1789.
But by M‘KEAN, Chieƒ Juʃtice:– The fubfequent plea and referrence virtually vacate the previous rule for trial or Non pros. The caufe muft, therefore, be continued under a new rule.
CALVERT verʃus PITT.
T
HIS was a Certiorari to one of the Juftices-of Cheʃter county. On arguing the cafe, the judgment of the Juftice was affirmed:
And by M‘KEAN, Chieƒ Juʃtice, it was ftated, that conformably to the act of Affembly, the Defendant, after judgment was given againft him by a Juftice, ought to enter into a recognizance inʃtanter, with, a leaft, one good furety. He may afterwards withdraw his fecurity, or appeal to the Common Pleas within the fix days allowed by the act.
JOHNSON verʃus HOCKER.
T
HIS was an action of debt brought upon a bond bearing date the 24th of April, 1779, and conditioned for the payment of Ł.500. lawful money of Pennʃylvania. To the Plaintiff's demand the Defendant pleaded payment, and iffue was thereupon joined.
On the trial of the caufe, Sergeant, in order to prove payment to the Treafure agreeably to the tender law, offered to read the following certificate to the Jury:−“ Received 29th March, 1780,
“ of Mr. George Hocker, the fum of Ł373.6.6. being two thirds
“ of a bond and intereft due to Mr. J. Johnʃon of Germantown,
“ which be reʃuʃed to receive when legally tendered to him in preʃence oƒ”
“ Balzer Hidrecks and Conrad Reedheiʃʃer ; the other one third he
“ left in my hands to be given to fuch poor and diftreffed perfon
“ as I fhall think proper objects of charity. Iʃaac Snowden, Treaf-
“ urer. ”
Lewis, for the Plaintiff, objected to the evidence, that this was not a certificate merely official ; but containing certain extra-judicial facts, to which Snowden, like any other witnefs, ought to be produced and fworn. The confequence of admitting it, would be highly dangerous.
Sergeant anfwered, that what was furplufage might be rejected, and the paper go to the Jury only as proof of the receipt of the money. If a Notary in England introduced foreign matter into the proteft of a bill of exchange, the Court would ftrike out fo much as was furplufage, but would never fupprefs the whole. Snowden could eafily on this occafion be produced ; but fimilar cafes may occur at a diftance, in which it would be impracticable, and great inconveniency and injuftice would refult from the precedent
M'KEAN,
