§ 22. Statutes. CHAPTER VI. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 23. Decisions Relative to: (a) Public Records, Documents, etc. (b) Patents in Suit-Copies of. (c) Assignments of Patents in Suit-Copies of. (f) Drawings, Maps, Photos, etc. (g) Copies of Papers-In general. § 22. Statutes. Rev. St. § 882: "Copies of any books, records, papers, or documents in any of the executive departments, authenticated under the seals of such departments, respectively, shall be admitted in evidence equally with the originals thereof." Rev. St. § 892: "Written or printed copies of any records, books, papers, or drawings belonging to the patent office, and of letters patent, authenticated by the seal and certified by the commissioner or acting commissioner thereof, shall be evidence in all cases wherein the originals could be evidence; and any person making application therefor, and paying the fee required by law, shall have certified copies thereof." Rev. St. § 893: "Copies of the specifications and drawings of foreign letters patent, certified as provided in the preceding section, shall be prima facie evidence of the fact of the granting of such letters patent, and of the date and contents thereof." Rev. St. § 894: "The printed copies of specifications and drawings of patents, which the commissioner of patents is authorized to print for gratuitous distribution, and to deposit in the capitols of the states and territories, and in the clerks' offices of the district courts, shall, when certified by him, and authenticated by the seal of his office, be received in all courts as evidence of all matters therein contained." Rev. St. § 983: "The bill of fees of the clerk, marshal, and attorney, and the amount paid printers and witnesses, and lawful fees for exemplifications and copies of papers necessarily obtained for use on trials in cases where, by law, costs are recoverable in favor of the prevailing party, shall be taxed by a judge or clerk of the court, and be included in and form a portion of a judgment or decree against the losing party. Such taxed bills shall be filed with the papers in the cause." Act Feb. 26, 1853, c. 80, § 3 (10 Stat. 168), made the same provision as present section 983, Rev. St. § 23. Decisions (a) Public records, documents, etc. The question here was whether a notary's fees for protesting a note were to be considered as "costs," or as a part of the debt, so as to increase the sum of "the matter in dispute." Judge Caldwell, in holding that they were part of the costs, referred to the record of the protest as the basis of the notary's fees, and said: "It is an error to suppose that no expense is taxable as costs save such as is incurred after suit brought. All expenses incurred by the plaintiff in procuring and perpetuating evidence of his demand against the defendant before suit brought, as well as all expenses incurred in the prosecution of the suit, which the law provides he may recover from the defendant, are costs." After referring to section 983, he said: "Where public records or certified copies of such records are necessary evidence for a party, he may procure the same; and the fees allowed by law to the officers making and certifying said records are, under section 983, taxable as part of his costs in the case, if he succeeds, without regard to the fact whether such records were procured before or after suit brought." Case No. 2. Ford v. Louisville, N. O. & T. R. Co. (1891; Miss.) 45 Fed. 210. Judge Hill said: "It is not intended by the statute to tax the losing party with any costs which the gaining party could have avoided by the production of any written testimony in his possession. The testimony must not only be necessary on the trial or hearing of the cause, but the expenditure for its production must be necessary, which cannot be the case if the successful party already had it in his possession, whether the orig inal or a copy. The presumption is that a party claiming lands has in his possession all the muniments of title required to be recorded necessary to show his title to the lands owned by him, embracing patents, deeds, copies of wills, and such other papers, not only those immediately executed to him, but all under which he claims title; and if he does not have them in his pos session, the presumption is that he can obtain them, or, if not, that it is his misfortune or neglect. Under this rule, I am of opinion that the charge for copies of these deeds must be disallowed.” As to the costs of transcripts of certain suits, which only incidentally formed a part of defendant's muniments of title, and which were used to defeat complainant's claim of title, the court held the items properly taxable. Case No. 3. Shaw Electric Crane Co. v. Shriver (1897; S. D. N. Y.) 80 Fed. 640. By stipulation it was agreed that the evidence taken in a suit in New Jersey could be used in this case, and it was used without being certified by the clerk of the New Jersey court. Judge Lacombe held: "Of course, the order and stipulation authorizing the use of this testimony, taken in another case, presupposed that proper assurance of its authenticity would be made. If defendant decided to use it, the only proper shape in which it could have been offered to this court was under the certification of the clerk of the court in which it was filed, unless some further stipulation should dispense with this requirement. Had defendant obtained this certification, he could, of course, tax the disbursements necessary to obtain it, but he surely cannot charge anything for certification fees which he has not paid. Probably there was a further stipulation entered into by the parties, although the pa pers do not clearly show one, to the effect that an uncertified copy of the New Jersey evidence might be put in with the same effect as if it were certified; but in the absence of any stipulation as to allowance of whatever sum defendant chose to pay for the uncertified copy, I cannot see how the court can include such sum in the bill of costs." § 23b. Patents in suit-Copies of. Case No. 1. Hathaway v. Roach (1846) 2 Woodb. & M. 63, Fed. Cas. No. 6,213. Tax'n Costs-5. Justice Woodbury said: "But as to a copy of the plaintiff's patent, I think that need not have been procured by the defendant, as the plaintiff was bound by. law to offer it in evidence, could not proceed at all without so doing, and hence it was not needed in order to be used as evidence by the defendant; but I can readily see that the defendant might want it for himself and counsel, in order to examine critically what he was to defend against. That, however, was a want, not for proof, but preparation and argument, and, like all such documents, is not generally taxed in the bill of cost, but borne by each party for himself." Case No. 2. Woodruff v. Barney (1862) 1 Bond. 528, Fed. Cas. No. 17,986. One item sought to be taxed was the cost of copies of patents procured by defendant, and as to it Judge Leavitt said: "If the motion now made includes the expense of copies of the plaintiffs' patent, it cannot be allowed, for the obvious reason that the plaintiffs are bound to exhibit these as a necessary part of their evidence, and there could be no necessity that the defendants should procure them." 23c. Assignments of patents in suit-Copies of. Case No. 1. Hathaway v. Roach (1846) 2 Woodb. & M. 63, Fed. Cas. No. 6,213. Justice Woodbury said: "In the next place, an objection is made to the cost of copies of various assignments by the plaintiff; but as it was a part of the defense, contemplated before closing, to show that the plaintiff had not retained an interest, which authorized him to recover, I think that the defendant acted |