
    * Joseph Frith versus Abigail Sprague, Administratrix, &c.
    It seems that the laws of a foreign country may be proved by the testimony of witnesses.
    Assumpsit for money had and received, and for money paid, &c. There was also a special count, stating that Oakman Sprague, the defendant’s intestate, at Turk’s Island, on the-day of-1808, in consideration that the said Frith would become bound to the king, as surety for the said Oakman, in a bond in the penal sum of £100 sterling, with condition that the brig Mars, of which the said Oakman was then master, should not carry out of the government of that island any servant or slave, without leave of the master oi owner, or person having the charge of the same, first had and obtained in writing, promised to indemnify said Frith, and save him harmless, &c. The declaration then avers that the Mars did carry a slave from the island without leave, &c.; and that Frith was obliged to pay, and did pay, on the 18th of December, 1809, 525 dollars to Messrs. Wood Joel, the owners of the slave. This action was brought to recover the money so paid, with damages for not being saved harmless from the bond.
    The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations; to which there was a replication similar to that in the case of Hall vs. Little, (ante, p. 203 ;) and to this there was a general demurrer and joinder.
    At the trial of the said issue, which was had before Putnam, J., at the last April term at Ipswich, the plaintiff, to prove the law of Turk’s Island, as applicable to this case, offered the deposition of one George Gibbs; which was admitted, notwithstanding the objection of the defendant, that the law of a foreign state ought not to be proved by witnesses.
    A verdict was taken for the plaintiff for the sum paid, with interest, &c., subject to the opinion of the * Court, , whether the deposition of Gibbs ought to have been admitted, and on some other points arising out of the instructions of the judge to the jury, which were not insisted upon in the argument of the cause.
    
      Banister, for the defendant,
    cited the cases of Church vs. Hubbard, 
      
      Henry vs. Addy, 
      
      Buttrick & Ux vs. Allen, 
      
      Delafield vs. Hand, 
      
      Kenney vs. Clarkson & Al. 
      
    
    
      Cummings for the plaintiff.
    
      
       2 Crunch, 187, 236.
    
    
      
       3 East, 221.
    
    
      
       8 Mass. Rep. 273.
    
    
      
       3 Johns. 314
    
    
      
       1 Johns. 385. — See, also, Peake's L. of Ev. 226.
    
   Per Curiam.

The replication is adjudged good. It is unnecessary to decide whether the evidence objected to at the trial of the issue in fact was rightfully admitted or not, although we see no other way of proving the existence of a foreign law but by oral testimony,

But the verdict is right, even if there were no law authorizing the requisition of the bond in this case. For admitting that requisition to have been wholly arbitrary on the part of the government of the island, the surety who stepped in in aid of the principal has a right to indemnity, if he has been compelled to pay the penalty, without any fraud or negligence on his part.

Judgment on the verdict 
      
      
         [Clearly there may be other proof. The written law of a foreign state is to be proved by a copy of the law* duly authenticated. — Pictou's case, 30 How's State Trials, 491.—Bohtlink vs. Schneider, 3 Esp. N. P. C. 58. — Clegg vs. Levy, 3 Camp. 166.— Miller vs. Heinrich, 4 Camp. 155. — Middleton vs. Janverin, 2 Hagg. Cons. R. 422, —Richardson vs. Anderson, 1 Camp. 65, (a).—2 Phillips and Amos, 624.— 1 Stark. Ev. 248.—2 Stark. 331. — The unwritten law of a foreign state (having first been ascertained to be part of the unwritten law by witnesses professionally conversant with the laws of the state) may be proved by the paroi evidence of witnesses of competent professional skill.—Miller vs. Heinrich, ubi sup.—Dalrymple vs. Dalrymplex, 2 Hagg. Cons. R. 81.—Phill. & Am. ubi sup. — Stark, ubi sup.— Ed.]
     