tm? Crm rttleil and aajalgd-in the _r7gr. the entries were made, not that it was his bible. Taelldbe, ltwlt vvv mutilated evidence, and the book irfeifouglrt to have been pre. duced. Tm: Comet were clear, dn rite point, that the plaintif was a good witnefs to prove the death of the fubfcribin witnefs, in order to let in evidence of the handwriting; and loomed to . oonlider it as the common praélicc" -_ . · Ou the feared point, use Cmnt Jrwrxct obferved, that the rules of evidence, with regard to pedigree, were by no mcani {hid}; and that .the Covasr were inclined to think, that the evi- dence admitted by the who tried the oaufc, was fuicicnt in fuch a cafe. ` . Smresrz, It mult not be underllood, that ex pam aIdavits taken in other {lates, arc_ admillible evidence in cafes of pedigree. I concur in the opinion of the Court, upon the peculiar circumflances of the cal`e,and the produéftion of the pa- per itfelf. The general principle, attempted tobe inferred by the-.defendant’a couulcl, mult not be oonlidered as involved in this decilion. . · C- . · Rule dileharged. ` ` S¢_Pf8}fI5t’7' TCTH1, I . ‘ A . · Hséiézliiics térfw LACAEE. cn dl. L ¢ V4 THI$ was an ailion of the ébéf ci ¢Iiiinél,l`or £4600 lterli ,e ual to . ,6 . i . 8. current: , hrou t in
- ° 2/9% the name oligthg eomménwealth for? the ufe of Znui
- Lgalhaix,
againll jam: Lucene, Michael Mallet, and jobs R¢·, upon a writing ligncd by the defendants, dated the 4th of November 1783, and taken in the Court of Admiralty of Pcnryfylvarria, in the nature of a caution, or {lipulation. The information (which {lates the whole cafe) was in the following wordb: •* Pbilsdeqable Camry ji _ junk: Ldcazc, Micbdd Mallet and fobn Ry}, all late of the city of Philadelphia in the faid county, merchants, were fum- moned to anfwcr the commonwealth of Pear;/jlvaniu in a pglea, mf ' Sec 1 B/ack Rep. gg:. Where the plaintilf hinifelf wafexainineslt and Godb. ig;. 3z6. Sbowcr 363. _
�
