Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/74

1781.
$\scriptstyle {\underbrace {\quad \quad } }$

Rapp verſus Le Blanc et al.

On an information for goods ſeized as Britiſh goods, and imported into the State of Pennſylvania, the following points were reſolved:

1ſt. That the informer be a witneſs.

2d. That, although the informer releaſes his right to a moiety of the goods, he cannot be a witneſs; becauſe he is intereſted in the event; he being liable to pay the coſts of the claimants, in caſe a verdict is found for them.

3d. That by the Act of Aſſembly, the judge who tries the cauſe not being authorized to certify, ſo as to exempt the informer from the payment of coſts to the claimants, he cannot certify.

4th. That where the informer called a witneſs, who was contradicted by another witneſs of his own, he cannot call his firſt witneſs to diſprove what the ſecond has ſaid.

Lewis for the Claimants—Blair for the Informer.

April Term, 1782.

M^cDill’s Leſſee verſus M^cDill.^[1]

A deed executed by two perſons, with one wax, and another ink ſeal, by one witneſs only, and merely proved by him before a juſtice, without being recorded, was offered in evidence.

It was objected, that by the Act of Aſſembly, 1 St. Laws. 78. a Deed muſt be executed before, and be proved by, two witneſſes; and that even that kind of proof was not to be received, unleſs the party was dead, or otherwiſe unable to appear and acknowledge the

1. This Cauſe was tried at Lancheſter, N. P. on the 18th May 1781, before M'Kean, C. J. Atlee and Evans Juſtices.

execution