
    Lessee of Jonathan Meredith against Daniel Macoss.
    The power of an agent to rent lands must be proved by other testimony than that of the agent. If there is a written power, it should be produced; if it is burnt or lost, the contents of it should be proved.
    Neither shall the agent’s leasing for some years, and collecting the rents, and the acquiescence of the owner, be presumptive proof of the power of the agent.
    
      Cited in 2 Yeates, 38; 6 S. & R., 93 ; 8 Watts, 527; 1 Parsons, 89.
    In McDowell v. Simpson, 3 Watts, 129, it was held that an agent is a competent witness to prove his own authority.
    In' Greyson v. Baunou, 8 Watts, 527, an agent was declared to be a competent witness to prove the existence, loss and contents of a written power to himself. See also McGunnigle v. Thornton, 10 S. & R., 251.
    Ejectment for a Rouse and lot in the city of Philadelphia.
    It was admitted on both sides, that Mrs. Mary Masters was seized in fee of the premises in question.
    The lessor of the plaintifF claimed under a deed made to him by Anthony Butler, her attorney in fact.
    The defendant rested his defence under a prior written memorandum, signed by Mrs. Elizabeth Lawrence, the wife of John Lawrence, esq. who was brother of Mrs. Masters, engaging to rent the premises to him for seven years.
    He proposed to examine Mrs. Lawrence as a witness respecting her authority from Mrs. Masters, but the same was objected to. And per curiam: If the defendant grounds his lease on the authority given to Mrs. Lawrence, her power must be proved by other testimony. If there was a written letter of attorney, it ought to be produced to be judged of. If it did once exist, but is burnt, lost or mislaid, Mrs. Lawrence may be examined to that point, but the contents must be proved by other witnesses, or a copy.
    The defendant’s counsel then offered to shew, that for ten or twelve years previous to the giving of this memorandum, Mrs. Lawrence had leased this property to different persons, and had the management thereof and the collection of the rents; and that Mrs. Masters’s acquiescence therein should be considered as presumptive proof of an authority given to her sister in law.
    Verdict pro quer.
    
    Messrs. Sergeant and Wilcocks, pro quer.
    
    Messrs. Rawle and Howel, pro def.
    
   per Cur.

But This is a still stronger deviation from the rules of evidence than what was first attempted. To deduce an argument from a person’s usurpation of property, or their possessing themselves of lands, that they therein acted under the authority of the owner, is unfair reasoning, and might be advan*ced to sanctify any trespass whatever. Such r*noi testimony would be attended with dangerous conse- L quences, and prove highly injurious to society. We cannot possibly receive it.  