Daily Kennebec journal., 1908-11-18
! edgement was taken in the County Of

G-The court takes judicial notice of
the fact that there is a Suffolk County
in Massachusetts, because it was crea-
ted by laws which were in force in the
District of Maine as well as in the
mother commonwealth.
when a deed and it's record have
stood unchallenged for more than sew
enty years, ard many conveyances
have been based upon them. it may be
presumed from the lapse of time that
the magistrate taking the acknow-
edgement acted within his Jurisdiction,
and that the deed was properly ar-
kEowledged and hence that it was
properly recorded. And an office copy
of it is admissible in evidence.
S-A deed recorded does not take pri-
orty over another deed of the same
premises, earlier in date, but recorded
.ater unless it appears by the record
to have be en- sealed instrument The
record Is evidence only of what appears
upon it.
9-It is to be presumed that all en-
tries or erasureS in a book of official
records are made by the proper record
ing officer, at the time or making the
record in the absence of evidence to
the contrary.
10-In this case, the record of the
deed from Hobbs to Bascom does not
disclose atfirmatively that the original
deed was sealed Notwithstanding the
statement III the testimonium clause
that it was sealed But whether il was
sealed or not, it was not recorded as a
sealed instrument, and did not take
nrinritE scaled
corded later.
11-Nhen lines established by bar
tition proceedings are referred to in
the declaration in real action as the
boundaries of one or more sides of the
dema".ied premises, the returns OF the
partition commissioners are admissible.
as against the plaintiff, to SHOW Tie
length of the lines, and the consequent
dimensions of the land divided. AMI Of
the separate parcels bounded by these
lines.
12-When the owner of a tract of
land conveyed definite numbers Of
acres in common and undivided to sew
@ral grantees successfully, and 1t now
appears that tho entire acreage of the
tract was not sufficient to satisfy all
grants in full. the shrinkage falls upon
the last grantee.
13-The predecessors in title to the
parties to this suit owned one quarter
of q township in common and undivid-
ed. They owned it, not in fractional
parts, but by acreageS varying in
amount. AS the result of partition
proceedings. and presumably in con-
sequence Of the unequal values of df-
ferent sections of the township, their
quarter as set off was smaller terri
torially than the other quarters, and
smaller than their combined acreages,
based upon the size of full quarter
Held, that the shrinkage caused by
the partitions must be borne by the
owners Of that quarter in proportion
Of their holdings at the time of the
partitions.
14-The court finds that the actual
area of the entire township was Il
1875 acres, of which one quarter was
51S9 5-22 acres, and that the actual area
of the quarter set off to the prodcces-
sors OF these parties was 5002 rs acres.
Upon the basis of a full quarter, the
plaintiff is found entitled to 1929 .-S2
acres But in consequence of tie
shrinllage caused by the partition pro-
cecdings. the plaintiffs acreage must
5e reduced by the ratio that 5ls9 3-52
bears 10 5002 2-5.
Judgment for the plaintiff for
1762.3-5O024 parts of the parcel de-
scribed in his writ.
Received Nov. II, 1908