APRIL TERM, 1770.

Lib. D. D. No. 16. fol. 569.

#### William Redding’s Lessee *against*Nicholas M’Cubbin.

EJECTMENT for part of a tract of land called *Chandler's*Addition, lying in *Kent*County.'

At the trial of this cause at the *Kent*Assises, held in September, 1769, two bills of exceptions were taken, '

1st. The plaintiff in making out his title to the land mentioned in the declaration, produced a deed for the said land from *Thomas Chandler*to *John*Redding, the ancestor of the plaintiff’s lessor, under whom he claims, and offered to give in evidence, and prove to the Court and Jury, that the land mentioned and described in the said deed, and in the declaration, and the land 'laid down on the plats and described in the certificates returned in the cause, as the plaintiff ’s claim and pretensions, was one and the same parcel of land, and not other or different; but did not offer to shew any deed for the land laid down on the plot, by the courses and distances described in the eertificates returned *369with the plats; and thereupon, the defendant objected that there was a material variance between the description of the land mentioned in the declaration and in the said deed, and the land laid down on the plats and described in the certificates returned in this cause, as the claim and pretensions of the plaintiff; in this, that the said deed and declaration, do express the first line of the said land, to begin “ at “ the end of 178 perches N. from the first bounds of the “ land, called *Chandler's*Addition, laid down on the said a plats, and *to rim from thence S.*47 *deg. W.*104 perches, “ and till it comes to the end of the first south line of the said “ tractand the said land as laid down on the said plats? is described by the certificates, to begin “ at the end of 178 “ perches N. from the first bounds of the said land, and *to*“ *run from, thence S. W.*102 perches, till it comes to the “ end of the first south line of the said tract;” and prayed the Court that because of the said variance, the plaintiff should not be permitted to give the said deed in evidence to the Jury. But the Court was of opinion, that there was not any material variance between the land, as described in the said deed and declaration, and the land laid down as the claim and pretensions of the plaintiff upon the plats, and described by the certificates in this cause, and suffered the plaintiff to give the said deed in evidence to the Jury. To which the defendant excepted.

2d. The plaintiff produced *Nathaniel*Redding, to prove a conversation which he heard about forty-three, or forty-four years ago, between *Thomas Dennison*and his wife, both now dead, relative to the second boundary of the tract of land called Stoneton, laid down on the plats in this cause; thereupon the counsel for the defendant, objected that nothing that came from Dennison, or his wife, should be offered to the Jury, for that the wife of the said *Thomas*Dennison, at the time of this information to the said witness, was seised of part of the land laid down on the plots, as *Chandler’s*Addition, in right of her dower, and that the said *Thomas Dennison*and wife, were in the actual possession of the same; and that the said *Thomas*
      *370
      *Dennison*and wife, so seised and possessed, were interested to limit the first line of Stoneton, to its course and distance ; and for that, at the time of the said information, one *Nathaniel*Pearce, then proprietor of the said tract, called Stoneton, had then lately run the first line of *Stone-*ton, and had extended the same, beyond the course and distance, into the said land, in the possession of the said *Thomas Dennison*and wife, and now laid down as *Chandler’s Addition;*and for that, the said *Dennison*and wife, were manifestly affected by the extension of the first line of Stoneton, beyond the place where their information would limit it; all which facts were verified and proved by the said witness.

Thereupon the counsel for the defendant, prayed the opinion of the Court, whether such evidence coming from the said *Thomas Dennison*and wife, should be given to the Jury; *and the Court*being of opinion that the same was proper to be submitted to the Jury, and to be regarded by them, as they should think it had weight compared with other testimony to be given in the cause. To which -Opinion the defendant excepted.

The Provincial Court overruled the exceptions, and entered judgment upon the verdict for plaintiff.

Note. See *ante,*the case of *Chamberlaine*v. Crawford, *April*Term, 1770.

In the case of *Talbot’s*Lessee v. Smith, which was an ejectment for a tract of land called Langley, in *Prince George’s*County, the Provincial Court decided, that a deed offered by the plaintiff in support of his title, should not be read in evidence, because the description of the land contained in it, was materially variant and- different from the description in the declaration, where it was described by its metes, bounds, courses and distances. This case is not reported at length, because the deed could not be found.