
    Ayres vs. Grimes.
    Appeal from Harford County Court. Replevin for a slave, brought by the appellant against the appellee. The defendant pleaded pfoperty, non cepit and limitations. General replications and issues were joined. The plaintiff at the trial proved, that the slave Was originally the property of Josias Slade Bull, who, in consideration of AllO paid by the plaintiff, bargained ami sold the slave to the plaintiff, by an instrument of writing dated the 18th of March 1801. This bill of sale the plaintiff offered in evidence to the jury. It appears to have been signed and sealed by Bull, and acknowledged by him on the same day, before a justice of the peace of Harford county. The plaintiff also offered to prove, that this endorsement on it, “Received and recorded the 18th day of March 1801, itl Liber H. D. No. P, folio 446, one of the land record book* of Harford county court) and examined by Hinry Horsey, elk.” was in the hand wilting of a young man accustomed to write in the clerk’s office of Harford county, and not in the handwriting of the clerk himself. To this evidence the defendant objected. And the county court, [.IVickolsor,, Ch. J.'J refused to permit the bill of sale to be read in evidence, neither considering the endorsement as evidence of its execution, nor of its recording. The plaintiff excepted; and the verdict and judgment being against him, he appealed to this court.
    
      An instrument of wi'niiif?, j'urpnv’inf? to be an original MH of sale, and to hnv-rt been Alined am? sealed by the vendor, and to have been duly" ae~ 'knowledgvd by • him belore a jusi ie<* of the peace* with an endorsement iheieon, proved to la* i» iJas handwriting oía person accustomed to write in t!«« clerics office of the count;. stntiiuy that it had beew duly reeoided iw. the land records of the county— Held* •to be suÜUiiesit evidence
    
      The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. Buchanan,, GrANtr, and Eaiii.E) .1.
    
      Harper, for the Appellant.
    The original bill of sate, executed, acknowledged, and recorded on the same day, and the clerk’s endorsement, thereon of its having been admitted to record) were offered in evidence, and the question is, whether these acts amount to proof of the execution of the bill of sale, and of its having been recorded? The act of July 1F29, ch. 8, s. 5, directs, that where the property remains in the hands of the seller, the bill of sale must lie recorded within twenty days. Here there is no evidence that the property did not remain in the hands of Dull. The act of the parties raises a presumption that it wa9 such a bill of sale which the law required to be recorded, Unless the contrary is proved. The certificate of the clerk is sufficient evidence of its having been recorded, and it is sufficient evidence of the execution thereof, The certificate being made by a clerk in the office, the court are concluded by it. It is not necessary that the clerk should sign the certificate himself 'and if it is done by a clerk in the office, it is proof of itself that it Was done by the clerk. If the name of the clerk was forged, then the bill of sale should have been proved. The. certificate thus signed is not conclusive evidence, but it is' prima facie evidence that the certificate is by the clerk, or by his authority; and to get rid of it, it must be proved to have been done without authority. The laws recognize deputy clerks, which shows that the clerk is not bound to perform the whole duties of his office himself, but that he inay act by deputy. The endorsement being sufficient', the sole question is, whether it is proof of the execution of the bill of sale?
    Winder, for the Appellee.
    It was not proved that it was the original bill of sale that was offered in evidence; not that it was necessary it should have been recorded. It purports to be a bill of sale, but there was no proof that it was one, and that it was necessary to be recorded. The certificate of the clerk is evidence from the seal of the office, and in no other way. The act of 1715, ch. 47, makes it necessary for the clerk to endorse the original deeds for lands, recorded by him in his office; but the act of 1729, ch. 8, does not make it necessary for the clerk to make such endorsements on bills of sale; and there being no such provision, the certificate cannot be received, unless under the seal of the court in the usual mode of granting exemplifications, &c. The endorsement being rejected, and not admitted as evidence, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to have proved the execution of the paper.
   The Cooht

dissented from the opinion of the court below. They referred to Hennersley vs. Orpe, 1 Dougl. 56, and Peake, 32.

JUDGMENT REVERSED, AND PROCEDENDO AWARDED*  