Copy

A true transcript of an original writing.* A reproduction or transcript of language, 1 Evans v. Eugee, 57 Wis. 636 (1883). = Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Gush. 308 (1850), Shaw, C. J. See also Abemethy v. Commonwealth, 101 Pa. 323 (1882); 71 Ala. 485; 3 Gratt. 594; Whart. Horn. 448; Auss. Cr. 667.

3 2 Bl. Com. 187-90; 3 id. 227. * 4 Kent, 866. « 1 Washb. R. P. 415. • Dickinson v. Chesapeake, &c. E. Co., 7 W. Va. 412 written or printed, or of a design, device, picture, or work of art.i Compare Transcript.

Certified or ofB.ce copy. A copy made and attested by the officer who is intrusted with the custody of an original writing, and authorized to make copies. Every document of a public nature, as to which inconvenience would be occasioned by a removal, and which the party has a right to inspect, may be proved by a duly authenticated copy." Examined copy. A copy compared with the original, or with an official record thereof.

Exemplified copy

A copy attested under the seal of the proper court; an exemplification (g. V.) of record. An examined copy of a record is evidence where the removal of the original would inconvenience the public. Fraud or mistake therein can be readily detected.' See Record, Judicial. A copy of a will may be received in probate.* Where an original is lost, or withheld after notice to produce, a copy will be received.* To be evidence, a copy must also be complete.' In making examined copies, the comparing witnesses should change hands, so that the Ustening witness may in turn become the reading witness.' Such copy should be proved by some one who has compared it with the original.' The rule that a copy of a copy is not admissible evidence is correct in itself, when properly understood and limited to its true sense. The rule properly applies to cases where the copy is taken from a copy, the original being still in existence and capable of bemg compared with it, for then it is a second remove from the original; or where it is a copy of a copy of a record, the record being in existence, by law deemed as high evidence as the original, for then it is also a second remove from the record. But it is quite a difficult question whether it applies to cases of secondary evidence where the original is lost, or the record of it is not deemed as high evidence as the original, or where the copy of a copy is the highest proof in existence.' A letter-press copy is receivable, the original being lost. While secondary at best, a copy from such a copy, the original being lost, has been allowed." I Abbott's Law Diet. = Stebbinsv.

Duncan, 108 U. S. 60 (1882), cases; Shutesbury V. Hadley, 133 Mass. 247 (1882), oases; Booth v. Tieman, 109 V. S. 208 (1883). ' 1 Greenl. Ev. § 91. I I wmiams, Ex. 364. » 1 Greenl. Ev. § B08. « Commonwealth v. Trout, 76 Pa. 382 (1874). ' 1 Whart. Ev. § 94. 'Mc Ginniss v. Sawyer, 63 Pa. 287 (1869). « Winn V. Patterson, 9 Pet. *677 (1836), Story J. 10 See Goodrich v. Weston, 102 Mass. 363 (1889), cases; 1 Cush 189- 7 Allen, 561; 3 Mc Crary, 169; 37 Conn. 555; 57 Ga 50- 73IU.161; 18 Kan. 546; 19 La. An. 91; 85 Md. ■ 1 Whart. Ev. 81 90-109, cases.