Case Name: STATE v. McDONALD
Court: Oregon Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1909-08-17
Citations: 55 Or. 419
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. McDONALD.
Judges: 
Reporter: Oregon Reports
Volume: 55
Pages: 419–450

Head Matter:
On motion to affirm, argued August 10,
decided August 17, 1909.
On the merits argued October 6,
decided November 15, 1909.
Rehearing denied January 18.
Further rehearing denied February 15, 1910.
STATE v. McDONALD.
[103 Pac. 512; 104 Pac. 967 ; 106 Pac. 444.]
Appeal and Error—Briefs—Filing—Time—Submission.
1. Where the briefs of both parties had been filed, and the submission removed the case from the operation of the rules regulating the time for filing briefs, respondent was not entitled to have the judgment affirmed for appellant’s failure to file a brief within the time specified in the rules.
Escheat—Statutes—Construction—Pleading—Several Causes of Action.
2. Act February 19, 1903 (Laws 1903, p. 127), §4, provides that whenever the Governor Is informed, or has reason to believe, that any property (real, personal, or mixed) has escheated to the State, he shall direct the district attorney of the judicial district in which such property may be, to file information setting forth the facts, etc. Held, that such statute contemplated hut one proceeding to escheat all of decedent’s property subject thereto, and hence an information was not demurrable as misjoining several causes of action because both real and personal property sought to be escheated were separately alleged.
Appeal and Error—Joint Trial—Right to Severance—Waiver.
3. Where, in escheat proceedings, the claimants or defendants proceed to a joint trial without objection, they could not claim on appeal that they were entitled to a severance.
Courts—County Courts—Jurisdiction—Constitutional Provisions.
4. Under Section 12, Article VII, Constitution of Oregon, declaring that the county courts shall have the jurisdiction pertaining to probate courts, and such other powers and duties as may he prescribed by law, the legislature had no power to deprive county courts of common-law jurisdiction inherent in probate courts at the time of the adoption of the constitution, which included the right to determine heirship as an incident to the distribution of intestate’s estates.
Courts—County Courts—Jurisdiction—Statutes.
5. Laws 1903, p. 128, § 5, providing that, if an information to escheat an estate has been filed in a certain court and a summons issued and served, the county court shall he ousted of jurisdiction to determine heirship or right of claimants to the estate, except as to the claims of creditors, etc., in so far as it attempted to oust the county court of jurisdiction to determine heirship for the distribution of personal estate of a decedent in process of administration therein, was in violation of Section 12, Article VII, Constitution of Oregon, establishing the jurisdiction of county courts.
Courts—Conflicting Jurisdiction—Escheat Proceedings.
6. The circuit court in escheat proceedings cannot assume jurisdiction over the personalty of a decedent until the county court has completed the administration of the estate and adjudged that there is no lawful claimant, though the circuit court is entitled, independent of the county court, to take jurisdiction and adjudicate on the devolution of the title to realty.
Escheat—Nature of Proceedings—Law or E'quity.
7. A proceeding to escheat the property of a deceased person for want of heirs, as authorized by act February 19, 1903 (Laws 1903, p. 127), is a proceeding at law.
Appeal and Error—Questions of Fact—Review—Record.
8. Where a motion to suppress depositions was heard by the trial court on affidavits and counter affidavits, which were not preserved by bill of exceptions, the ruling could not be reviewed on appeal.
Depositions—Infirm Persons—Inability to Appe'ar—Evidence— Discretion.
9. Where a witness was 70 years of age, infirm, and afflicted with chronic ailments, whether she whs unable to appear so as to authorize the reading of her deposition, was within the discretion of the trial court.
Evidence—Declarations of Deceased Person—Pedigree—Relationship.
10. ’Where a witness is offered to testify to declarations of a deceased person, who is related to a family, as to the pedigree of some other person with relation to that family, the relationship of the declarant to the family must be shown by other evidence than the declarant’s assertions before such declarations may be admitted.
Bastards—Evidence of Illegitimacy.
11. A witness who had known deceased from childhood was properly admitted to testify on an issue of pedigree that deceased had lived at the house of witness’ mother until he left Scotland for America when he was 16 or 17 years old; that witness’ mother raised him from birth to boyhood, until he left the country, furnished him with colthing, medicine, etc., that deceased was the illegimitate son of F., with whom witness was personally acquainted, and who was one of witness’ close neighbors, and that after the birth of deceased F. came to the home of witness' mother several times and called deceased "her boy,” and he called her "mother.”
Evidence—Illegitimacy—Declarations of Intestate.
12. Declarations or acts of an intestate tending to show his own illegitimacy, are admissible as against those claiming under the intestate.
