Case ID: h-mch_4/html/0389-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Chas®, Cb, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

GENERAL COURT,
    (E. S.) SEPT. TERM, 1799.
    Nelm’s Lessee vs. Smith.
    Ejectment for a tract of land called Kirkminster, surveyed in the year 1689. The defendant took defence on warrant, and plots were made. The dispute between the parties was, what was the true location of Kirkminster.
    
    1. One of the plaintiff’s witnesses at the trial, was about to give evidence of a boundary shewn to him on oath, as a commissioner under a land commission to prove bounds, &c.
    
      Hammond and Dashiell, for the defendant,
    objected, alleging that the witness could not give evidence of a boundary shewn to him on oath, whilst acting under a commission; that the commission and deposition should be produced as the best evidence. That in the present case he could only give hearsay evidence of the boundary.
    
      Martin, (Attorney General,) and Bayly, replied
    that they did not give evidence of that deposition, or of the commission under which it was taken, the proceedings under the commission being informal and inadmissible in evidence.
    Chas®, Cb. J. It is a proper question to ask the witness, whether he was at any time shewn the boundary, and by whom. But the witness cannot give evidence of a commission or any proceedings under it. If a tree was shewn to him as a boundary, it is a fact of which ho may give evidence; if it was shewn on oath, or on a commission, he cannot give evidence of the deposition, or of the commission.
    2. The defendant located on the plots a place called a Glade, and a witness was examined to prove the Glade. The defendant’s counsel asked him if he knew any other Glade, or place upon the branch called a Glade? He answered he did not. The counsel for the plaintiff then called a witness, and asked him if he knew any other Glade, or place called a Glade upon the branch, except the one laid down on the plots by the defendant, or if ho knew of more than one Glade. The counsel for the de» fondant objected to this question as improper, alleging, that as the plaintiff had not located any other Glade, or place so called, lie could not give evidence of it to the jury; that an object not loeated on the plots could not be proved or given m evidence. To this it was answered, that the question was asked to rebut the general question asked by the counsel for the defendant.
   Chas®, Cb, J.

The question is proper and ought to be answered.

The witness was then permitted to declare whether he It new any other Glade according to the question proposed.

Veudict and judgment for the plaintiff. See Kilty’s Land Hold. Asst. 414.