Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/76

 Rh  2d. The plaintiff produced the Proprietary’s warrants to make a urvey of the lands in quetion, for a peron under whom he now claimed, without hewing any actual urvey, but only a paper in the nature of a certificate from a former urveyor general, tating that uch urvey had been made. It was oppoed, because the preent urveyor general (Lukens) swore that there was no such urvey in the office; that urveys of other lots were wanting, and that this paper was copied from a book in the office.

ruled, that the paper hould not be given in evidence, being only the copy of a copy; but that the book from which it was taken might be read to the jury: And it was aid by that the court has a dicretionary power to admit circumtantial evidence of the exitence of a record. Aleyn. 18.

3d. The plaintiff offered to prove that certain deeds, neceary to make out his title, were in the hands of, and detained by, the heirs of one Irael Pemberton, under whom the plaintiff inited that the defendant was only a Leee; and alo to give in evidence undry letters written by the said Pemberton. It was objected, that the defendant is not to be affected by the conduct of a third peron. To which the plaintiff’s council anwered, that they undertook to prove, that the defendant is no more than a leee from the heirs of Pemberton; and the poeion of the Leee, is the poeion of the peron entitled to the reverion. But for the defendant it was till urged that his title is not to be made out by the plaintiff; that he rets upon his poeion; and that till the plaintiff can make out a good title of his own, the defendant’s poeion is good againt him; for the plaintiff mut recover upon the trength of his own, and not upon the weaknes of the defendant’s title.

But by, C. J. The plaintiff does not mean to hew the defendant’s title, but only his poeion, which is admitted by the record; if Irael Pemberton was defendant, it would be good evidence againt him, and, if the plaintiff proves that the defendant is in under Irael Pemberton, or his heirs, he may give the detention of the deeds in evidence, and alo the letters, unles the defendant hews another title; 1 ''Ld. Raym.'' 311. A bill of exceptions to this opinion was tendered and allowed; but, I believe, it has never been proecuted.

4th. The plaintiff proceeded to call a witnes to prove that the defendant was only Leee; and it was worn, that ince the commencement of the uit (to writ, two days before the trial) the defendant told the witnes, that he held under the heirs of Pemberton. This tetimony was objected to, becaue it is a general principle, not to receive evidence of an thing that happens after the uit. But it was anwered, that this is only proof of an acknowledgment of a fact previous to the uit.

And by C. J. I recollect one cae in the books upon this point; and that is, That an acknowledgment of a debt after uit, takes it out of the tatue of limitations. Let the witnes proceed. 5th. The