Evidence—Illegitimacy—Declarations of Putative Mother.
13. Declarations or acts of the putative mother are admissible to prove the illegitimacy of a child.
Evidence—Pedigree—Declarations of Members op Family'—Relationship.
14. Where after deceased was born as the alleged illegitimate son of F., he was placed in the family of the sister of his alleged father, who raised him until he was 16 or 17 years old, when he left the country, declarations of the sister as to decedent’s parentage were competent on an issue of pedigree, though the sister’s relationship to deceased was de facto and not de jure.
Evidence—Declarations—Pedigree.
15. Where a non-resident claimed a share in decedent’s estate, on the theory that he was decedent’s full brother, his declarations that decedent was his illegitimate half-brother, and that decedent’s mother was a woman in Scotland whom he never knew, were admissible against the declarant as an admission against interest.
Evidence—Declarations—Pedigree.
16. Such declarations were also admissible as declarations of a member of the family as to pedigree, under Section 700, B. & C. Comp., providing that the declaration, act, or admission of a member of the family, who is deceased or out of the State, is admissible as evidence of common reputation in cases where, on questions of pedigree, such reputation is admissible.
Bastards—Evidence as to Legitimacy—Letters.
17. Letters of ari alleged father to his son, addressing him as his sin, would be construed prima facie to mean his legitimate son.
Evidence—Pedigree—Reputation.
18. On an issue as to the pedigree of deceased, an alleged illegitimate son, a neighbor, not related to either branch of decedent’s alleged family, though having known both families of decedent’s putative relations from his earliest recollection, was incompetent to testify that F. was decedent’s mother, under the rule that common reputation on the subject of a person’s parentage, whose pedigree is in dispute, is inadmissible.
[This part of the opinion was overruled in deciding the motion for rehearing. See Syllabus 33.—Reporter.]
Evidence—Declarations—Pedigree—Relationship op Declarant.
19. To render declarations, affecting pedigree, admissible, it must appear that the declarant, or the source of the witness’ information, was a member of the family, or related to the family whose history the fact concerns, and the declarant must be dead or be out of the State.
Evidence—Pedigree—Declarations—By Whom Made.
20. On an issue of pedigree, testimony of declarations of decedent’s administrator, who was not connected with the M. family, that there was an existing tradition in that family as to decedent’s relationship to it, was admissible.
Evidence—Foreign Laws—Official Publication.
21. Under Section 788, subd. 36, B. & C. Comp., providing that it shall be presumed that a book, purporting to be printed and published by public authority, was so printed and published, a pamphlet consisting of 13 printed pages, bound or tied together by a linen thread, constituting a complete statute of the Dominion of New Zealand, relating to the registration of births and deaths, on the last page of which, at the conclusion of the subject-matter, were the words: “Wellington, New Zealand; printed under the authority of the New Zealand Government, by George Didsbury, Government Printer’’—would be presumed to be a public general law of New Zealand, printed by authority of the government, nor was such presumption overcome by a statement at the foot of the first page, “Supplement to the New Zealand Gazette, No. 57, of the 14th October, 1875.”
Evidence—Foreign Laws—Authentication.
22. Where a pamphlet, containing an alleged statute of a foreign country, appeared on its face to have been printed by the public printer, under governmental authority, and there was also evidence that the pamphlet had been procured by mail from D., whose name was imprinted thereon as government printer, the authenticity of the pamphlet was sufficiently proved to entitle it to be introduced in evidence.
Evidence—Foreign Laws'—Statutes—Part op Record or Document.
23. Under Section 737, B. & G. Comp., authorizing the admission in evidence of a book purporting to contain the written law of a foreign country, a pamphlet purporting to have been printed by authority of a foreign government, containing a complete statute with reference to the registration of births and deaths, followed by a complete index of contents, was not objectionable because it was not a book purporting to contain all the statutes of the country or a code of the country’s laws.
Evidence—“Foreign Official Document”—Foreign Death Record— Certification.
24. A certified foreign death record, kept in accordance with the laws of the country in which the decedent died, is a “foreign official document” within Section 755, subd. 8, B. & C. Comp., providing that documents other than those previously referred to of a foreign country may be proved by the original, or by a copy certified by the legal keeper thereof, together with a certificate under the great seal of the country or sovereign thereof that the document is a valid and subsisting document of such country, and that the copy is duly certified by the officer having legal custody of the original; it being sufficient that the copy is certified to be a true copy of the entry of the death of the person named in the records of the officer.
Evidence—Records—Certification—“Duly Certified.”
25. The words “duly certified,” used with reference to the certification of a copy of a foreign death record, should be construed to mean “certified according to law.”
