
    Ainsworth v. Greenlee.
    From Burke.
    The hand-writing of a magistrate to his official acts need not be proved by himself, though within the process of the Court; but may be proved by any person acquainted with it.
    This was an action on the case for malicious prosecution, instituted by the Defendant against the Plaintiff, who had been arrested on a warrant, carried before a justice of the peace, and by him duly tried and acquitted. To prove these facts upon the trial, the Plaintiff offered the judgment of the magistrate, wrhich he verified by the testimony of witnesses proving the hand-writing of the justice. On the part. of the Defendant, it was objected that the magistrate himself, who lived in the State, ought to be called. The evidence was, however, received, and a verdict rendered on it for the Plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the Court upon the competency of that evidence. The Court afterwards decided upon the point reserved, that the evidence was inadmissible, and directed a nonsuit to be entered. From that judgment, the Plaintiff appealed to this Court,
    The case was submitted here j and
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Tayeor, Chief-Justice:

To prove the acquittal of the Plaintiff from the charge exhibited against him, the judgment of the justice was produced, and proved by calling witnesses acquainted with his hand-writing. It is supposed, that by the admission of such evidence, the rule of law is infringed, which requires the best evidence to be given of which the nature of the thing is capable; and that the justice himself, who was within the reach of the Court’s process, could better prove his own hand-writing than any other person. But this is an incorrect view of the subject: for although the best evidence is to be given which the nature of the case admits, yet the rule does not require the strongest possible assurance of a fact. A deed attested by several witnesses would be more fully proved by calling upon all of them: yet it is sufficient to prove the execution by one ; or, if none of them can be produced, proof of the signature of one of them will be sufficient. Such proof is not inferior jin its kind to any that can be produced. Nor will the withholdingof additional proof of the same kind warrant the inference, that such proof would be inconsistent with that already produced. Whether a signature is proved by the person who made it, or by one acquainted with his hand-writing, the kind of proof is exactly the same. They are both primary— since the knowledge of both is acquired by the same meansalthough it may be, that the evidence of the writer, is in degree, stronger than the other. This principle is fully illustrated in Gilbert’s Law of Evidence, and in Phillips’s Treatise; and its application to this ease, shews that the evidence was regularly admitted.— Consequently, the non-suit must'be set aside, and judg • ment entered for the Plaintiff. 
      
       5.
     
      
       170.
     