DOUGLAS V. BUTLER. 233 �for taxes and costs for 1872 on the real estate described in 3, 4, 5, and 6, at north-east corner of Newton avenue and Ghestnut street. On the twelfth of January, 1874, to A. C. Jackson, tax receiver, |58.25, taxes on ail the above -described lots, except Nos. 1 and 2, for the year 1873. On the twenty- lirst of April, 1874, to Alfred Hugg, solicitor, $72.58, for paving Newton avenue, between Broadway and Ghestnut, in- cluding interest, costs, and expenses. �The defendant, in his answer, further avers that he has always been ready and willing, and is now ready and willing, to surrender ail right and claim to the said real estate' to the owners thereof, upon being re-imbursed the purchase money paid by him to the city of Camden, and interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum, and ail' expenses and charges necessarily incurred in regard to said property. �After such voluntary offer by the defendant not much remains to be done in the case except to ascertain (1) who are the owners of the real estate in eontroversy, and (2) what sum remains due to the defendant for the money paid for taxes and assessments. �As to the first question, the evidence shows clearly that the complainant, Mary M. Douglas, is theowner. She puchased the lots on Spruce and Cherry streets of James H. Tucker and wife, by deed dated September 8, 1868, and duly reeorded, in which the grantor claims to have been the son and only heir at law of his father, Samuel Tucker, the former owner. There is nothing to impeach this title except the allegation of the defendant Butler that the said James once told him that he was not the son of Samuel, and that his only heir at law was a niece, one Mary Laurens. Ail the testimony upon the subject is mere hearsay, which has no weight against the prima facie evidence of the deed. James H. Tucker was within reach of the defendant, who ought to have proved the allegation by him, if it were a fact capable of proof. She became the purchaser of the lots at the corner of Newton avenue and Ghestnut street by deed from Edward Miller and wife, dated December 7, 1868, and duly reeorded. There was an attempt to invalidate this title by alleging that ��� �
