OISSELL V. PCLASKI COUNTY. 893 �a honafide circulation in the county, or that they had been published in the county for the period of one month next before the date of the first publication of the order. Publication of the order in a paper not "authorized," in the language of the act, "to publish legal advertise- ments,"i8 a nullity ; and whether the paper bas the circulation, and has been published in the county for the period required by the stat- ute, to authorize the publication of legal notices in ifcs columns, are questions of fact to be proven in the mode provided by the statute for proving the fact of publication. Proof of these facts is a neces- sary part of the proof of publication, and it must be made by some one of the persons authorized to make the affidavit to the fact of pub- lication. �The persons authorized by the statute to make this afiSdavit are limited to those whose relation to the paper in which the publication is made is such as to afiford them personal knowledge of the facts re- quired to be proven, and the statute in terms declares the affidavits of such persons "shall be the evidence of the publication." That all other methods of proof were intended to be excluded, is shown by the fact that the act repeals all prior aots which authorized other methods of proof. Besides, it is quite obvions that one principal object of the act of 1875 was to secure beyond any contingency the payment of the printer's fee for publishing the advertisement ; and this is accomplished by making bis affidavit the only legal evidence of the publication, and then providing he shall not be required to make the affidavit until his fee for publishing the advertisement is paid. , �It is a rule without qualification or exception, that when it is sought to conclude a party by construotive service, by publication, a strict complianee with the requirements of the statute is required ; nothingcan be taken by intendment; and every fact necessary to the exercise of jurisdictioQ based on this mode of service must affirma- tively appear in the mode prescribed by the statute. Gray v. Larri- more, 4 Sawy. 638, 646 ; Steinbach v. Leese, 27 Cal. 295 ; Staples v. Fairchild, 3 N. Y. 43; Payne v. Young, 8 N. Y. 158; Hill v. Tloover, 5 Wis. 371 ; Galpin y. Page, 3 Sawy. 93; S. C. 18 Wall. 350; Settle- mier v. Sullivan, 97 U. S. 444. �It is not competent for this court to receive paroi testimony to supply the omission. Gray v. Larrlmore, swpra; Noyes v. Butler, 6 Barb. 617; Lawry v. Cady, 4 Vt. 506. �The record of the county court contains this recital : "From said return [sheriff's] the court doth find that due and sufficient and legal ��� �
