Court Opinion

ID: 9865432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 17:39:42.238342+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:24.599009
License: Public Domain

Judge Booth
dissented.
Paper admitted in evidence; exception prayed and granted.
The will of Revil Horsey was offered in evidence and objected to for defective authentication. The will was proved and admitted to record in the office oí the register of wills for Somerset county, in the State of Maryland. A copy of it was certified by S. W. Jones, register of wills for Somerset county, together with the certificate of George Handy, presiding judge of the Orphans’ Court, that Mr. Jones’ certificate was in due form and by the proper officer; to which was appended the certificate of the said J. W. Jones, register of wills, that it appears from the records of said court that George Handy was the presiding judge of the Orphans’ Court of said county, to which was appended the seal of the Orphans’ Court. The objections to this form of authentication were—1. That the judge’s official character was not certified to by the clerk of the Orphans' Court. 2. That the certificate was not positive, but only—“ It appears by the record.” The object of this is to identify the person who signs; the record cannot prove this. The act of Congress requires to authenticate a record of the Orphans’ Court—1. A certificate by the register of wills, under his seal of office. 2. Certificate of the presiding judge of the court of the county, that it is in due form and by the proper officer. 3. Verified by the clerk of said court, that the presiding judge is duly commissioned and qualified. Our act of 1821, (Digest, 557,) requires—1. A certificate by the register of wills, under his seal. 2. A certificate by the presiding judge of a court of record, that such certificate is in due form and by the proper officer. 3. An attestation by the officer keeping the seal of *324his court under said seal, that the certificate is under the hand of the presiding-judge, and entitled to full faith and credit.
Cullen, for plaintiff.
Saulsbury, Houston and Bayard, for defendants.

The Court

ruled out the evidence; Judge Milligan dissenting.
A witness was asked if William Horsey obtained the land or money expected to be left to him by Revil Horsey, of Maryland ? The question was objected to, and ruled out, as attempting to prove by paroi the contents of Revil Horsey’s will.
The plaintiff was then nonsuited.