1784.
which is eſtablished by the oath before the juſtice ; the recording only gives the deed a ſpecial operation by the expreſs proviſions of the Act of Aſſembly.[♦]
Burke's Leſſee verſus Ryan.
E
JECTMENT.—On the trial of this cauſe, in deducing the plaintiffs' title, a ſheriff's deed was produced, but no part of the record recited therein.
Sergeant contended, that if the title was ſet forth, it was neceſſary to prove every part of it ; that between the parties, the Fi. ƒ(illegible text) and Vend. Exp. may only be ſhewn; but that againſt a ſtranger, the pleadings, vverdict, and judgment, ought to be produced. Gilb L. oƒ E. 9. 10
On a queſtion from the oppoſite counſel, Sergeant admitted that in New-Jerſey, it was not the practice to produce more than the ſheriff's deed; but inſiſted that, of late, it had been frequently required, and that in ſtrictneſs, it was indiſpenſibly neceſſary.
But, by the court:—As the poſſeſſion has gone more than twenty years along with the deed, it is unneceſſary, in this cafe, to require farther proof. And the CHIEF JUSTICE added, that within his knowledge, it had not been cuſtomary, in any cafe, to produce the record.
Lewis and Mifflin for the plaintiff.—Sergeant for the defendant.
Hight verſus Wilson.
T
HIS was a feigned iſſue to try the validity of a will, againſt the probate of which, a caveat had been entered in the Regiſter's Office. The plea was inſanity in the teſtator; and evidence was given of habitual drunkenneſs, old age, weakneſs of body, ſhortneſs of memory, and a few incoherent expreſſions. The jury however, in a very ſhort time, gave a verdict for the plaintiff in the ſſue, who was the deviſee in the will. The Chief Justice, in his charge to the jury, informed them, 1ſt. That it was not neceſſary that a will, deviſing real estate in this Commonwealth, ſhould be ſealed. 2d. Nor that all the ſubſcribing witneſſes ſhould prove the execution. 3d. Nor that the proof of the will ſhould be made by thoſe who ſubſcribed as witneſſes. 4th. Nor that the will ſhould be ſubscribed by the witneſſes.[†]
[♦]This caufe was tried at Carlifle N.P. on th e14th of May 1784, before M‘KEAN, C. J. ATLER anf RUSH, Juʃtices.
[†] See paʃt. Lewis Appellant verʃus Maria Appellee.
