
    * APRIL TERM, 1764.
    Present — William Coleman and Alexander Stedman, Justices.
    The Lessee of Albertson v. Robeson.
    
      Evidence. — Effect of the repeal of am, act.
    
    A person’s age cannot be proved by hearsay, derived from his parents.
    The Votes of Assembly are admissible, to prove the notification of the repeal of an act by the King and Council; so are the Minutes of Council.
    The repeal of an act by the King and Council only took effect from the time of its notification here.
    Moved to admit a witness to prove the age of the plaintiff, his brother (about sixty years old), from the hearsay of their father and mother. Opposed, and refused by tbe court. 
    
    
      The Votes of Assembly were admitted to prove the time of the notification of the repeal of an act of assembly by the King and Council. But not answering the purpose fully, the Minutes of Council were sent for, and given in evidence without opposition.
    
      
       In Strickland v. Poole, post, p. 14, hearsay was allowed to be given in evidence to prove pedigree ; and the precedent has been followed in many cases.
    
   N. B.

The defendant supported his title under a decree of the court of chancery, established by act of assembly; the decree was made two months after the act was repealed by the King and Council, but six weeks before we had notice of it.

The Court gave it in charge to the jury, that the act was not repealed, till notification here f and the jury were of the same opinion, by finding a verdict for the defendant, 
      
      а) In Morgan v. Stell (5 Binn. 318), Judge Yeates has given a fuller account of this case, which is subjoined. “ A case occurred in this court, a few years after I had commenced the study of the law, involving principles similar to those which form the subject of our present inquiry, and made a strong impression on my mind. It is briefly reported in 1 Dall. 9, and was in substance thus: Benjamin Albertson, claiming certain lands, by descent, in Bucks county, brought an ejectment against Septimus Robeson for their recovery. The title of the lands was clearly shown to have been, at one time, in the ancestor of the lessor of the plaintiff; but at a subsequent period, the lands were decreed to the defendant by this court, in pursuance of certain chancery powers delegated to them by an old act of assembly. The royal assent was refused to this law,' in England, and it so happened, that the repeal preceded the decree of the court above two months, but the repeal was not known here, when the decree was made. The court determined, upon full argument, that the unknown repeal could not affect the right of the defendant, under the decree, and the jury found accordingly. I well recollect that the decision gave general satisfaction to the profession.” See also 4 Yeates 392. 1 W. C. C. 84.
     
      
       Act 20 May 1718 (1 Geo. I. ch. 13), which was repealed by the King and Council, in 1719. P. L. 126; Old Province Laws, 359.
     
      
       People v. Trinity Church, 22 N. Y. 44.
     