Case ID: del-cas_1/html/0071-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Read, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAM BURTON’S LESSEE v. WOOLSEY BURTON, Tenant.
    Supreme Court.
    October, 1795.
    
      Wilson’s Red Book, 76.
      
    
    
      Miller, Peery and Wilson for plaintiff.
    
      Bidgely and Bayard for defendant.
    Defendant’s counsel offered in evidence copy of a will from Accomack without seal without proving the handwriting of the clerk (but by comparison of hands) and without proving a present defect of seal: though formerly in such cases the provincial seal was made use of alone.
    Plaintiff’s counsel read Act of Congress, May 26, 1790, “that seal and certificate of clerk and certificate of judge is necessary where there is a seal,” and showed a will certified with a seal from Accomack in 1785. That comparison of hands is no evidence (1 Morg.Ess. 127, 128) read 2 Body Laws 143, to show a better authentication was required.
    Defendant’s counsel were prevented from enforcing the comparison of hands by Chief Justice Read, who said Mr. Morgan’s opinion without citing authorities bore little weight with him and the reason of the thing is more with the practice. Read Gilb.Evid. 17; office copies evidence without probate.
    
      
       This case is also reported in Bayard’s Notebook, 109.
      
    
   Read, C. J.

We think it is not evidence for by 2 Body Laws 143 the will if it is proved should be recorded. The office copies mentioned in Gilbert mean copies under seal. (Sed vide the book, where it is expressly said a page or two before that they are not under seal.)