Folsom v. Blood
Folsom v. Blood
Opinion of the Court
The attestation of the judgment by the clerk of the common pleas is not indispensable. Willard v. Harvey, 24 N. H. 344; Hall v. Manchester, 40 N. H. 410; Sumner v. Sebee, 3 Me. 223. *12 If it were prescribed by statute, the statute would be directory, and other evidence of the authenticity of the record would be received. Secombe v. Steele, 20 How. 94, 102. The clerk of the superior court, having the custody of the records of the common pleas, is the proper officer to furnish copies of those records, and his certificate is evidence of what they are. Carlisle v. Thompson, 5 N. H. 411; Mahurin v. Bickford, 6 N. H. 567, 570, 571; Hall v. Manchester, supra; 1 Greenl. Ev., s. 506.
Motion denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.