
    Fox’s Lessee versus Palmer, et al.
      
    
    ON the trial of this ejectment, the subscribing witnesses were offered to prove, that a deed, bearing date the 1st of April, 1784, was not, in fact, executed until the month of November following. It was objected, that such proof would contradict the attestation of the witnesses themfelves. 4 Burr. 2224. 2 Esp. 194.
    
      
      
         This Ejectment was tried at York-ToWn, Nisi Prius, on the 24th May 1793; before Shippen and Bradford, Justices.
      
    
   By the Court:—

A subscribing witness attests nothing but the sealing and delivery of the deed: The date is a matter which he does not attest, and to which he seldom attends. By the rules of the Common Lav/, the fubferibing witneffes ihould be produced by the plaintiff to prove the execution of. the deed ; and furely it'would be their competent to the defendant to crofs-examine them, as to the real time of the delivery. But even if they were called to-contradict their own previous atteftation, the exception rather applies to their credit, than to their competency.

The objection over-ruled.  