Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/79

 68 

ORCIBLE ENTRY.—In this cae it was reolved, on olemn argument, that title could not be given in evidence by the defendant to prevent retitution. 8. H. 6 ch. 9. 1 Burns Jut. 411. ec. 3.

And C. J. ruled that the wife of the proecutor might be examined as a witnes to prove the force, but only the force; for, otherwie, the tatutes might be eluded in ome caes.

EWIS moved in arret of judgment, on two grounds: 1t. For that the indictment tated, “that the proecutor was eized in his demene as of fee,” without aying when he was eized; o that it might be he was eized at the time of the indictment found, and not at the time of the forcible entry.—2d. For that the indictment tated “that he was eized in his demene as of fee,” and “his peaceable poeion thereof as aforeaid continued until &c.” which is repugnant and inconitent, in as much as he could not be both eized and poeed at the ame time.

But over-ruled both objections: And  C. J. aid, that the words, “his peaceable poeion thereof as aforeaid,” were urpluage and ought to be rejected. 

N this caue, C. J. aid, that he had ruled it in a cae at Lancater, that the leor of the plaintiff hall not be obliged to hew his title further back, than from the peron who lat died eized, firt hewing the etate to be out of the Proprietaries, or the commonwealth.

It was objected by Lewis and Clymer, that a heriff’s deed of ale of lands, under a writ of , not being recorded in the Rolls Office, according to the Act of Aembly of 1774, could not be read in evidence.—: Becaue it was acknow- ledged