JUDICIAL NOTICE. The recognition by a court of the existence, nature, or truth of some thing involved in an action, on the theory that it is self-evident, or that it is a matter of such common knowledge as not to require any proof to establish it. The doctrine originated in the civil law and has always existed in the English and American law. It is a rule founded on ex pediency and convenience, adapted to save time in the trial of an action. The .questions as to what facts are such matters of universal knowl edge or certainty as to warrant judicial notice being taken of them, rest largely in the discretion of the court, and this is exercised with great caution. In most jurisdictions, by statute, cer tain matters of both law and fact are required to be judicially noticed, such as the attestation of a copy of a public record by the proper officer under the great seal of the State, or that the publications of the State printer contain authen tie copies of the public statutes, etc. In general it is the right and sonm•tin•s the duty of courts to take judicial notice of the following facts: The common law and public statute law, the pub lic (aces and officers, and the rules of the courts and matters of public record of their own State; the political constitution of their own State gov ernment and of the United States, the existence and title of every foreign Slate and sovereign recognized by the United States; public procla mations of the Chief Executive of the State or nation. and all matters of such universal accepta tion that there east be no dispute in regard to them. such as the divisions of time into years, months, and days, etc. In the absence of statute,
where a court has any doubt as to a fact involved in a trial, it. has a right to and should require evidence tending to establish it to be introduced.
It. is not essential, in order to take judicial notice of fact, that the trial judge should be personally familiar with it at the time of the trial, if la-fore his decision he becomes convinced by his own investiraiion that it is a general fact never disputed by competent authorities, or where he learns of a statute affecting the case subsequent to the trial. A jury has substantially the same liberty as a court to take notice of mat ters of fact upon the same principles as govern the courts, lint eannot take col.mizanee of a law without instruction from the court. Neither a court nor a jury can consider in their delibera tions any personal kno‘‘ ledge they may have of the peculiar circumstances of a case. unless they are set la-fore them in the evidence, as they are bound to decide solely upon the law and evidence as brought out in the trial. In any case where a court assumes something to lie true without proof, either may object and introduce evidence tending to contradict the conclusion of the court. If a court refuses to allow such evi dence, the party who offered to introduce it may appeal on that ground ; and if the appellate court finds that the trial court erred in this respect. it may reverse the judgment, and order a new trial. See EVIDENCE, and consult the authorities there referred to.