
    De Haven v. Henderson.
    
      Evidence. — Oath of party.
    
    The plaintiff was examining a witness to prove the purport of an order given to him by the adjutant-general, during the late war, for the restoration of his horse, saddle and bridle, which had been seized by the defendant, as the property of a disaffected person, although upon trial the plaintiff was acquitted, when Levy objected, that the order itself ought to be produced, or some account given of its loss, before the witness was admitted to give evidence of its contents.
   McKean, Chief Justice.

The oath of the plaintiff must be received to prove what has become of the order. It is, I think, the only way in which satisfactory information can be obtained on a point of this nature.

The plaintiff being accordingly sworn, and proving the loss of the order, he was allowed to proceed in examining the witness as to its contents. 
      
       See the note to The King v. Lukens, ante, p. 5.
     