
    * Joseph Hall, Appellant, versus William Hall, Administrator.
    An administrator, to support his charges in an administration account for payment of taxes, must produce the receipt of the collector. Quaere if he must not also pro’ e the assessment of the taxes.
    This was an appeal from a decree of the judge of probate for this county.
    The contest in this case was relative to several items of charge in the account of the administrator which had been allowed by the judge; among which were divers charges for moneys paid to a collector of taxes assessed on the estate of the intestate. The administrator did not produce receipts from the collector, but his counsel offered to prove by the testimony of a witness that the taxes had been paid by the administrator to the collector, according to those items of charge in the account.
    
      L. Wheaton and Sproat for the appellant.
    
      B. Whitman for the administrator.
   The whole Court (Strong, Sedgwick, Sewall, and Thacher, justices) were clearly of opinion that the evidence offered was not the best evidence which the nature of the case admitted ; that the receipts of the collector were better evidence than the evidence offered ; which might be obtained, and should therefore be produced. Strong and Sedgwick, justices, said that they were strongly inclined to think that the assessment of the taxes ought also to be proved, that it might appear to the Court that they were a legal claim on the administrator. The other two justices seemed to think it would be sufficient to produce the receipts of the collector without proving the assessment. 
      
      
         [The receipts of the collector were not alone evidence of the amount paid. This could only be proved by the collector or another witness. — Ed.]
     