回复：老貓的回復 (一)

(a)很抱歉，老貓中文不大好所以不太了解您所問的問題是什麼
不過老貓就所瞭解的部份簡覆如下
　（ａ）首先，對於證物的真偽與可信度，您當然有權提出質疑，在審判的過程中，您可以用文字或是言辭辯論的方式對於對方所提出的”支票影本”這項證據的真實性提出質疑，不過最終有決定權的是，”當庭參與審判的法官”，如果法官認定這項正物有效，您基本在審叛期間就沒有什麼可以做的，然而這也間接提供了您將來要求法官裁定”審判無效”或是就判決結果提出上訴的原因之一。所以重點是，您帖子中所提出的”对方在使法官相信我是在提过份而且无理的要求”這件事上，法官的態度為何？

　（ｂ）至於您所提出的　”我怎么样可以请求法院去银行取得关于支票原件的记录...",通常的情況，您應該以書面要求該銀行提供協助，如果對方（銀行）拒絕提供這項服務，您可以用書面請求庭訊法官發出法庭命令要求銀行將資料直接送到法院備查
（這是假定該銀行對於往來業務進出的支票都留有影本，或是要求被告出示支票的原件。當然法官有以對方所提出的影本沒有任何問題的理由來拒絕您這個要求。

（ｃ）至於”支票的复印件应该不会和支票原件一样有法律效力吧”的問題，相同於第一部份的回答，由法官就evidence law的相關規定加以認定，一般的情況，影本與真正的存根同樣句有法律效力，在Pitman v. Dixie Ornamental Iron Co.
122 Ga.App. 404, 177 S.E.2d 167　Ga.App. 1970.
Sep 08, 1970　的案件中 Judge PENNELL　對於類似爭議的裁決是　"..any copy of the original identified as a correct copy, is admissible in evidence in lieu of the original."
所以就上述的案例，支票的影本與正本是同樣具有法律效力的。
希望您滿意老貓的答覆，
同時附上判決原文以供您參考如
(a) The trial court erred in refusing to admit in evidence the photostatic copies of the checks as the evidence is uncontradicted that the originals thereof had been torn up and thrown in the wastebasket and disposed of as trash. A copy thereof is admissible. Code s 38-702. That these copies were made from a negative film at a bank does not make the firm the best evidence. The film is only a copy and it makes no difference how many copies of the original are made, any copy of the original identified as a correct copy, is admissible in evidence in lieu of the original. These certified copies were therefore admissible irrespective of whether a proper foundation had been laid for their admission under the Business Records Statute. As to these requirements, see Smith v. Smith, 224 Ga. 442(1), 162 S.E.2d 379; Ga.L.1950, pp. 73, 74 (Code Ann. s 38-710).
[5] 2. (b) The photostatic copies of the bank statements were not shown to be correct copies nor was the proper foundation laid for their admission as business records of the bank. The trial court, therefore, did not err in refusing to admit them in evidence.
[6] [7] 3. There was no error in overruling the defendant's counter claim for expenses of litigation and in refusing to admit evidence as to the expenses. Code s 20-1404. A defendant, as against a plaintiff, cannot avail himself of the provisions of Code *407 s 20-1404 (King v. Pate, 215 Ga. 593(3), 112 S.E.2d 589), and damages for malicious use of process are only recoverable after the action has terminated in favor of the defendant. Dugas v. Darden, 65 Ga.App. 394, 15 S.E.2d 901; Douglasville Loan Co. v. Bowen, 219 Ga. 794, 136 S.E.2d 319.
Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part.