Case ID: la_4/html/0218-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Porter, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROCHELLE ET AL. vs ALVAREZ.
    APPEAL PROM THE PARISH COURT OP NEW-ORLEANS.
    A deposition taken before a parish judge cannot be read in evidence, if the private seal of the judge be wanting; and in such a case proof of the signature of the judge is inadmissible.
    A deposition taken before a parish judge cannot be read in evidence if the private seal be wanting; and in such a case, proof of the signature of the judge is inadmissible.
    
      Moreau, for appellant. Canon, for appellee.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the court, delivered by

Porter, J.,

The plaintiffs in this case offered in support of their title a deposition taken before the parish judge of Iberville. It was objected to as wanting the private seal of the judge, a formality required by the 433d article of the Code of Practice, upon which the plaintiff offered parole evidence that the signature annexed was that of the judge. The court, however, rejected the deposition, and in our opinion correctly. The provision of the law means nothing if the return be good without the seal. And documents of this kind must contain within themselves the proof of their verity.

Had this difficulty been got over, the evidence was open to another objection which was insurmountable: it proposed to establish by parole evidence that the person in whose name a title to a slave was vested, had purchased her for another.

On the merits, we see no reason to doubt the correctness of the judgement below, and

It is, therefore, adjudged, ordered, and decreed, that it be affirmed with costs.