SUPREME COURT of Pennʃylvania:
DAVISON‘S Leʃʃee verʃus BLOOMER.
A
DEED, attefted by two witneffes, one of whom had married the Leffor of the plaintiff, the other refiding within the County and not produced, was offered in evidence, upon proof of the hand writing of the witneffes.
Hartly objected, that it would be better evidence to prove the execution of the deed by the abfent withnefs, not interefted ; and, therefore, this ought to be allowed.
Yeates contended, that if a witnefs is incapaciated either by his own act, or by the act of God, proof of the hand writing is fufficient ; as where a witnefs has been convicted of perjury.
by the court.—There is a cafe in Strange where a party, who was a witnefs to a bond, afterwards became interefted, and, although the proof of her hand writing was admitted, yet there muft, likewife, have been proof that the other witnefs could not be found. The beft evidence of which the cafe reafonably admits has not been offered ; and, therefore, we cannot allow the deed to be read on this occafion.
Q 2
