The opinion
BbowN, J.,
dissenting: I would not dissent in this case unless I thought a serious error bad been committed. I believe in sustaining convictions of crime in tbe lower courts unless some substantial error has been committed. It may be tbat tbe error which I think has been committed in this case would not have changed tbe result, but I cannot give my approbation to tbe precedent tbe ruling of tbe Court will establish.
Tbe abstract referred to in tbe opinion of tbe Court is as much a record as tbe tax lists. Such record was in existence and well known to tbe register'of deeds and to tbe prosecutor. One was in tbe Auditor’s office and one in tbe Corporation Commission.
Tbe sum totals of tbat abstract was a potent fact in tbe proof. Tbe register of deeds made them out. Tbe correctness of bis recollection of those totals was a most pertinent and important matter. Tbe State bad tbe right under tbe statute to offer copies of tbe originals, duly certified. Such copies are tbe best secondary evidence and far more reliable than tbe memory of tbe witness.
*608 I think they should have been produced on the trial. Kelly v. Craig, 27 N. C., 129 . In this case Chief Justice Ruffin says : “It is always a question of law whether the best evidence in the party’s power has been produced, and inferior evidence is not admissible. If in this case the sheriff’s copy of the tax list had been offered, it would have been competent, as there was sufficient proof of the destruction of the original. So, if it had appeared that the sheriff’s copy had also been lost, then the parol evidence might have been given, since the paper of which the contents were proved was certainly lost, whether it was that in the clerk’s office or in the sheriff’s office.”
See, also, the remarks of same great judge in Kello v. Maget, 18 N. C., 425 ; Nelson v. Whitfield, 82 N. C., 46 ; 25 Am. and Eng. Ency., 162-167.
Me. Justice AlleN concurs in this dissent.