
    
      Mary E. Darby vs. Daniel Huffman. The Same vs. Robt. S. Keller. The Same vs. Henry Garrick.
    
    Under the 30th section of the Act of 1731, 3 Stat. 303, the office copy of a deed duly recorded may be given in evidence, on proof of the loss of the original, without proof of its existence and execution.
    
      Before Evans, J. at Orangeburg, Spring Term, 1846.
    These were actions of trespass to try titles, which were tried together. His Honor permitted the plaintiff to give in evidence an office copy of a deed, covering the land in dispute, from one James D. Erwin and his wife to James Stuart, on proof that the original was recorded and that search had been made for it and it could not be found.
    The jury found for the plaintiff. The defendant appealed, and now moved for a new trial, on the ground,
    Because his Honor admitted in evidence the office copy of the deed from Erwin and wife to Stuart, without sufficient proof of the existence, execution and loss of the original, and without requiring the plaintiff to comply with the requisitions of the Act of 1843, which requisitions, it is respectfully submitted, should have been complied with.
    Bellinger, for the motion.
    Glover, contra.
   Curia, per Evans, J.

Where evidence of the contents of a deed or other writing is offered, it seems that, by the rules of the common law, there must be proof of the existence and loss of the original; but where the deed has been proved and recorded, there is no necessity to offer any evidence but of the loss of the original in order to admit the record or an office copy, under our Act of 1731, 3 Stat. 303. This has been fully adjudged and decided by the case of Dingle vs. Bowman, 1 McC. 177, and the case of McLeod vs. Rogers and Gardner, . In this last case the subject is fully discussed. The motion is dismissed.

Richardson, O’Neall, Wardlaw and Frost, JJ. concurred. 
      
      
         Ante; 19.
     