that the document be made by the person, whose duty it was to make it, and that the matter it contains be such as belonged to his province, or came within his official cognizance and observation. Documents having these requisites are, in general, admissible to prove, either prima facie or conclusively, the facts they recite.” Simon Greenleaf, 1 A Treatise on the Law of Evidence § 491, 538 (1972 reprint of first ed 1842). See also White v. United States, 164 US 100, 104, 17 S Ct 38, 41 L Ed 365 (1896) (observing that discharge entries from jail records “would be evidence in and of themselves” to show whether a particular prisoner was present in court, where the defendant was charged with defrauding the government while employed to bring witnesses to court); Gaines, 53 US at 570 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Johns, 4 US 412, 415, 1 L Ed
holding that the plaintiffs acted on behalf of all union members and reimbursing the attorneys fees from the union treasury such that all union members in effect equally contributed to the costs of litigation holding that the rule of completeness applies only to writings or recorded statements not to conversations recognizing the same rule in texas courts recognizing this rule recognizing public or official writings exception and noting that the same rule prevails in the courts of all of the states of this union