Case Name: James Brown's Administrators v. Richard Winn
Court: Constitutional Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1809-04
Citations: 2 Brev. 297
Docket Number: 
Parties: James Brown’s Administrators v. Richard Winn.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 297–298

Head Matter:
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, COLUMBIA,
APRIL, 1809.
James Brown’s Administrators v. Richard Winn.
Since the A. A. of 1799, the several District Courts are to be regarded as independent tribunals, subject only to the control of the Court of Ap-> peals; and copies of their records authenticated by the proper officers, must be admitted in evidence.
Motion from Fairfield district, to set aside a verdict, and enter a nonsuit. Debt on a judgment obtained in the District Court of Camden. 'Plea, no such record. At the trial, an exemplification, or office copy of 'the judgment was produced, certified by the clerk of Kershaw district, the keeper of the judicial proceedings of the former district of Camden.
Evans, for the defendant
objected to its being received as evidence, and insisted on the necessity of proving the record by itself; but Brevard, J., received the copy as evidence, and upon inspection thereof, gave judgment for the plaintiff.
In support of the motion in this Court, it was contended, that a record cannot be proved by other evidence than the record itself. That it would be dangerous to admit copies authenticated only by-the clerk of a court, who might, through design, or carelessness, give an imperfect, or erroneous copy. That if a copy is admissible, coming from one District Court, and produced in another; yet it must be in pursuance of some regular authorized mode, as by writ of certiorari, or by mittimus, and not in a private way.
On the other side, the A. A. 1721, P. L. 117, was referred to, which, enacts, that attested copies of all records, signed by the keeper of such records, shall be as good evidence as the originals $' and it was contended, that the certificate under the hand of the keeper of such record, who is a sworn officer of great pnblic trust, is a sufficient attestation of the office copy, in compliance with the act) to authorize its admission in evidence, as an attested copy, without a particular deposition, or affidavit, of its authenticity and correctness. It was further contended, that the rule which ob» tains in the English courts on this subject, is also the rule here, viz., upon the plea of no such record, if the record be of the same court, the original record, itself, must be produced. But if it be of ano. ther court, an authentic copy is evidence. I Morg. Ess. 53. 2 Bac. Abr. 308. 1 Loffts. sec. 4. Bull. N. P. 2 Burr. 1084. The certified copy is regarded as the record itself.
Evans, for the defendant.
IIookek, for the plaintiff.

Opinion:
Curia.
Giuhike, J.
Since the establishment of Circuit, or District Courts, and especially since the act of 1789, which established our present court system, all the several District Courts are to be regarded as distinct independent tribunals, subject only to the control of this Court of Appeals. The records of these courts may, without inconvenience, be produced in evidence in the several courts where they are respectively deposited ; but it would not only be inconvenient, but evidently detrimental, to the public justice of the country, to allow them to be removed from place to place, to answer the private purposes of every individual who might claim the benefit of offering them in evidence. From necessity, there, fore, and for the public good, copies of them must be admitted in evidence ; which copies, properly and truly authenticated, may be legally considered as the records themselves, of which they are the faithful demonstrations. Although the courts of the districts in this State are independent judicatories, yet the judges who preside therein, are associate magistrates, who ride the circuits in rotation, and by turns hold the courts; and, at the conclusion of every circuit, meet together to hear and adjudge the questions submitted to them collectively, by way of appeal from the determination of the District Courts. In this view of our judicial system, there seems to be no necessity, or propriety, in requiring a formal, or ceremonious, mode of transmitting the copies of records from one court to another. There is no necessity, and no use, for a writ of certiorari or mittimus, to authorize, or compel, the production of authenticated copies, of the judicial proceedings required in evidence.
Motion overruled.