1782.
5th. The plaintiff produced the probate of a will, under the ſeal of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in England, to prove title to the lots in queſtion in thoſe under whom he claimed; which probate was not recorded in the office here. It was objected, that the probate of a will is no evidence as to lands; but it was anſwered, that by an Act of Aſſembly paſſed in 1705, it is made evidence here; and the Court allowed the probate to be read; though excepted to, and admitted in the bill of exceptions.
6th. The plaintiff produced a deed executed in England, and recorded here; which was read in evidence.
7th. In order to prove ſome facts relative to the title of Iſrael Pemberton, the plaintiff called one Wilſon, who objected to being examined, alledging that what he knew of the matter, came to him in confidence. It appeared that Iſrael Pemberton was a merchant; that he took Wilſon into his houſe when he was declining in buſineſs; that he did very little in trade afterwards; that Wilſon uſed to copy deeds for Pemberton, and after ſome time (having gained experience) to draw ſuch deeds and writings as were neceſſary touching his eſtates; that Wilſon lived in the house with Pemberton, but that he had leave to draw, and did draw deeds for other people. Under theſe circumſtances, his examination was objected to, becauſe, it was ſaid, that he was as much Pemberton’s council, as any man could be. And Skin. 404. 3 Black. 370. Bull. Niſi Prius 284—Gilb. L. E. 138. 139. were cited. It was anſwered, that Wilſon was neither attorney, ſolicitor, or ſcrivener, but only in the capacity of a clerk to Pemberton; that the reaſon why the law will not allow a council, or attorney, to reveal his client’s ſecrets, is, becauſe a man is obliged to have recourſe to profeſſional characters in matters of law; and, therefore, the law protects the client againſt the danger, and the council or attorney againſt the indelicacy, of a diſcloſure. Wilſon’s evidence, however, was diſpenſed with, on the plaintiff’s part; not from an apprehenſion, that the point could not be ſupported; but, as it was ſaid by the council, under an impreſſion of its great importance, and a wiſh to avoid drawing the court into a haſty deciſion; particularly as it was found the evidence could be waved without prejudice to the cauſe.
8th. In order to prove poſſeſſion in one under whom the defendant claimed, the deſendant offered to read a letter from Thomas Story dated in 1735, although Story himſelf was no way concerned in the title, to prove that he had the poſſeſſion for Ratcliff Meeting in London. But this was objected to, and diſallowed by the court, it being a particular fact, which ought to be proved by witneſſes on oath, records, &c. The defendant’s council cited Omichund verſus Barker. 1 Atk. 21. Ld. Raym. 311. Bull. Niſe Prius 229. 290.—3 Blackſt. 368—2 Wils. 273—3 Burr. 1255. Gilb. L. E. 102. and excepted to the opinion of the Court, which was allowed in the bill of exceptions.
9th. A deed executed in England, and acknowledged here, though not recorded, was read in evidence.
It
