1 Call 117 | Va. Ct. App. | 1797
President. Upon the third point, the question is, whether the Court or the jury are to assess the double value? For, if the Court, then the evidence was proper; but, if the jury, then it was not.
PENDLETON, President. If the landlord did dis-train for too much, was he entitled to the double value ?
The Court having taken a few days to consider the case;
PENDLETON, President, now delivered their resolution ; that the judgment was erroneous on account of the Court’s permitting the copy of the deed to be given in evidence, without any other proof than the Clerk’s certificate of its being proved by one witness. Because, although the copy would have been sufficient, if the appellant refused to produce the original when called on, yet, it ought to have been proved to have been a copy by other evidence. For, its being proved by one witness, did not authorise thé recording of it under the act of Assembly. That, therefore, the judgment was to be reversed, and the cause remitted to the District Court for a new trial to be had.
[* Currie v. Donald, 2 Wash. 64. A copy, of a deed duly recorded, certified by the Clerk to be a true copy, is admissible as primary evidence, Baker, Treasurer v. Preston et al. Gilmer, 235, 284-6.]