Judgments Involving Personal, Family, or General History, or a Boundary may be admitted if the matter was what?

• A. Essential to the judgment and could be proved by reputation
• B. Not essential to the judgment and could not be proved by reputation
• C. Only proven by documentary evidence
• D. Only in civil cases

Answer: (A)

When a judgment turns on facts about a person’s history or about a boundary, the rule allows admitting evidence of the matter by reputation rather than requiring direct proof from witnesses or documents. But it only works if the fact was essential to the judgment—the case hinges on that history or boundary—and reputation is enough to prove it.

So the correct idea is that the matter must have been essential to the judgment and could be proved by reputation. If it wasn’t essential, or if you needed documentary proof, or if the rule were restricted to civil cases, the admission wouldn’t fit.