :–– There can be no doubt, that the laws of Virginia are evidence; but the queftion before the Court is, in what manner fhall they be authenticated, in order to render them admiffible evidence to a Jury?

Upon eʃtabliʃhed rules of law, and, alfo, on general principles, I am of opinion, that the Virginia act, printed by the Government Printer, ought to have been given in evidence to the Jury.

No evidence fhall be received, which fuppofes a ftill greater evidence behind, in the parties own poʃʃeʃʃion and power. On this ground, the printed act ought to have been laid before the Jury ; becaufe, it cannot be faid, that eitehr the original, or a copy under feal, was in his poʃʃeʃʃion or power. Both might have been refufed to him at the office in Virginia;  and this Court, having no controul over the office, could not have given any relief. All laws fhould be conftrued, as far as may be, fo as to guard againft what men may do; and not to truft to what they will do.

Sir William Blackʃtone, in the third volume of his Commentaries, page 336, fpeaking of the Court of Chancery, fays, “ If a queftion

“ comes before that Court, or a Court of Law, which is properly

“ the object of a ƒoreign municipal law, they will both receive information

“ what is the rule of the country, and will both decide

“ accordingly. Both Courts follow the Law of Nations, and collect

“ it from hiʃtory, and the moft approved authors of all countries,

“ where the queftion is the object of that law ; as in the cafe of the

“ privileges of ambaffadors, hoftages, or ranfom bills. In mercantile

“ ufages and authorities received in all countries.” From this language, it would feem, to be the opinion of the author, that the fame evidence, which any Court abroad would have received, would alfo be received in England, where the fubject in litigation requires it.

If, then, the Virginia law might have been given in evidence in that country, of which there can be no doubt ; it was the duly of the Court in Pennʃylvania to have received information of the rule, or law, of Virginia, from the fame fource that would have been fatisfactory to the Judges there. Every country has a right to promulgate its laws as it pleafes; and whatever printed authorities are received in a foreign country as evidence of its laws, are, in my opinion, evidence of the fame laws to a Court and Jury in Pennʃylvania. To