Evidence—Foreign Death Record—Certification—Laws.
26. Under Section 755, subd. 8, B. & C. Comp., providing for the proof of foreign documents and records by the certification of a copy by the legal keeper of the record, with a certificate under the great seal of the country or sovereign thereof that it is a valid and subsisting document, and that the copy is duly certified, etc., the certification by the sovereign is to be made in accordance with the law of the place of the record.
Evidence—Foreign Records—Certification—Statutes.
27. Section 760, B. & C. Comp., providing that whenever a copy of a writing is certified to be used as evidence, the certificate shall state that the copy has been compared by the certifying officer with the original; that it is a correct transcript therefrom and of the whole or a specified part thereof—has no application to a certificate of a foreign death record offered on an issue of heirship.
Evidence—Foreign Records—Certification.
28. Where the authentication by the governor of New Zealand to a copy of a death record of that country recited that the record of deaths from which the copy was taken was a record required and authorized by law, made at the time and prior to the death of the deceased, it constituted a substantial compliance with Section 7-55, subd. 8, B. & C. Comp., requiring such a certificate to certify that the document is a valid and subsisting document of the country from which it purports to come.
Evidence—foreign Records—Certification—Signing.
29. A foreign certificate to a copy of a death record recited in the body, “I, Edward John von Dadelszen,” etc., but the subscription described him as “E. J. V. Dadelszen.” The governor certified that this was the true and genuine signature of the person named in the body of the certificate. The certificate of the governor recited, “I, the undersigned William Lee, Baron Plunket,” etc., and the subscription was merely “Plunket” ; the words “Governor of the Dominion of New Zealand” having been written thereunder by another. Held, that the record was properly certified.
Evidence—Official Registers—Scope.
30. Records which come within the designation of ofiicial registers are competent evidence of the facts properly recorded therein, though they relate to matters not within the personal knowledge of the officer making them.
Evidence—Foreign Records—Death—Pedigree.
31. The law of New Zealand required the keeping of a public record of births and deaths, and required the relatives of the deceased present at the death, within 31 days, under a penalty for failure to do so, to inform the registrar of the name and age of the decedent; the names of her parents; the occupation of the father; where decedent was born; the length of time she was in the country; where she was married, and at what age; and the name of the registrar’s informant who was required to sign the register, giving his occupation and place of residence. Held, that a certified copy of the record of a woman’s death under such law, reciting that she died when 71 years of age; the names of her parents; that her father was a blacksmith; that she was born at Alva, Clackmannanshire, Scotland; that she had been in New Zealand 21 years, and at the age of 30 married L. at Glasgow; and that her son was the registrar’s informant—was not limited to mere proof of the fact and time of her death, but was competent to prove all the facts certified.
Evidence—Records—Official Facts.
32. Where particular facts are inquired into and recorded for the benefit of the public according to law, the officers making the investigations and memorials are regarded as agents of all the individuals composing the state, and hence the facts recited in such records are admissible in evidence without being supported by oath.
Evidence—Pedigree—Reputation.
33. On an issue as to the pedigree of a decedent, an alleged illegitimate son, a neighbor not related to decedent’s alleged family, who knew both branches of his putative relations from long recollection, was competent to testify that it was common knowledge that F. was decedent’s mother; Section 718, subd. 11, B. & C. Comp., permitting evidence of common reputation, existing previous to the controversy, in cases of pedigree.
Evidence—Pedigree—Reputation—Death of Declarant.
34. Where it was not shown that declarant was dead or without the State, as required by Section 700, B. & C. Comp., making declarations of a member of the family, who is deceased or out of the State, admissible as evidence of common reputation, where, on pedigree questions, such reputation is admissible, the admission of such declarations was reversible error.
From Union: John W. Knowles, Judge.
Decided Aug. 17, 1909.
On Motion to Affirm Judgment. .
[103 Pac. 512.]
Mr. Charles E. Cochran, for the motion.
Mr. Charles H. Finn, contra.
Argued Oct. 6, decided Nov. 15, 1909.
Rehearing denied Jan. 18,
further rehearing denied Feb. 15, 1910.
[104 Pac. 967.]

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
1.
This is a motion to affirm a judgment, on the ground of the failure of the appellant to file a brief within the time limited by the rules of this court.
This cause was submitted at Pendleton; May 6, 1909, and transmitted to Salem for argument. The submission necessitates a casual examination, at least, of the errors assigned.
The briefs on the part of both parties háve been filed, and, as the order of submission takes the case out of the operation of our rules, the motion should be denied, and it is so ordered. Motion Denied.