Mr. Justice Wilson made the following order admitting the document:—
I think this document is admissible. There are two question to be considered, first the proof of the contents, and second the proof of the execution.
Section 65 of the Evidence Act deals with the first of ??? questions, and the document tendered comes under clause (c) ??? that section, which provides that secondary evidence may be given ??? the contents of a document “when the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents ??? for any other reason, not arising from his own default or ??? produce it in reasonable time.” The will in question has ??? shown to be lost, and therefore it contents may be proved ??? secondary evidence.
Section 90 deals with the second question. Under that section if a document, purporting or proved to be 30 years old, is produced from any custody, which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature ??? every part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person is in that person's handwriting. Act cording to the explanation to the section documents are said to ??? in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be.
It has been argued that under this section the original document must be produced in Court. That is too narrow a construction to put upon the words of the section.
The original will has been shown to have been lost in proper custody, and it is more than thirty years old. I think, therefore, that secondary evidence of its contests may be admitted without proof of the execution.