JUDICIAL NOTICE. A term used to ex press the doctrine of the acceptance by a court for the purposes of the case, of the truth of certain notorious facts without re quiring proof.
It is the process whereby proof by parol evidence is dispensed with, where the court is justified by general considerations in as suming the truth of a proposition without requiring evidence from the party setting it up. See Wigm. Ev. § 2565. This power is to be exercised with caution. Care must be tak en that the requisite notoriety exists. Every reasonable doubt should be resolved promptly in the negative ; Brown v. Piper, 91 U. S. 37, 41, 23 L. Ed. 200.
The classes of facts of which judicial no tice will be taken are judicial, legislative, po litical, historical, geographical, commercial, scientific, and artistic, in addition to a wide range of matters arising in the ordinary course of nature or the general current of human affairs which rest entirely upon ac knowledged notoriety for their claims to judicial recognition ; Wade, Notice 1403.
If unacquainted with such fact, the court may refer to any person or any document or book of reference for its satisfaction in re lation thereto ; or may refuse to take judi cial notice thereof unless and until the party calling upon it to take such notice produces any such document or book of reference ; Steph. Ev. art. 59. It may inform itself from such sources as it deems best ; Brown v. Pip er, 91 U. S. 37, 23 L. Ed. 200.
Judicial notice is not conclusive. That a matter is judicially noticed means merely that it is taken as true without the offering of evidence by the party upon whom the bur den of proof ordinarily rests. But the op ponent is not prevented from disputing the matter by evidence, if he believes it disputa ble ; Wigm. Ev. § 2567. Judicial notice must be requested, as it is a dispensation from producing evidence ; Wigm. Ev. § 2568. A court will not Mite judicial notice of a fact merely because it knows it ; Lenahan v. Peo ple, 5 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 268.
Judicial notice will be taken of the follow ing: Laws, Domestic Statutes and Ordinances. Public acts within the state or territory in which the court is held ; Parent v. Walms
ly's Adm'r, 20 Ind. 82 ; Jones v. 13. S., 137 U. S. 214, 11 Sup. Ct. 80, 34 L. Ed. 691; Wright v. Hawkins, 28 Tex. 452 ; People v. Mahaney, 13 Mich. 481; Inhabitants of Belmont v. In-. habitants of Morrill, 69 Me. 314 ; McDonald v. State, 80 Wis. 407, 50 N. W. 185 ; and of a law regulating within certain districts the right of fishing ; Burnham v. Webster, 5 Mass. 266 ; the right of navigation ; Ham mond's Lessee v. Inloes, 4 Md. 138 ; the lum ber trade ; Pierce v. Kimball, 9 Greenl. (Me.) 54, 23 Am. Dec. 537 ; or the sale of liquor ; Levy v. State, 6 Ind. 281; State v. Cooper, 101 N. C. 688, 8 S. E. 134 ; of the corporate existence and names of the counties of a state ; Trammell v. Chambers County, 93 Ala. 388, 9 South. 815 ; of a private act when expressly recognized and amended by a pub lic act ; Lavalle v. People, 6 Ill. App. 157 ; of a long prevailing construction of a statute 'by executive officers ; Bloxham v. R. Co., 36 Fla. 519, 18 South. 444, 29 L. R. A. 507, 51 Am. St. Rep. 44; of acts incorporating railway companies by general provisions ; Heaston v. R. Co., 16 Ind. 275, 79 Am. Dec. 430 (though not by general charter ; Perry v. R. Co., 55 Ala. 413, 28 Am. Rep. 740 ; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Blackshire, 10 Kan. 477 ; contra, Wright v. Hawkins, 28 Tex. 452) ; of the pub lic statutes of the several states (by a federal court) ; Merchants' Exch. Bank v. McGraw, 59 Fed. 972, 8 C. C. A. 420, 15 U. S. App. 332; of the statutes under which city improve ments are made ; Conlin v. Board of Super visors, 99 Cal. 17, 33 Pac. 753, 21 L. R. A. 474, 37 Am. St. Rep. 17 ; but not of ordi nances and regulations of local boards and councils ; Case v. Mayor of Mobile, 30 Ala. 538 ; Moore v. Town of Jonesboro, 107 Ga. 704, 33 S. E. 435; Garvin v. Wells, 8 Ia. 286; Watt v. Jones, 60 Kan. 201, 56 Pac. 16 ; Field v. Malster, 88 Md. 691, 41 Atl. 1087 ; City of Winona v. Burke, 23 Minn. 254 ; Porter v. Waring, 69 N. Y. 250 ; Stittgen v. Rundle, 99 Wis. 78, 74 N. W. 536 ; that a city is duly incorporated ; Pennsylvania Co. v. Horton, 132 Ind. 189, 31 N. E. 45.