
    Harley Newcomb vs. William Noble.
    In replevin of property claimed under a mortgage, the deposition of the subscribing witness to the contents of the mortgage, and to his having seen the property described therein, is admissible to identify the property, although neither the mortgage nor any copy thereof is annexed to the depositions.
    Replevin of a horse. Answer, property in the defendant. The plaintiff claimed title under a mortgage from Ignatius J. Hollis: and at the trial in the court of common pleas, in order to prove that the property replevied was the same described in the mortgage from Hollis, offered the deposition of his own son, in which he testified that, at the time of which this mortgage bore date, he read, and knew the contents of, and signed as witness a mortgage from Hollis of a horse which he described, and that the horse was at the time at his father’s house. Neither the mortgage nor any copy thereof was annexed to the deposition. To the admission of this testimony the defendant objected, because it was either entirely immaterial, or stated the contents of a written instrument. But Mellen, C. J. overruled the objection, a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, and the defendant alleged exceptions.
    
      E. W. Kimball, for the defendant.
    The plaintiff submitted the case without argument.
   By the Court.

The evidence was competent to show that the horse in controversy in this action was the same as that included in the mortgage. This was the sole purpose for which it was offered and admitted. The contents of the mortgage were,.we suppose, proved either by its production or by other competent evidence.

Exceptions overruled.  