What is the legal test for referring to a copy of an entry in a history book?

From a perusal of the authorities it is quite clear that, while the general principles are as stated, there can be no question that the real test is whether the document does in fact revive an accurate recollection. The strongest case in support of the appellant’s contention is Burton v. Plummer (1834) 2 Ad. & E. 341, 111 E.R. 132. There the witness made the original entry which was subsequently copied by another person into a permanent book and the original entry was then destroyed. The witness was permitted to refer to the copy, but only because the witness checked it and saw that it was correct, and under the circumstances in that case it was held that the entries made in the permanent book were practically original entries, having been supervised by the person who made the original entries.

In Burrough v. Martin (1809) 2 Camp. 112, 170 E.R. 1098, the witness was permitted to refer to a ship’s log when it was established that the witness had examined the log from time to time when the occurrences mentioned were fresh in his memory. But the questions put to him were: (1) Whether he saw that entry at a time when he remembered the facts; and (2) whether looking at the entry, he could now state positively upon his oath when the ship arrived at her port of destination. It is quite obvious in this case that the witness could not, looking at this document, have said that he could now swear positively to that date.