
    Martin and Smith vs. Gunby, et al. Lessee.
    In an action of ejectment brought f>y the lessee of the Vestry of a Parish, the plaintiff, in order to prove title to the lands in question, offered to read in evidence certain entries in. a book, purporting to be, and proved by a witness, who was ‘formerly register of the vestry tobe handed down to him as the vestry book of the parish — //t'W, that the testimony was inadmissible.
    Appeal from Worcester county court. The appellee, (the plaintiff in the court below,) brought an action of ejectment on a demise from The Vestry of ,ill Hallows Parish, to wit, John Gunby, &c. &c. of a tract of land called Snow Hill, it being part of lot No. 9 in the town of Snoio Hill, in the county of Worcester. The defendants below pleaded not guilty, and took general defence. At the trial, the plaintiff offered to read in evidence certain entries in a book purporting to be, and proved by Robert Handy, who was formerly rector of the vestry, to be handfct'! down fo him as the vestry book of the parish of Mil Hallows, viz,. “The proceedings of a vestry held at Snow Hill, to wit, the 4th March 1694-5. This vestry hath appointed that the church shall be built at Snow Hill, upon the lot formerly laid out for that use, and by reason that the distance of 50 or 60 miles may not answer alL person’s conveniency to attend from the remoté inhabitants, therefore it is agreed by this vestry to have a chappell of ease, the better to answer the more northern inhabitants of the sea side. It is further agreed by this vestry to build a church at Snow Hill of 40 feet long,” &t% “May the 5lh 1741. Cap. James Martin moves to the vestry of this parish, for the liberty of building a small house on the lower end of the church lot, near the river side, to set up a pair of scales in; and the said Martin has liberty to remove the said house and scales off the lot aforesaid, when he shall think so fit.” The defendant objected to the evidence as incompetent. But the court f/’o.Vi, Ch. L ] overruled the objection, being of opinion that the testimony was legal, and admissible. The defendants excepted. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiffj and the defendant appealed to this court
    The cause was argued at June term 1807,
    Before Chase* Ch. J, Tilgiiman, Nicholson, and Gantt, J. by
    
      J. Bayly and Whittington, for the Appellant,
    and by
    
      If. B. Martin, Dennis and Wilson, for the Appellee.
   ATBGMENT REVERSED, AND PROCEDENDO AWARDED,  