she writ. All was by confent of the King, and the reverfal took place, through there was really no error at all.

It is as much a breach of duty, to reverfe a good, as it would be to affirm a bad outlawry. The mifchief goes farther than an unrighteous fentence in the particular cafe ; for, to referfe without an error, is to abolifh that part of the law.

Your Excellency further informs us, that the offender has alledged in his petition to Council, that he was in the city of New-York at the time the outlawry was fued forth againft him In anfwer to this, we can only fay with certainty, that if he had put any material fact ^{(illegible text)}, it would have been tried.

Upon the whole, tthree indictments for robbery have been found againft him in Bucks county ; by the examinations of Jeʃʃe Vickers, Solomon Vickers, John Tomlinʃon, Iʃrael Doan, Joʃeph Doan, &c. he was a principle in them, and eight or nine others in that county, and the counties of Philadelphia, Cheʃter and Lancaʃter ; he has been duly outlawed for one of them, and execution legally awarded, according to our judgments.

We have the honor to be, with the greateʃt reʃpect,

Sir,

Your Excellency's and the Council's,

Moft obedient humble Servants,

THOMAS M‘KEAN.

George Bryan. Jacob Ruʃh

A

DEED proved by the affidavit of one of the witneffes before a Juftice of the Court of Common Pleas, but not recorded, was offered in evidence.

It was objected, however, that this atteftation is no proof of the deed at common law, unlefs it be an ancient deed, and poffeffion is proved to have gone along with it ; for, the witnefs ought to appear in Court.—Nor is it admiffible under the Act oƒ Aʃʃembly, for that exprefsly requires it to be recorded.

Yeates anfwered, that the point had already been ruled in M‘Dill, verfus M‘Dill.^[♦]

And,by the court : The deed may be read in evidence ; for, the recording does not contribute to the proof of the deed,

^[♦]Ant. 63