Opinion
05-20-1823
Hairston v. Cole
Wickham, for the appellant. The Attorney General, for the appellee.
SYLLABUS
This was an ejectment brought in the superior court of Henry county, by Cole against Hairston. At the trial, the plaintiff offered in evidence, a manuscript, purporting to be the copy of an act of the General Assembly of Virginia, the title whereof is in these words, " an act to suspend in part, the operation of the act concerning escheats and forfeitures from British subjects, and for other purposes." The defendant objected to the introduction of this evidence; but, the court overruled his objection, and permitted this paper to go to the jury. The defendant excepted. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, and the court rendered judgment in his favor. From this judgment, the defendant appealed.
Wickham, for the appellant. [*]
The Attorney General, for the appellee.
OPINION
Brooke, Judge.
The statement in the bill of exceptions, that a manuscript purporting to be a copy of an act of the General Assembly of Virginia, entitled an act, & c. is too imperfect to enable the court to pronounce any opinion thereon, it not being stated that the said copy was authenticated, and how authenticated, nor is the said manuscript set out in the bill of exceptions. The judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.
[*]Wickham referred to the following cases to shew that the court will send a cause back, when a bill of exceptions states a case too imperfectly to render a judgment. 1 Call, 215, 223, Barrett v. Tazewell; 2 Munf. 253, 256, Beattie v. Tabb's Adm'r. --Note in Original Edition.