Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1821-07-03

cnofacterE VIII mention those OF Maxwell VS..
Light, LIST Call 100 {; Whitaker vs. Mcllhany
4ti' M,miord $40; Turner VS.. Slip. LIST Wash
ington $40, and the before mentioned case of
Lee VS.. Iapscott.
Owing to the English decisions before nen>
toned and to these considerations of their ly
our own courts, the position that copy of a
recorded deed may be given in evidence has
grown INTO general usage in this country
But tins point does not rest upon mere usage.
IL IS rs much established as principle OF eyi-
dcnce, as any other to be found in the books.
Ii, however, it rested only Oh mere usage, and
had not this last and greatest sanction, this
court would be disposed to respect that usage.
w hi!e 1T would hold itself ut liberty, as was
done in the case of Iompkies VS.. bowman,
10 depart from usage, which was in conflict
with the actual expressions OF statute, and
perhaps in opposition TO great principles it
would respect an usage which was not con-
ironted by such powerful objections Ii would
respect 1t, as the court ofappeals did, among
Others, IN the cases ofliudson vs. Johnson. LIST
wash. l0,--Jones VS.. Logwcod, Ist Wash. 10,
and Branch vs.. Burnley, 1st Call 147. 1t
would, especially, hesitate 20 repeal an usage,
winch has been SO general and universal, as
that IFS reversal would inndate this country.
WITH litigation, and lay the foundation OF anu
merable appeals and law suits. The court sees
but little danger in adhering to this usage.
While, on the one hand, there is but little u
ulity in exhibiting. original papers which a
court or confidential commissioners have al
ready passed on Us genuine, and which the
partyls concluded from denying to be his
deed, by the acknowledgement and recordin..
thereof, copy is not without its preference. in
some sense over the original. Il lays n ceio
upon the grantee, as to altering or erasins that
UceU. from .,Tf bn Of
Judgement. Such subsequent alteration or
erasurc would be controlled aad corrected By
tie atiested copy, previously taken, by a sworn
Officer Nothing however said by the
court is To be construed 10 impair the i.ht of
a party, whatever II may be-, to call for the in
PRODUCTION of an original deed, instead of
copy.
The counse! for the appelleas, foreseeing
that this point might be decided against them.
have taken the ground that the original deed h
sell, II before the court, could not be read a.
Sainst Their clients: nay, they have taken the
YET boider and stronger ground ofsaying, that
the deed could mol have been read even against
john Preston. As against John Preston him
sell, II was properly answered, that the deed
was signed, sealed and acknowledged, BY him.
II IS therefore cmphaticaily his deed 1t re-
.atcS also to the subject Eow liz controversy
IL admits 'lat the penalty Of the bond now sued
on may have been Incurred, which carries with
Il an admission that the dci;,lcatiol happened
IN the year 1919, and it provides for the indein-
niiicauon of these appeees, therefor. As
this deed binds John p reston, and ackmo,yladr-
es the material matters in controversy in this
motion, it isof no account, that there are 9th
er books and evidence going to prove the same
iac;s 1t Is the right Of suitors in courts OF
justice TO exhibit as many Evidences on the
same pont,if legal and relevant, as they please
The court cannot cut them out ofthis privilege.
IL cannot compel them, at lis pleasure, TO RELY
upon Single document or witness. Had this
decd been received in evidence, the Jury might
still have rendered verdict for the appellant
by virtue OF its provisions, notwithstanding the
opinion given against him by the general c0urf,
touching the concluSiyeness of thc books. offer
cd as evidence and thus iris appeal would
have been prevented. 1t might have been cv-
Mence, bath TO outweigh the apcllces' parol eyi
dencc, then sanctioned by the opinion of the
general court, and to confirm or supply the
statements i'll the books of the trcasury. Ii
might have had that effect, because il speaks
pretty explicitly as 10 the time of the defa!ca-
ton, and might thus, as 10 him, have worked
an estoppcl.
Il does this, by admitting that the penalty
OF the bond before us may have been incurred
pened i'll the year I619.-Again, it is of 40 &c
count, at least against john Preston, that the
iii this deed were made aG
ter the expiration of his Office. Parties
may bind themselves by their confessions even
up TO the time of trial
As for the sureties, (tlic appelees J it will be
seer, IN an after part ofthis opinion, that they
must stand or common ground with their
Yet the deed is also binding as to
them. II is so binding, because il is made, en-
phatlcally, for their benefit, and must he CON
sidered as made at their instance. The case
IS not altered by the mere Intervention of
trustees. The sureties themselves are the real
grantees and, besides, the deed has been ac-
cepted by them, and acted under for their bcn-
eft For any thing known TO the court, The
proceeds otthe property conveyed; may have
been aiready IN part, paid by the trustees, i'm
their exoneration. They are, therefore, cstop
ped from disclalming TO be bound by this deed.
They cannot claim under it, and yet disclain it.
IL 1t IS their decd for one purposes it is also for
the other. We are also Of opinion that the am
swers given to the other objections To this
deed, equally apply in relation to the sccuri-
ties. Considering them; therefore, ndepend-
emily OF their principal, which, however, the
court is not bound to do, we are clearly Of o.
pinion, that there is no objection to the copy
Of the deed being given in evidence, aud that
The judgment OF the general court in this par
licJIlar is erroneous.
With respect 10 the character 6fthe books of
the treasury department, the court is Of opin-
On that as To the treasurer himself they are
conclusive to charge him. In relation to
vcty numerous transactions, between even pri-
Fatc parties, mutually confidcd in by each 9TH
sr, It maybe matter of primary convenience
md accommodation, that their books should, |
~ cOnscnt,ailOrd conclusive evidence. Il may
&c vastly inc0nyenient at least that every par
lctlar item should be the subject of particu- |
ar litigation, and be open to parol, conflicting |