Bayard’s Notebook, 71
United States Circuit Court, Delaware District.
October, 1794.
The counsel for the plaintiff, having deduced a title to the lands in question to Henrietta, wife of Daniel Dulany, and shown a conveyance of Daniel Dulany and Henrietta, his wife, to Richard Bennett dated the 13th of August, 1748, consideration £5, offered in evidence an instrument, purporting to be a certified copy under the hand and seal of the Recorder of [—][1] County, State of Maryland, of a declaration of uses by Richard Bennett of the said conveyance dated the 19th November, 1748. The instrument was not recorded pursuant to any Act of Assembly of the State of Maryland. Possession of the land was shown to have gone according to the uses from the date of the instrument till about the time the defendants went into possession, which was more than twenty years, according to the uses.
It was objected by the counsel for the defendant that the instrument was but a copy of a copy and therefore incompetent. If the original did not exist, the copy did; and was therefore better evidence than the copy produced.
Upon the other side it was answered that the copy on record was not in the power of the party, and therefore the copy produced was the best evidence in his power, which was all that was required by the rule of evidence; and the possession having gone according to the uses contained in this copy gives it at least credit enough to be read in evidence.
PER CURIAM. BLAIR,
Judge of Supreme Court, and BEDFORD, District Judge. The copy is competent evidence and may therefore be read.
Levy, Bead and Bayard for plaintiff. Ridgely, Miller and Vandyke for defendant
Admitted.
Page 354