Case ID: h-mch_3/html/0002-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "(Johnson, Ch. J. and Goldsborough, J.)", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

OCTOBER TERM, 1790.
    John Wilmot’s Lessee against Thomas Talbot.
    THIS was an ejectment for a tract of land called SnoxvderPs Reputation Supported; also, Harness’s Range, both lying in Anne Arundel county.
    By the bill of exceptions taken at the trial of the cause, it appears the plaintiff, to make title to the land in question, gave in evidence to the jury, that John Wilmot, the grandfather, was seised in fee-simple, and in possession of 240 acres, part of the tract of land called Snowden’s Reputation Supported, and also of 62 1-2 acres, part of a tract of land called Harness’s Range, and that the said Wilmot died seised in fee-simple of the said parts of the said tracts of land, leaving John Wilmot, father of the lessor of the plaintiff, his only sonand heir at law, and offered to prove by Dinah Wilmot, the "wife of the said John Wilmot, the son, that John Wilmot, the elder, left a will, and that the same was destroyed by John Wilmot, her husband, the eldest son arid heir at law of the said John Wilmot, the elder, as aforesaid, after the death of his father; and that the said John Wilmot, the father, by the said will, devised the lands in question, in fee, to John Wilmot, his grandson, the lessor of the plaintiff.
    The defendant’s counsel objected, that the said Dinah Wilmot was not a competent witness to prove the destruction of the said will by her husband, and produced a deed made by her husband to Benjamin Talbot, the father of the defendant, who is the eldest son and heir at law of the said Benjamin Talbot, in the acknowledgment of which she relinquishes her right to dower in the lands in dispute.
    
      Martin (Attorney-General) and Cooke, for the plaintiff.
    
      Chase and Key, for the defendant.
    
      Cooke, for the plaintiff.
    If a deed is lost, the substance may be proved by witnesses. 10 Co. 92. b. 2 Bac. Abr. 308. 3 Atk. 359. 2 Vern. 216. 1 Keb. 12. 3 Com. 281. Allen, 2. 55. 1 Vez. 388. 392. Gilb. Evid. 97. 3 Salk. 154. 1 Ld. Ray. 731. Buller, 250. 2 Keb. 483. 1 Salk, 285. Holt, 293. Jenk. 19. Skin. 673. 1 P.Wms. 731.
    
    The defendant having a lease in his possession and refusing to produce it, the contents were proved by an attorney, who had read it. 1 Stra. 70.
    
    Chase, for the defendant.
    The question is, whether ^le wife of the plaintiff’s father is a competent witness to prove that her husband destroyed his father’s will, ah though she had released her dower in the premises to the defendant’s father. 1 Bro. Parl. Cas. 250. 1 P. Wms. 733. 3 Atk. 360. 1 T. R. 296. 301. 361.
   fhe Court

(Johnson, Ch. J. and Goldsborough, J.)

were of opinion, that the said Dhiah Wilmot was a competent witness to prove the destruction of the said will, and that her credibility was to be left to the jury.