Case ID: nc_5/html/0152-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      By the Court\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Den on demise of Edward Bryan vs. Jeremiah Parsons, Jun’r
    From Newbern district.
    
    Upon the trial of this action of ejectment the plaintiff of-feral as evidence to the jury a registered copy of a deed j\/Jaftin ami Edward Franks, to the plaintiff’s grandfather, also called Edward Bryam — -From him the land by '3aid deed conveyed as it \v¿s alledged, descended to Bryon, the plaintiff’s father, -who, bn the 25th September, Í786, conveyed the samo to Edward Bryan, the plaintiff. John Hill Bryaii, William Bryan, Frederick Bryan, and Joseph Bryan, reserving to himself A life estate. The defendant alledged that in the deed from Martin and Edward Franks to the plaintiff’s grand-father, ah alteration had been made of one of the courses of the land previously to the registry of the deed, so that ori the copy offered to the jury it appeared North 5° East, instead of North 45 ° East; objected to tliecopyas evidence, and insisted that the original deed should be produced; The plaintiff offered to 8 wear that he had not (lie original, and knew not where it was ': the defendant begged to be permitted to shew to the Court bv testimony tliat the said original deed had been * . v * n t destroyed intentionally, with the approbation or the plaintiff, to prevent the alteráúon of its course being seen ; and he proved that he had caused a notice to be served upon the plásntiff that the production of the original deed áí ibe J trial would Be insisted on. He was permitted to introduce the evidence to shew the alteration of the deed, and the dence being full and satisfactory that the deed had been a!-•tered, the plaintiff was non-suited. A rule was obtained upon the defendant to shew cause why the non-suit should not be put aside ánd a new trial granted, on the ground of misdirection by the Court, ánd the cáse was sent to this Court for the opinion of the Judges.
    evedence a copy <íe|(íf offer* “¡s.1®1 not the on-¿ewwheré fepdimt i?ati and leave’ given lodm» thla° t^ori-B'nai been altered before Hon,‘Kid. Hiesiroyed hr tl'e ?P-probation of the plain, ^ns non'smted’
   By the Court

The attempt of this plaintiff to introduce, in evidence, a copy of the deed under which he claims, connected with the circumstances.of this case, certainly deserved no countenance from the Court. The claim had once been tried (when the original deed was introduced) and failed on ¡account of the marks of fraud and alteration upon the face of the.deed. The plaintiff and those connected in title with . him tinder the same deed, afterwards declare, that deed shall not again make its appear, anee to defeat their title $ and in conformity with that declaration the plaintiff now swears that he has not that deed in his possession, nor does he know, where it is. All this may well comport with a fraudulent concealment or destruction ofthedied; and the court will not presume favorably of an attempt so strongly marked with fraud. If this plaintiff and those connected in interest with him have so contaminated that evidence which the law considers the best to be submitted to the Jury, the Court will not aid them by permitting the introduction of inferior evidence where the marks of fraud do not appear. It seems to bo a leading principle laid down in ail the books on the subject of written testimony, that all original private deeds or other instruments (if in existence, and in the power of the party) shall be produced on the trial. But where the original has been destroyed or lost by áccident ; as where, an original award was lost in a mail which was robbed ; or being in the hands of the adversé party, and notice given to produce them, then an examined copy or even parol evidence of the contents, being the best evidence in the power of the party, máy be received — Peak, 63 — yét this is always upon a principle of necessity, and to avoid injustice where the party has been guilty of no fraud : and to permit this plaintiff to give in evidence the copy which he offers would be to afford to him the very advantage intend-. «(1 by his fraud. — .Let the rule be discharged.