1773.
preſent at the birth of a child in proof of pedigree. 3 Mod. 36. to ſhew that the Defendant’s rule of evidence is too ſtrict.
Upon full argument, the Court over-ruled the evidence, upon the principle contended for by the defendant’s council.
Some of the defendant’s council, the next day, offered ſome of Doctor Coxe’s letters to David Lloyd, ſhewing that the condition had been complied with.
But the Court adhered to their opinion, and over-ruled theſe letters alſo.–A verdict paſſed for the plaintiff, by which the ſenſe of the Jury was, that the non performance of conditions of ſettlement, did not void the grant.[1]
September Term, 1773.
The Leſſee of Biddle verſus Shippen.
The Plaintiff, among other evidence, offered a Map, made by one Zimmerman, about thirty years ago. One John Knorr, Zimmerman’s nephew, proved that ſaid Map was the work of his Uncle, at the requeſt of the People of Germantown; that his Uncle dying before he was paid for it, it remained in the family; that it contains the lines of the Germantown Lots, and the adjacent out Lands; that, upon any difficulty, they apply to him, and this Map generally determines any diſputes they may have about their Lines.
Mr. Chew oppoſed this Map, at firſt, but afterwards agreed that the Lands in controversy were as laid down in it, and admitted it with a ſalvo of its being no precedent. Upon the Plaintiff’s offering it to the Jury to take out with them, Mr. Chew oppoſed it; and ſome difference ariſing, the Court declared it was not proper evidence, that they ſhould not have allowed its being offered to the Jury, nor would they ſuffer them to take it out with them.
- ↑ Determined at Cheſter, Ni. Pri. 24th Auguſt 1773.
