Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/77

 66  5th. The plaintiff produced the probate of a will, under the eal of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in England, to prove title to the lots in quetion in thoe under whom he claimed; which probate was not recorded in the office here. It was objected, that the probate of a will is no evidence as to lands; but it was anwered, that by an Act of Aembly paed in 1705, it is made evidence here; and allowed the probate to be read; though excepted to, and admitted in the bill of exceptions.

6th. The plaintiff produced a deed executed in England, and recorded here; which was read in evidence.

7th. In order to prove ome facts relative to the title of Irael Pemberton, the plaintiff called one Wilon, who objected to being examined, alledging that what he knew of the matter, came to him in confidence. It appeared that Irael Pemberton was a merchant; that he took Wilon into his houe when he was declining in buines; that he did very little in trade afterwards; that Wilon ued to copy deeds for Pemberton, and after ome time (having gained experience) to draw uch deeds and writings as were neceary touching his etates; that Wilon lived in the house with Pemberton, but that he had leave to draw, and did draw deeds for other people. Under thee circumtances, his examination was objected to, becaue, it was aid, that he was as much Pemberton’s council, as any man could be. And Skin. 404. 3 Black. 370. ''Bull. Nii Prius 284—Gilb. L. E.'' 138. 139. were cited. It was anwered, that Wilon was neither attorney, olicitor, or crivener, but only in the capacity of a clerk to Pemberton; that the reaon why the law will not allow a council, or attorney, to reveal his client’s ecrets, is, becaue a man is obliged to have recoure to profeional characters in matters of law; and, therefore, the law protects the client againt the danger, and the council or attorney againt the indelicacy, of a dicloure. Wilon’s evidence, however, was dipened with, on the plaintiff’s part; not from an apprehenion, that the point could not be upported; but, as it was aid by the council, under an impreion of its great importance, and a wih to avoid drawing the court into a haty deciion; particularly as it was found the evidence could be waved without prejudice to the caue.

8th. In order to prove poeion in one under whom the defendant claimed, the deendant offered to read a letter from Thomas Story dated in 1735, although Story himelf was no way concerned in the title, to prove that he had the poeion for Ratcliff Meeting in London. But this was objected to, and diallowed by the court, it being a particular fact, which ought to be proved by witnees on oath, records, &c. The defendant’s council cited Omichund verus Barker. 1 Atk. 21. ''Ld. Raym.'' 311. ''Bull. Nie Prius'' 229. 290.—3 Blackt. 368—2 Wils. 273—3 Burr. 1255. ''Gilb. L. E.'' 102. and excepted to the opinion of the Court, which was allowed in the bill of exceptions.

9th. A deed executed in England, and acknowledged here, though not recorded, was read in evidence. It