
    Theodore Gourdine, ads. The Heirs of Jesse Barino.
    
      Copies of grants and plats, certified by the deputy secretary of state and deputy surveyor-general, are admissible in evidence, ■without proof of the appointment of those deputies, or that ■they have in other instances acted in those capacities.
    
    This was an action of trespass to try title. After the plaintiff had closed his case, the defendant offered in evidence the copies of a'grant and plat older than those under which the plaintiff claimed. The first was certified by Samuel Burger, deputy secretary of state, in Charleston, the other by Thomas Willison, deputy surveyor-general, in Columbia. An objection was made to this evidence, on the ground, that it did not appear, that these persons had been regularly appointed to the offices which they respectively assumed, nor that they had been in the habit of performing tlie duties. On the other hand it was contended that the certificates themselves furnished all the evidence which was necessary of that fact. The presiding judge refused the evidence and the plaintiff obtained a verdict. This was a motion for a new trial, on the ground that the testimony ought to have been received.
    
      Petigru, attorney-general, for the motion.
    There is a distinction between a public and a private authority. The appointment of a public officer need not be proved; it is a presumption of law that a person exercising a public office, is duly authorized. Reoc vs. Ferelst, 3 ('amp. JSri. Pri. Rep. 332 Are these deputies public officers? They must be so considered, for the constitution of the state, [2 sec. 10 art.) provides for their' appointment.
    By the act of 1803, 2 Faust, 408, copies of plats and grants, certified by the secretary of state and surveyor-general, are made evidence. Whatever may be done by the principal, may be done by his deputy. 5 Com. Big. Tit. Officer, j0. 3.
    It may be objected that there ought to be some other evi-. dence of the exercise of a public ofiice, than the single act which is to be authenticated. But ifi the case of Rex vs. Jones, 3 Camp. JYi. Pri. Rip. 131, the official character of a public officer was held to be sufficiently proved by a single letter. There could not be a stronger or more unequivocal official act than the certificates in question,
    
      
      Dimldn, contra.
    The admission of copies of instrument* 'in evidence, is a departure from the ordinary rules of la.w, and Courts will not go.farther in admitting them, than they find themselves plainly warranted. The rule is conceded that the official character of a public officer, whose appointment is public, will be taken notice of. But the appointment of these deputies is the private and personal act of the secretary of state and surveyor-general.
    We concede too that the certificate of a deputy Is goody but he must be proved to be a deputy. This might be shewn in two ways; either by direct proof of his appointment or that he had been in the habit of actingin that character. The reasoning is that the particular act of signing these certificates is ■sufficient proof of the character of the deputies. If so, any man might make plats and grants, and if signed, by the names of John Doe and Richard Roc, they must be received in evidence. •There would be no crime, according to our law, in signing a fictitious name, with the title of deputy secretary or deputy surveyor annexed. The signatures are not even proved to be the hand writing of the persons whose names they purport to be.
   The opinion of the court toas.delivered by

Mr. Justice JYott.

The constitution of this state requires the secretary of state and the surveyor-general to keep offices, both in Columbia and Charleston. They are authorized to keep a deputy at one office, while they perform the duties of the other themselves; the constitution itself therefore recognizes the deputies as public officers. The act of 1803,2d Faust, 498, authorizes the copies of grants and plats, certified by the secretary of state and surveyor-general to be received in evidence, where the originals are lost. This court has decided that copies of such records, certified by ¿he deputies, come within the spirit, tho’ not the letter of the actr and have permitted them to be given in evidence; and it appears necessary, from the very constitution of those offices, that the official acts of the deputies should be respected as of the same authority as those of their principals; and I think it very well settled, that the acts of public officers, purporting to be official. ought to be regarded as such, without any evidence of their appointment; 3 Campbell, 332 2nd. Dallas, 131.

Petigru, for motion,

Dum-.m, contra.

It has, however, been contended, that as the appointment of deputies is by their principals, and held' at their pleasure, it is not of such public notoriety as to give their acts a claim to such high respect; and I think the argument entitled to no little consideration. But when it is observed that the papers themselves, purport to be the copies of documents remaining of record, in a,public office, and thereby furnish the means of detection, should any fraud or imposition exist, and as each furnishes evidence of the genuineness of the other, no danger or -inconvenience can result from admitting them without further proof. On the other hand, great inconvenience would result from requiring evidence aliunde in every such case, an inconvenience which would increase with the lapse of time, until it might become impossible that any such could be produced. It Is said, that the evidence which was offered, went rather to disprove that Burger was the deputy-secretary of state, because the witness said, he had known him act for the surveyor-general; but he did not know that he had acted as deputy-secretary. But it will be recollected, that the two offices are kept together, and the same person may act as deputy in both; proof of his being in possession of one, furnishes presumptive evidence that he may have performed the duties of. the other. The certificate of Willison does not authorize’a contrary inference rbe-because he was in Columbia, and Burger in.Charleston. I am ■of opinion, therefore, that the testimony ought to have been received and that a new trial should be granted.

Johnson, Gantt and Sugar, Justices, concurred..  