
    
      Harrell vs. Elliot.
    
    r]pHE premises in question were devised to the plaintiff by -**■ her father and grand-father; she mairied, and with her husband was possessed about 24 years; then the husband and wife by deed sold to ope, under whom the defendant claims, and then che husband died : There was no endorsement on the deed purporting that the wife had been privately examined with respect to her free consent, nor was any record to that effect to be found on the county court records ; And now.the defeudynt’s counsel offered to produce one of the Justices of the covrPv to prove that, he had privately examined her end that she acknov. - ledger] a free execution of' the deed without compulsion of the husband.
   Per curiam.

The act does not expressly require the acknowledgment of thpyéwe? to be put into writing, nor to be recorder’, but k requires her acknowledgment to be in court, and to be taken by a member of the court, appointed to examine; and what is done in court cannot be Otherwise proven than by the records of the court, and therefore the evidence offered cannot be admitted.

Verdict for the plaintiff.  